* CSF: Common Strategic Framework including the EFRD, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF

Transcription

1 Cluster Synthesis: the CAP associated policies on agricultural forest l management Section 1 - Conceptualisation of policy cluster the needs in terms of soil protection i.e. the management mitigation of threats protection promotion of soil functions This cluster covers the key elements of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) associated polices which are expected to affect the management of agricultural, forest other wooded l across the EU, by influencing directly or indirectly the day-to-day decisions of individual l managers. The CAP is an important economic driver for farming decisions across the EU has the potential to advance soil protection in both agriculture forestry through Member States l managers implementation of its measures associated obligations. Although the level of EU competence for forestry is much more limited than it is for agriculture, the implementation of the EU Forest Strategy 2013 is closely linked to the CAP, which remains the only source of EU funding to provide incentives for environmental afforestation, agroforestry sustainable forest management. In many Member States national forest policies are a more important influence than the CAP on forest soil management. The CAP for 2014 to 2020 has three over-arching objectives of viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources climate action, balanced territorial development. The general specific objectives of the CAP are shown below. * CSF: Common Strategic Framework including the EFRD, ESF, CF, EAFRD EMFF 1

2 The CAP, which has a budget that accounts for about 37 per cent of the MFF, is structured as two Pillars : Pillar 1 which is funded by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) mainly provides direct payments (including greening payments) to farmers per hectare of l farmed; Pillar 2, co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) supports Member States regions Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) with a wide range of measures to address environmental, social, economic priorities in the agricultural forestry sectors, rural areas more widely. Soil is one of the basic resources for all agriculture forestry production. The CAP objective of sustainable management of natural resources climate action, more specifically the provision of environmental public goods the pursuit of climate change mitigation adaptation are clearly relevant to the soil protection improvement. Conceptually, it could be argued that the protection enhancement of soil resources should underlie all CAP measures, either as an explicit objective or as a precautionary design element (in the sense of do no harm ). 1.1 What policies issues does the cluster cover? CAP measures available in are the result of a series of incremental reforms since the policy was first introduced in 1962, some measures relevant to soils have been available for decades. For example, RDP support for afforestation environmental l management contracts dates from the 1980s, CAP cross-compliance originated in requirements for good farming practice first introduced in the 1990s. The three CAP measures most relevant to influencing l use management in a way that could potentially benefit soil protection are cross-compliance stards, greening payments RDPs. The EU Forest Strategy 2013 is also relevant. Cross-compliance Farmers receiving direct payments under Pillar 1 area-based payments under Pillar 2 must comply with cross-compliance requirements across the whole farm holding, or risk loss of part of their CAP payments. There are two types of stards: Statutory Management Requirements (SMR) which are derived from existing regulatory requirements under other EU legislation; stards for Good Agricultural Environmental Condition (GAEC). Member States must define seven specific GAEC stards, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil climactic conditions, existing farming systems, l use, crop rotation, farming practices farm structures. Of the seven, three are of explicit relevance to soil protection: GAEC 4 (minimum soil cover), GAEC 5 minimum l management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion) GAEC 6 (maintenance of soil organic matter level through appropriate practices including ban on burning arable stubble); a fourth is of implicit relevance: GAEC 7 (retention of lscape features, including where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated, field margins terraces). Greening payment 2

