SCIENTIFIC SESSION MENER 2006 INDICATORS INTEGRATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INTO AGRICULTURE AND RURAL WATER POLICY

Transcription

1 SCIENTIFIC SESSION MENER 2006 INDICATORS INTEGRATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INTO AGRICULTURE AND RURAL WATER POLICY Catalin Simota 1, Sorina Dumitru 1, Elisabeta Oprisan 2, Viorel Chendes 2, Viorel Blujdea 3, Dan Balteanu 4, Mihai Micu 4, Gheorghe Alexe 5, Sorin Campeanu 5, George Cojocaru 6 Abstract: TOGI Tools, Guidelines and Indicators Integrating the Environmental Concerns into Agriculture and Rural Water Policy: from top-down approach to local communities involvement - designs and tests a single, integrated, national-wide and operational set of measurable criteria and indicators as a basis for a harmonised comprehensive information system used for integrating the environmental concerns into agriculture, forestry and rural water policy. The choice of criteria and indicators within TOGI is builded on previous outputs from national and European projects (e.g. IRENA, PAIS). Formal protocols, procedures, tools and implementation recommendations are developed for the collection, collation and reporting of harmonised country-wide information. The usefulness of the indicators in reporting and monitoring the application of various codes of good practice in agriculture and water will be demonstrated. The use of selected indicators for catching the response of local communities (stakeholders) to the action of the main driving forces in the rural area (agriculture policy, global changes) will be demonstrated through the use of Decision Support Systems developed for integrated land and water management. 1. Introduction Public concern about environment is on increase. People and policy makers start to feel very strongly about environment issues. This may be at local level which is understandable because it touches them directly - or at national and transnational level. Confirmed in the European Treaties, the political direction is clear: community policies must integrate environmental concerns. The Cardiff European Council in June 1998 invited the Council to establish its own strategies for giving effect to environmental integration and sustainable development in various policy areas. The Agriculture Council was one of those invited to start this process. The Vienna European Council in December 1998 reaffirmed the commitment and moreover requested the European Commission to provide a coordinated report on indicators. In its communication Directions towards sustainable agriculture the Commission underlined that the Agenda 2000 reforms provided a new impetus for the integration of environmental concerns into agriculture policy. The Communication Indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reasserted the Commission s interest in establishing agri-environmental indicators. According to the principle polluter pays farmers bear compliance costs up to a reference level of good farming practice reflected in property rights. Reforms under Agenda 2000 represented a significant step towards realising 1 National Research-Development Institute for Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Environment Protection - Bucharest 2 National Institute for Hydrology and Water Management 3 Institute for Forestry Research and Management 4 Geography Institute of Roumanian Academy 5 University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medecine Faculty of Land Reclamation and Environmental Engineering 6 Fundation for Information Technology Applied in Environment, Agriculture and Global Changes - TIAMASG

2 this approach. In the common rules regulation, Member States are required to take measures necessary for the protection of the environment. Member states may apply cross-compliance by attaching specific environmental conditions to the granting of CAP payments. On the same time Member States may use agri-environment beyond good farming practice. A well-founded and consistent system of agro-environmental indicators will contribute to the detection of environmental problems. It will help the national government to explain to its citizens what it is doing and what remains to be done to promote sustainable agriculture, forestry and rural water management. The same indicators may be used for communication of the environment state to the EU officials monitoring the compliance of Romania to EU environmental targets. Very close to TOGI project are the objectives of IRENA operation: The IRENA Operation ( Agriculture and environment in EU-15: the IRENA indicator report EEA, Copenhagen 2005) is a joint exercise between several Commission Directorates-Generals (DG Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Environment, DG Eurostat and DG Joint Research Centre) and the European Environment Agency (EEA) to develop agrienvironmental indicators for monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into Common Agriculture Policy in the European Union. This exercise looked at regional and country level indicators, not at local communities concerns. As well, United Nations Conventions (UNCCD, UNCBD, UNFCCC) urge for baseline, benchmark and indictor systems for the assessment of the progress in the individual or integrated implementation and natural resources and societal advantages estimation under specific concerns. 2. Developing an indicator based framework for monitoring and evaluating agriculture and rural water policy based actions on the basis of DPSIR (Driving Force-Pressures- State-Impact-Respones) approach relating complex socio-economic and environment systems. The main objective of the project is to design, to develop and to define robust, relevant and scientifically-sound criteria and indicators for the harmonised (over the country and in an EU perspective) characterisation of the threats to environment derived from agriculture, forestry and rural water policies. For each indicator the research identified rationales for the definition of baseline and threshold values corresponding to boundary conditions for good environment status. At the moment of beginning the project in Romania there was not a well-defined official agreed list of criteria, indicators and thresholds integrating the environment issues into agriculture, forestry and rural water policies. At European scale European Environment Agency have developed the DPSIR concept and produced a comprehensive list of indicators at national and European level for environment problems. IRENA project was dedicated to evaluate the indicators for defining the cross-complience between European agriculture and forestry policy and environment concerns. TOGI identified the existing gaps regarding concepts, indicators and data. As an output of the first phases of the project a fully-documented publishable consistent set o definitions, procedures and protocols for the harmonised characterisation and assessment of environment for monitoring from the perspective of agriculture and forestry activities was elaborated. At the centre of DPSIR framework is the current state of the agricultural environment and how this has changed over time. State indicators bring to the fore any undesirable changes which need to be combated, (for example,

