Prototype 1: status, contents and results. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Introduction and demonstration of Prototype1 (PT1) tool Overall contents Overview

Prototype 1: status, contents and results

Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

Introduction and demonstration of Prototype1

(PT1) tool• Overall contents• Overview of current PT1 tool• Calculation of regional compliance levels • Core models: CAPRI – MITERRA• Input data on cross compliance (legal) implementation• Output:

– Environmental and economic impacts per scenario and differences between scenarios

– Indirect impacts on biodiversity per scenario and differences between scenarios (derived from environmental and land use changes)

– Potential effects of individual and combined measures on Biodiversity and landscape (expert judgement of the measure texts per MS/region).


• All core model (CAPRI and Miterra) components with impact assessments (for 6 compliance level scenarios)

• Quantitative environmental, economic impacts of Nitrate and Animal registration Directives computed with Miterra-Capri model chain (19 environmental and ca. 50 economic impact indicators)

• Qualitative impacts of Nitrate Directive and Animal registration directives on intensity of land use (post-model calculation);

• Qualitative potential effectiveness (0/1/2/3) for biodiversity and landscape (difference in) for 17 SMR measures (Birds, Habitat, Nitrate dir) and 5 GAEC issues national and regional implementations (short names).

Overall contents of current PT1 tool

input and output


CCAT manager

Overview of PT1 tool

CCAT GISviewer

CAPRI CCAT data explorer

Computation of absolute and

relative differences

Indicator data per scenario (GDX-files)

Per scenario: Abs. & rel. diff. versus 0 compliance

Per impact indicator: values of all scenarios

Biodiversity/landscape: potential effects of 22 measures (17 Birds/Hab/N dir + 5 GAEC issues)

Miterra

Data per scenario

Stat. data

Short name data


A B C D region

degree of compliance

Full compliance

regional surface

Compliance gap

Voluntary compliance level

90%

100%

80%

60%

30%0%

Compliance and scenarios

Baseline estimates of compliance(2005)

simulated levels of compliance

75%

50%

50%


Scenarios

There are 6 compliance scenarios included in PT1: 0) Baseline compliance in 2005: estimated level,

differs per Nuts 2 region (see box 1)1) 50% gap closure: halve way between 2005

baseline and 100% compliance2) 0% compliance: voluntary level, 0% =

minimum level, but is often higher 3) 50% compliance: 50% = minimum level4) 75% compliance: 75% = minimum level5) 100% compliance: full compliance


Estimated degree of compliance

of baseline (2005)

1) Take degree of compliance at member state level from other projects (data available from IEEP and Cross Compliance project)

2) Estimate upper and lower bound compliance level (based on national estimates

3) Estimate #farms, #livestock, #hectares at high risk of non-compliance

4) Spatial distribution of groups of farms (hectares, animals) at high risk over NVZ (relative land use in-/outside)

5) Calculate regional compliance rates based on 1), 2), 3) and 4).


Compliance level estimates national level Nitrate Directive

(I)Country % of breaches (IEEP evaluation project)

Compliance rates (%)(IEEP evaluation project)

Compliance rates (%)(Cross Compliance-project)

Compliance rates (%)CCAT Estimates for high risk farm group

Austria 5.5 90 n.a. 60

Belgium (F) 0.2 100 n.a. 60

Belgium (W) 4.7 100 n.a. 60

Bulgaria n.i. 40

Cyprus n.i. 40

Czech Republic n.i. 40

Denmark 1.2 100 n.a. 60

Estonia n.i. 40

Finland 24.7 80 n.a. 40

France 9.7 90 70 50

Germany 8.3 90 85 50

Greece n/a n.a. 40

Hungary n.i. 40

Italy 3.4 100 65 50

Ireland n.i. n.a. 50

Latvia n.i. 40

Lithuania n.i. 40

… … … … …


Identifying high risk farm group?

Sub-obligations Nitrate Directive

Characteristics farms at higher risk of non-

compliance

Data + estimation of higher risk group

Balanced N-fertilizer application

Animal N-balance >170 kg N/ha in NVZ

N-balance: FSS data per (sectoral) farm group per Nuts2 (on animal type, number, land use types, UAA) & GAINS animal N-excretion factors (Nuts2)

Maximum N-manure application (< 170 kg N/ ha) in NVZ

Animal N-balance >170 kg N/ha in NVZ

N-balance: FSS data per sectoral farm group per Nuts2 (on animal type, number, land use types, UAA) & GAINS animal N-excretion factors (Nuts2)

Limitation to fertilizer application on steeply sloping grounds

All farmland in NVZ in slopy land (>5% slope)

Corine Land cover (arable+grassland) & Digital elevation model

Growing winter crops (maintain vegetation cover during rainy periods)

Farms with high share of cropping land

FSS land use per sectoral farm type per Nuts2


Estimating % farms, animals, hectares non-compliant in NVZ

Total farm population

Average national compliance rate (IEEP, CC projects)

High risk of non-compliance:

- N balance>170 kg/ha

-Land slopy

-…

Upper bound compliance rate

Lower bound compliance rate

Low risk of non-compliance:

- N balance < 170 kg/ha

- No slopy land

-…

Total farm population

High risk of non-compliance:

- N balance>170 kg/ha

-Land slopy

-…

Low risk of non-compliance:

- N balance < 170 kg/ha

- No slopy land

-…

NUTS2

NVZ-NUTS2

Compliance rates: national estimates


Estimation compliance level results for Nitrate Directive


CCAT manager


CCAT GISviewer








Miterra

Data per scenario

Stat. data

Short name data


Core models

• CAPRI (market response model)• MITERRA EUROPE Extended (simple

meta-model)


CAPRI output used as input in environmental models

Cross compliance obligations

Changes in management

Costs of compliance

CAPRI: Market response 1) Changes in cropping

shares 2) Change in livestock

type/number

MITERRA: emissions to: 1) Water

2) Air3) Soil


CCAT manager


CCAT GISviewer








Miterra

Data per scenario

Stat. data

Short name data


Short name data

• Per country/region legal implementation texts for all SMR (excl. new MS) and GAECs (all MS) was collected– CIFAS project– Gaps filled

• Result: database with fields:– General description of SMR/GAEC (Level 1)– Specific description of measure (Level 2)– Specific description of management obligation (farmer) (Level 3)– Region code (National, Nuts 1, Nuts 2)– Land use type affected– Sensitive area affected– Impact fields (air, water, etc.)– Effectiveness score in relation to landscape and biodiversity (see

next presentation)


Impact assessment results

• Results economic assessments (Markus Kempen)

• Results environmental assessments (Jan-Peter Lesschen)

• Results biodiversity and landscape assessments (Juan Oñate)

After break:• Demo of prototype 1 (Foppe Bouma)

Documents

Prototype 1: status, contents and results. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool Introduction and demonstration of Prototype1 (PT1) tool Overall contents Overview