3 Member States must use 30 per cent of their national ceilings for direct payments to grant an annual payment, on top of the basic payment, for compulsory practices to be followed by farmers addressing, as a priority, both climate environment policy goals. Those practices should take the form of simple, generalised, non-contractual annual actions that go beyond cross compliance are linked to agriculture. The three greening measures are: crop diversification, the maintenance of permanent pasture Ecological Focus Areas. Some farmers are exempt from the greening requirements both Member States individual farmers have considerable flexibility in choosing how to implement their greening obligations. Crop diversification This requirement applies only to farms with more than 10 ha of arable l. Those with up to 30 ha of arable l have to grow at least 2 crops, farmers with more than 30 ha of arable l have to grow at least 3 crops. In both cases the main crop cannot cover more than 75% of the l. Fallow l grass other herbaceous forage also count as crops. There is no explicit link with soil protection, the potential benefits, if any will depend entirely on the way in which individual farmers implement the diversification requirements. Permanent grassl There are two different greening requirements for permanent grassl which potentially could have benefits for soil carbon, organic matter biodiversity if the effect is to protect permanent grassl from conversion to arable l. Firstly, Member States must ensure that the ratio of permanent grassl to the UAA does not decline by more than 5%, have the option of apply this at national, regional or sub-regional level. Secondly, Member States must designate environmentally sensitive permanent grassl (ESPG) in areas covered by the Birds Habitats Directives, including peat wetls that are situated in these areas need strict protection in order to meet the objectives of those Directives. At farm level the greening requirement is to not convert or plough the ESPG grassl, thus protecting soil carbon stocks. Member States also have the option to delineate further ESPG area elsewhere, offering the opportunity to protect significant soil carbon stocks outside Natura 2000 areas. Ecological Focus Areas The EU Regulation defines 10 types of ecological focus area (EFA), including fallow, terraces, lscape features, buffer strips, agroforestry, forest edges, afforested areas, catch crops or green cover nitrogen-fixing crops. Member States must select one or more of these to compile their own national list from which farmers can choose how to meet their EFA greening requirement. This requirement varies from farm to farm. Those with more than 15 hectares of arable l must ensure that an area equivalent to 5% of their arable l is an EFA. Farms with a large proportion of grassl are not required to meet the EFA requirements. The potential soil benefits depend on farmers choice of EFA location but could include improved soil cover other anti-erosion effects, improved soil carbon/organic matter through conversion of arable l to grassl, agroforestry, SRC or woodl. 3

4 RDPs In the period there are 118 RDPs in total, across the EU, Member States regions are given a very large degree of flexibility in designing their seven-year RDPs to meet their specific needs. The EAFRD Regulation defines six EU level priorities (each with several focus areas) of which an RDP must address at least four. The relationship with soil protection is potentially strong because two out of a total of 18 focus areas are specifically relevant to soil protection: focus area 4C preventing soil erosion improving soil management focus area 5E fostering carbon conservation sequestration in agriculture forestry. Member States have a choice of 19 RDP measures they can select which of these they wish to use then design target sub-measures to suit specific circumstances (only the agri-environment-climate measure the Leader approach are compulsory). At least 30 per cent of the EAFRD contribution to each RDP must be reserved for certain measures relevant to climate change mitigation adaptation the environment. EU Forest Strategy 2013 The Strategy s forest objectives for 2020 are to ensure demonstrate that all forests in the EU are managed according to sustainable forest management principles that the EU s contribution to promoting sustainable forest management reducing deforestation at global level is strengthened. These objectives are linked to eight priority topics in three groups, which identify specific activities for the Commission Member States. The Commission expects Member States to use their RDP measures to support the implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM) which, as defined by Forest Europe, includes the criterion of maintenance, conservation appropriate enhancement of protective functions in forest management (notably soil water). Are there links to other key clusters if so what are these? To the diffuse pollution/water management cluster: Cross-compliance (SMR 1 10, GAEC 1, 2 3) Greening EFA buffer strips (can be GAEC 1 buffer strips) RDP M12.3 (compensation for agricultural areas in river basin management plans) use of M4.4 (non-productive investments), M10 (agri-environment-climate) M15.1 (forest-environment-climate) to achieve the objectives of this cluster To the nature, l soil sealing cluster: Cross-compliance (SMR 2 3) Greening designation of ESPG on Natura 2000 l RDP M (compensation for Natura 2000 agricultural forest areas, respectively) use of M4.4 (non-productive investments), M10 (agri-environmentclimate) M15.1 (forest-environment-climate) to achieve the objectives of this cluster What soil threats functions are most relevant to the policy cluster why? Threats 4