3 nitrate or pesticide concentrations in water) as well as particularly desirable states which should be preserved (for example, many agricultural landscapes or valuable habitats). The second step is to identify the pressures which have brought about undesirable change and environmental benefits resulting from farming which have helped to preserve or enhance the environment. These have, respectively, a negative and positive impact on the environment. The third step is to link these pressures and processes to the driving forces in the economy (farmers' activities, which are themselves driven by market forces), as it is these driving forces that are directly influenced by agricultural policy, and it is here where the integration process is applied. Finally, it is necessary to monitor how society's response to these issues is working. DRIVING FORCES: FARMING PRACTICES Input Use Land Use Farm Management - Trends PRESSURES AND BENEFITS HARMFUL AND BENEFICIAL PROCESSES Pollution Resource RESPONSES FACTORS INFLUENCING FARMING PRACTICES Public policy Market signals Technology and Skills Social attitudes STATE SITE SPECIFIC Site Habitat and Biodiversity Natural Resources - Landscape Figure 1. Agricultural DPSIR model Baseline values and thresholds for selected indicators and criteria were derived considering the variability of natural and socio-economic variables corresponding to various zoning systems (administrative, catchment, landscape). This task was achieved by the following steps: Review of policy needs and technical recommendations. The TWGs, Romanian and European legislation related to Environment and Agriculture, Forestry and Water policies were reviewed to identify the most relevant requirements regarding the environmental assessment from the economic oriented policy perspective. Additional international and national reports and literature were considered for the synthesis on needs and tools for characterisation the environment in relation to the threats identified within a DPSIR approach relating the agriculture, forestry and rural water activities to environment. Definition and selection of indicators and threshold values by selection of reliable, targeted and scientifically sound indicators and criteria suitable to evaluate environment quality in relation with pressures induced by agriculture, forestry and rural water policies. The basis for this exercise is a review of existing and proposed indicator systems at international and national levels. The DPSIR concept was considered and applied to the environment major threats in order to integrate major economic sectors and environmental media. IMPACT GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT Habitats and Biodiversity Natural Resources Landscape Diversity Defining baseline and threshold value. Based on literature review and the experience of the consortium members, baseline values and thresholds for indicators were derived. Chosen values are likely to take geographical and socio-economic variability into account. Indicator evaluation (ranking) considering: Indicators policy relevance (link with National and EU targets, legislation, policy decision/action); Indicators responsiveness (sensitivity to economic/policy

4 changes); Analytical soundness of indicators (Direct measurement, Indirect measurement, Modelled); Data availability and measurability (Databases, Quality of data, Geographical coverage, Availability of time series); Spatial and temporal aggregation techniques; Ease of interpretation; Cost effectiveness Indicator testing in pilot areas. The pilot areas were selected for a good coverage of the national natural and socio-economic conditions. Pilot areas were selected using the values calculated for the indicators in order to cover specific conditions for euro-regions (NUTS2), landscape (plain, hill, mountain), natural conditions (soil productivity, areas affected by drought / water excess, areas with natural handicaps), socio-economic conditions (poverty and wealthness regions, crop/livestock oriented agriculture). Table 1 The five fields of DPSIR for agriculture and equivalent TOGI indicators Field Level 2 field No. Indicator Driving Forces Inputs use 8 Mineral fertiliser consumption 9 Consumption of pesticide 10 Water use intensity 11 Energy use Land use 12 Land use change 13 Crops/livestock patterns 14 Farm Management practices Trends 15 Intensification/extensification 16 Specialization/diversification 17 Marginalization Pressures and Pollution 18 Gross nutrient balance beneficies 18sub Atmospheric emissions of ammonia from agriculture 19 Methane and nitrogen oxyde emissions 20 Pesticide soil contamination 21 Use of sewage sludge Resource loss 22 Water abstraction 23 Soil erosion 24 Land cover changes 25 Genetic diversity Environment conservation and 26 High nature value (farmland) areas improvment 27 Production of renewable energy Site specificity Biodiversity 28 Population trends of farmland birds Natural resources 29 Soil quality 30 Nitrates/pesticides in water 31 Ground water levels Landscape 32 Landscape state Global impact Habitates and biodiversity 33 Impact on habitats and biodiversity Natural resources 34.1 Share of agriculture in greenhouse gas emissions 34.2 Share of agriculture in nitrate contamination 34.3 Share of agriculture in water use Landscape diversity 35 Impact on landscape diversity Responses Public policy 1 Area under agri-environment support 2 Regional levels of good farming practice 3 Regional levels of environmental targets 4 Area under nature protection Market signals 5.1 Organic Producer Prices and Market Share 5.2 Organic farm incomes Technology and skills 6 Holders training levels Attitudes 7 Area under organic farming