5 The main threats which are the focus of this policy cluster are the threats most closely linked to the management of soil in terms of keeping the soil in place (the threat of soil erosion) maintaining the organic matter content of the soil, particularly in wet carbon rich soils (the threat of loss of soil carbon). Linked to these two, but usually indirectly, is the threat of loss of soil biodiversity which may linked to also be linked to the threats of compaction of diffuse contamination, particularly on intensive arable l. Threat - Based on the full list in the Wiki, only include threats where there is a link to the cluster (not this might be strong or weak, explicit or indirect) soil erosion loss of soil carbon loss of soil biodiversity Relative Importance - qualitative assessment of the importance of this issue to policies focuses in the cluster Relationship to the cluster - ie. How does this soil threat interact with policy activity regulated under the cluster or the goals of the cluster Strong link to GAEC, greening (some EFA types) RDP l management measures. Secondary (weaker) link to EU Forest Strategy through RDP forest measures implementation linked to SFM Effectiveness depends on way GAEC greening requirements are defined by Member States, on farmers choice of EFA options. RDP measures potentially much more targeted but apply to less l are optional Strong link to GAEC, greening (some EFA types ESPG) RDP l management forestry measures. Secondary (weaker) link to EU Forest Strategy through RDP forestry measures implementation linked to SFM. Effectiveness depends on way GAEC greening requirements are defined by Member States, on farmers choice of EFA options. RDP measures potentially much more targeted but apply to less l are optional Weaker link, potentially important where GAEC, greening (particularly) RDP measures that have benefits for soil carbon/erosion also limit input of fertilisers PPP. Secondary (weaker) link to EU Forest Strategy through RDP forest measures implementation linked to SFM. Indirect effect of measures targeted at soil carbon/erosion /or water quality (because soil biodiversity is not often recognised specifically as a biodiversity objective within policy). 5

6 Conclusions on relevance to the policy cluster - eg. Explicit link of high relevance to achieving the goals of the policy cluster Explicit link of high relevance to achieving the goals of the policy cluster, but achievement depends on implementation choices made by Member State/regions beneficiaries. Explicit link of high relevance to achieving the goals of the policy cluster, but achievement depends on implementation choices made by Member State/regions beneficiaries. Indirect weaker link, because no specific reference in legislation to soil biodiversity. Functions The coverage of soil functions is closely related to the soil threats identified above, because farm forest management which prevents soil erosion improves soil carbon content will also enhance the soil carbon biodiversity, help to maintain soil as a basis for biomass production (for example through sustainable forest management, protection of woody lscape features, afforestation agroforestry). Function - Based on the full list in the Wiki, only include threats where there is a link to the cluster (not this might be strong or weak, explicit or indirect) Relative Importance - qualitative assessment of the importance of this issue to policies focuses in the cluster carbon pool hosting biodiversity biomass production Strong link to GAEC, greening (some EFA types ESPG) RDP l management forestry measures. Secondary (weaker) link to EU Forest Strategy through link between SFM implementation of RDP forest measures (if used). Weaker link, potentially important where GAEC, greening (particularly) RDP measures that have benefits for soil carbon/erosion also limit input of fertilisers PPP. Secondary (weaker) link to EU Forest Strategy through link between SFM implementation of RDP forest measures (if used). Strong link to focus area 5E of RDPs, to forestry measures (afforestation, agroforestry) in RDPs, greening, through SFM implementation, to the EU Forest Strategy. 6

7 Relationship to Effectiveness the cluster - ie. How does this soil threat interact with policy activity regulated under the cluster or the goals of the cluster Conclusions on relevance to the policy cluster - eg. Explicit link of high relevance to achieving the goals of the policy cluster depends on way GAEC greening requirements are defined by Member States, on farmers choice of EFA options offered to them. RDP measures are potentially much more targeted but are optional apply to smaller proportion of farml ( forests). Explicit link of high relevance to achieving the goals of the policy cluster, but depends on implementation choices made by Member State/regions individual farmers/foresters. Indirect effect of measures targeted at soil carbon/erosion /or water quality (because soil biodiversity is often not recognised as a specific objective within biodiversity policy). Effectiveness depends on the way GAEC greening requirements are defined by Member States, on farmers choice of EFA options. RDP measures are potentially much more targeted but are optional apply to smaller proportion of farml ( forests). Indirect weaker link Explicit link of high relevance to achieving the goals of the policy cluster, but depends on implementation choices made by Member State/regions individual farmers/foresters. 1.2 Section 2 - Integrated Assessment of the Policy Cluster The EU legislation provides a range of opportunities for Member States to establish strengthen soil protection measures targeted to their circumstances if they wish to do so. There are soil-specific GAEC stards to be defined several EFA types which can indirectly support soils functions if Member States choose to offer them on their national list. The EAFRD legislation includes two focus areas for RDP expenditure (out of a total of eighteen) which are directly relevant to soil protection soil carbon, a wide range of measures to choose from, such as agri-environment-climate contracts support for afforestation agroforestry, all of which may be implemented in a very targeted way. The chief strength of this policy cluster lies in the extent of its application (potentially all farml in the EU) the economic leverage of CAP policies on the l management decisions made by individual farmers, which derives from the relative importance of direct payments in the agricultural economy. This applies particularly to GAEC greening requirements more locally to RDP l management measures (which may also influence decisions about managing forests wooded l). Although the EU Forest Strategy strengthens the link with sustainable forest management (including soil protection) guides Member States in the use of RDP forest measures to achieve this, there is no obligation to use these measures. 7

8 The weaknesses threats lie mainly in the degree of subsidiarity which allows minimalist implementation of GAEC greening, but this subsidiarity can be a strength for Member States seeking to make the most of CAP policies for soils benefits, especially using RDP measures). It is difficult to assess gaps in the CAP cluster at EU level when so much of the impact on soils depends on Member States choices, which are made in the context of many other rural, environmental agricultural priorities. Therefore, perceived gaps in implementation may be difficult to address at the level of the EU legislation without constraining the flexibility necessary for effective soil protection elsewhere. However, there are some elements of the legislation, particularly the minimum permitted level of implementation by Member States which, if these were strengthened, could be improve soil protection. This includes the GAEC stard for soil organic matter where the minimum stard applies only to burning of crop residues, not directly to soil management or levels of organic matter, the minimum greening requirements for permanent pasture which allow conversion of significant areas of grassl to arable l, do not require Member States to protect any permanent grassls carbon-rich soils outside designated Natura 2000 areas if they do not wish to do so. There is no requirement in the legislation for the Commission to approve Member States definition of GAEC stards or choice of greening measures, therefore, no opportunity for the Commission to assess or influence the environmental coverage coherence of these three interrelated measures, in terms of soil protection or other priorities. 1.3 Section 3 - Integrated Assessment of the Key Policies within the Cluster The three key CAP measures relevant to influencing l use management in a way that could potentially benefit soil protection are: Cross-compliance GAEC stards for soil carbon, for lscape features There is scope for GAEC stards to address soil threats such as erosion, loss of organic matter compaction on agricultural forest l but the degree of the actual benefit to soil protection will depend on how rigorously Member States define the stards, the extent to which farmers comply. The policy reach of GAEC stards is limited by farmers perception of the costs of compliance, the risk of the detection of non-compliance the likely scale of the financial penalties in the year in which the breach is detected. Greening payment Some farmers are exempt from several of the greening requirements both Member States individual farmers have considerable flexibility in choosing how to implement their greening obligations. In theory these choices could be made in a way that requires changes in the l use management of farml that achieves real additional, benefits for soils, for example in soil cover, anti-erosion management, conversion of arable l to grassl, agroforestry, SRC or woodl. There are also opportunities to protect significant soil carbon stocks by designating permanent grassl on carbon-rich soils as no plough areas. The option for Member States to use equivalent practices for EFAs (certification or agri-environment-climate measures offers the chance to provide more soilfocused greening benefits. However, Member States are not obliged to select more than 8