5 Each DPSIR field was evaluated considering: indicators policy relevance and responsiveness; its analytical soundness (Direct measurement, Indirect measurement, Modelled); the availability and measurability of data; spatial and temporal aggregation techniques; its possibility of interpretation; the cost effectiveness. As an example, the scors for indicators related to the general tendencies in agriculture are given in Table 2. Table 2. TOGI Indicators for general tendencies in agriculture Indicator criteria Sub-criteria Scoring Organic Producer Prices and Market Share Organic farm incomes TOGI Indicator No Policy relevance Is the indicator linked to 0=No, 1 = Yes, Community policy indirectly 2 = targets, objectives Yes, directly or legislation? Could the indicator provide 0 = Not at all, 1 = Fairly useful information that is 2 = Very useful useful to policy action/decision? Responsiveness Is the indicator sensitive to 0 = slow, delayed response ess that it is meant response to measure? changes in the 1 = fast, phenomenon/proc immediate Analytical soundness Data availability and Measurability Is the indicator based on indirect or direct measurements of a state/trend? Is the indicator based on low/medium/high quality statistics or data? What are the causal links with other indicators within the DPSIR framework? Good geographical coverage? Holders training levels Area under organic farming Mineral fertiliser consumption 0 = Indirect, 1 = Modelled, 2 = Direct = low quality statistics or data, 1 = medium quality statistics or data, 2 = high quality statistics or data 0 = weak link, 1 = strong, qualitative link, 2 = strong quantitative link 0 = only case studies, 1 =EU-15 and national, 2 = EU-15, national and regional. Consumption of pesticide Water use intensity Energy use Land use change Crops/livestock patterns Intensification/extensification Specialization/diversification Marginalization

6 Ease of interpretation Cost effectiveness Availability of time series Are the key messages clear and easy to understand? Based on existing statistics and data sets? Are the statistics or data needed for compilation easily accessible? 0 = No, 1 = Occasional data source, 2 = Regular data source. 0 = Not at all, 1 = Fairly clear, 2 = Very clear =No, 1 =Yes =No, 1 = Yes, but requires lengthy processing, 2 = Yes Total Score Classification 0 to 7 (*) = low potential 8 to 14 (**) = potentially useful 15 to 20(***) = useful ** ** ** *** ** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** Final Policy relevance at least 2, classification of Analytical soundness at least 4, Indicators Data availability at least 3 according to the ** ** ** *** *** ** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** following criteria 3. Pilot areas selection The pilot areas for an intensive data collecting (in order to compare it with the existing information from national databases) to assess the chosen indicators for monitoring of the activities from agricultural policies and water resource management from din mediul rural were selected related to their reprezentativity for basic territorial units used by EU statistical reports (county, catchment): o Bahlui catchment for monitoring the policies effect on water resources o Calarasi county for assessment of areas vulnerable to nitrates pollution o The south area of Oltenia (between Jiu and Olt rivers) for policy assessments in forestry field. The evaluation of the indicators was based on a GIS platform, integrating various layers related to natural resources, landscape, and socio-economic aspects of rural communities. 4. Conclusions A complex system of Agri-Environmental indicators, related to the general tendencies in agriculture, rural water management, agricultural inputs, forestry management, global change impact on environment, biodiversity and landcape, socio/economic aspects and their impact on environment. Even there are some problems concerning the selection and definition of Agri-environmental indicators, they still remain key tools for environmental reports. The project offers a tool for evaluating the relevance and usefulness of these indicators and their connections. The tool developed in the project framework is very useful in preparation of national reports for monitoring at local level their implementation of the environment oriented legislation in the Agricultural and water management policies.