9 one type of EFA, they can choose some features already protected by cross-compliance allow agricultural production with the use of fertilisers PPP on other EFA types. in practice there are economic pressures for the farming sector to argue for choose to implement the greening options that require least change in current management practices at field level, have least impact on the farm business. Crop diversification Crop diversification is considered not sufficiently relevant to the purposes of this study because, as defined in the Regulation, it is unclear what, if any, soil benefits will result from its implementation. If it were to increase the area of l under leguminous crops (which fix nitrogen in the soil) this may reduce the levels of mineral nitrogen fertiliser required, have an implicit benefits for diffuse pollution. However, this depends entirely on the choice made by individual farmers. Crop diversification requirement does not require crop rotation. Permanent grassl If they wished, Member States could choose to apply the requirement to limit to 5% the decline the ratio of permanent grassl to UAA at sub-regional level, also to design authorisation requirements that would in effect mean that no farmers could convert permanent grassl without prior authorisation. This would provide significant protection for these grassl soils, but is not obligatory. The CAP legislation allows Member States to apply the ratio at national level take no action to limit conversion until this threshold is about to be breached, which affords less protection to these soils. Designation of ESPG has potential to address the risks of loss of organic matter erosion, also offers potential benefits for the carbon pool, especially on carbon-rich soils. There are opportunities for Member States to protect ESPG wetl/carbon rich soils outside Natura 2000 areas, if these have not already been ploughed. Ecological Focus Areas Member States have to choose a minimum of one of the ten types of EFA for their national list, from which farmers make a further selection. There is no obligation to for a Member State to choose any of the seven types most likely to contribute to improving soil management (fallow, terraces, buffer strips, lscape features, catch crops/green cover, agroforestry, strips along forest edges, afforested areas, short rotation coppice), nor is there any obligation for the farmer to implement these on additional l, if they already have sufficient existing EFA. Therefore in many circumstances EFAs may act to protect existing soil functions rather than change l management in a way that provides additional soil protection. In the case of some EFAs (e.g. lscape features, buffer strips, existing afforested l) these may already be protected under cross-compliance or the requirements attached to EAFRD (or earlier) support for afforestation. Comment [CK1]: N fixing crops are not in here because there is no requirements to limit fert PPP applications so no clear potential benefit for diffuse pollution or biodiversity RDPs This is one of the most flexible of all EU policies, with a high degree of subsidiarity which enables Member States to choose tailor measures specifically addressing soil threats needs, for example environmental l management for both agriculture forestry; investment in afforestation, agroforestry, carbon-saving technologies equipment; 9

10 soft measures including advice information innovation. All of these have the potential to address soil issues, but there is no obligation to do so, despite the requirement for 30% of EAFRD funding to be spent on measures of benefit to climate mitigation/adaptation the environment. EU Forest Strategy 2013 The Strategy encourages Member States to use RDP measures to support the implementation of sustainable forest management 1, to provide RDP support for: modernising forestry technologies; optimising the sector s contribution to the bio-economy; improving the resilience, environmental value mitigation potential of forest ecosystems; achieving nature biodiversity objectives; adapting to climate change; conserving genetic resources; forest protection information; creating new woodl agro-forestry systems. However, there is no obligation for Member States to allocate any RDP funding to forest measures. Coverage of Soil Threats Across the Cluster Summary The only threats addressed explicitly are soil erosion (by GAEC 5 RDP focus area 4C), loss of soil organic matter (by GAEC 6 the ESPG greening requiremen). Compaction could be addressed directly through the GAEC5 stard for minimum l management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion, but this depends on how Member State choose to define the stard. The RDPs the EU Forest Strategy have the potential to address a wide range of threats, through targeted agri-environment-climate measures the improved implementation of sustainable forest management, but only if Member States choose to use these measures in a way that addresses soil threats. The CAP measures focused on soil erosion carbon may also address indirectly other threats e.g. diffuse contamination flooding/lslides. Desertification salinisation are threats primarily associated with Mediterranean areas could be addressed mainly through RDPs. Two threats, acidification soil sealing, are not addressed by this cluster. Comment [CK2]: I don t think you can say 5E is explicit because it only mentions C sequestration, not soil C Synthetic Table of Threats Threats CAP GAEC Crosscompliance Stards for soils (GAEC 4, 5, 6 7) Greening Direct Payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate the environment under Pillar 1 of the CAP Rural Development support under the CAP EU Strategy Forest 1 Which, as defined by Forest Europe, includes the criterion of maintenance, conservation appropriate enhancement of protective functions in forest management (notably soil water). 10

11 Threats CAP GAEC Crosscompliance Stards for soils (GAEC 4, 5, 6 7) Greening Direct Payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate the environment under Pillar 1 of the CAP Rural Development support under the CAP Acidification N/A N/A N/A N/A Compaction I I I I EU Strategy Forest Contamination - Diffuse Contamination - point source N/A for soil GAECS (but SMR 1 GAEC 1 are relevant) N/A for soil GAECS (but GAEC 3 is relevant) I I I N/A I I Desertification N/A N/A I I Erosion - water E I E I Erosion - wind E I E I Flooding/lslides I I I I Loss of soil biodiversity Loss of soil organic matter I X or I I I E I I I Salinisation N/A for soil GAECS (but GAEC 2 is relevant) N/A I N/A Soil sealing N/A N/A N/A N/A Coverage of Soil Function Across the Cluster Summary As with the coverage of soil threats, most soil functions are addressed implicitly by this cluster. The only soil function addressed explicitly is the ESPG grassl protection in the greening requirements. The RDPs the EU Forest Strategy have the potential to address a 11

12 wide range of soil functions on selected areas of l, through pro-active, targeted agrienvironment-climate measures through the improved implementation of sustainable forest management under the forest measures, but this depends on Member States choosing to use these measures in a way that addresses soil threats. GAEC cross compliance greening measures have a wider reach on farml, but the scope to improve soil functions is less clear because it depends on Member States setting GAEC stards /or farmers choosing EFA options that require a change in existing l management (e.g. creating new buffer strips, planting cover crops, converting arable to grassl, new afforestation. Synthetic Table of Function Policy CAP GAEC Crosscompliance Stards for soils (GAEC 4, 5, 6 7) Greening Direct Payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate the environment under Pillar 1 of the CAP Rural Development support under the CAP Carbon Pool I E I I Platform for I N/A? I I Human Activities Biomass production Hosting biodiversity Providing materials raw Storing, filtering transforming nutrients water Storing geological archaeological heritage N/A I? I I X or I I I N/A?? I N/A for soil GAECS (but SMR 1 GAEC 1, 2 3 are relevant) I I I I N/A I I EU Strategy Forest Assessing policies Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities Threats in relation to Soil Protection - Understing the Relevance Limits of Policy within the Cluster 12

13 Summary The chief strength of this policy cluster lies in the extent of its application (potentially all farml in the EU) the economic leverage of CAP policies on the l management decisions made by individual farmers, which derives from the relative importance of direct payments in the agricultural economy. This applies particularly to GAEC greening requirements more locally to RDP l management measures (which may also influence decisions about managing forests wooded l). Although the EU Forest Strategy strengthens the link with sustainable forest management (including soil protection) guides Member States in the use of RDP forest measures to achieve this, there is no obligation to use these measures. The weaknesses threats lie mainly in the degree of subsidiarity which allows minimalist implementation of GAEC greening, but this subsidiarity can be a strength for Member States seeking to make the most of CAP policies for soils benefits, especially using RDP measures). It is difficult to assess gaps in the CAP cluster at EU level when so much of the impact on soils depends on Member States choices, which are made in the context of many other rural, environmental agricultural priorities. Therefore, perceived gaps in implementation may be difficult to address at the level of the EU legislation without constraining the flexibility necessary for effective soil protection elsewhere. However, there are some elements of the legislation, particularly the minimum permitted level of implementation by Member States which, if these were strengthened, could be improve soil protection. This includes the GAEC 6 stard for soil organic matter where the minimum stard applies only to burning of crop residues, not directly to soil management or levels of organic matter, the minimum greening requirements for permanent pasture which allow conversion of significant areas of grassl to arable l, do not require Member States to protect any permanent grassls carbon-rich soils outside designated Natura 2000 areas if they do not wish to do so. There is no requirement in the legislation for the Commission to approve Member States definition of GAEC stards or choice of greening measures, therefore, no opportunity for the Commission to assess or influence the environmental coverage coherence of these three interrelated measures, in terms of soil protection or other priorities. Integrating the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities Threats 13

14 Policy Measure Strengths - what does the policy cover well in relation to soil protection? Weaknesses - are there aspects limiting the protection afforded? Opportunities - are there potential opportunities for soil protection moving forward eg through MS implementation approaches or new proposals or clauses that might be used better? Threats - are there any potential elements within the policy that might put at risk the protection of soils? CAP GAEC Crosscompliance There are 3 GAEC stards Stards for specifically for soils (GAEC 4, 5, 6 soils, which apply 7) to all agricultural l on farms receiving CAP area-based payments; these stards should be defined according to the characteristics of area. Minimum stards are not quantified in EU legislative framework; Member State defined stards are not subject to Commission scrutiny; farmers may not comply if stards are seen as too onerous/costly. Strengthen GAEC 6, the soil organic matter/carbon stard. Greening Direct Applies to most Weak/absent Raise Payments for large arable additionality of requirements for agricultural farms; seven of using GAEC minimum number practices the 10 possible lscape of EFA options beneficial for the EFA options have features as EFA; (for Member climate the benefits for soils; allowing use of State environment Member States PPP on some farmers); improve under Pillar 1 of have the EFAs; Member protection for the CAP opportunity to State carbon-rich soils extend protection farmers choices outside Natura of grassls on may leave gaps in 2000 areas. carbon-rich soils effectiveness for beyond Natura soils areas. Rural Development support under Focus areas 4C 5E. At least 30% of the EAFRD No obligation for Member States to use 4C or 5E to Opportunity to use EIP focus areas Minimal definitions of stards by Member States. Mainly from weak implementation. The implementation gap left by weakly 14

15 Policy Measure Strengths - what does the policy cover well in relation to soil protection? Weaknesses - are there aspects limiting the protection afforded? Opportunities - are there potential opportunities for soil protection moving forward eg through MS implementation approaches or new proposals or clauses that might be used better? Threats - are there any potential elements within the policy that might put at risk the protection of soils? the CAP contribution to the RDP must be reserved for key environmental climate EU Strategy measures. Submeasures can be highly targeted at soil objectives. address soil needs; EAFRD must be cofinanced by national/regional government; part of EAFRD allocation can be transferred by Member States to Pillar 1. Forest Promoting the Implementation objective of voluntary for applying SFM Member States, stards to all mainly through EU forest by 2020 RDPs. operational groups for soilrelevant innovation agriculture forestry. in Member States to make more use of RDP forestry measures (some do not use them at all). defined greening GAEC measures having to be filled by RDP funding. Only lack of implementation 15