Co-operative agreements and the EU Water Framework Directive in conjunction with the Common Agricultural Policy

Abstract

Abstract. This paper discusses the significance of voluntary arrangements for the water and agricultural policies in the European Union. The current implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) require new approaches in water management. As many case studies have shown, co-operative agreements (CAs) between water companies, farmers and authorities can help to reduce environmental pressures on water bodies. The main reasons for that are: i) water companies are ready to advise and financially support farmers in changing production methods; ii) changes of farming practices are tailored to the site-specific requirements; iii) farmers and water companies are interested in minimising the costs and environmental pressures as they benefit, for example, from modernization of farming methods, and reductions in cost of water treatment, and iv) voluntarily agreed commitments to change farming practices are often stricter than statutory rules. Moreover, precautionary rather than remedial measures are preferred. Tackling diffuse pollution is one of the main concerns of the WFD. CAs can enhance the cost-effectiveness of actions within the programmes of measures so that good water status is achieved by 2015. In CAs all relevant stakeholders, located in catchment areas of agricultural usage, can be involved. Thus, they can help to foster integrated water resources management. In particular, disproportionate costs of changing farming practices can be identified. With regard to the recent CAP reform, financial support for farmers will be linked to compliance with environmental standards and further commitments. This concerns both direct payments and agri-environmental programmes. The experience gained in CAs can provide information on best agricultural practices. Informed farmers are more ready to meet environmental requirements. BecauseCorrespondence to: I. Heinz (iheinz@infu.uni-dortmund.de) CAs implement the most cost-effective changes in farming practice, it can be assumed that farmers will not face considerable costs due to the new EU water and agricultural policies. Some examples of CAs are described and the significance of CAs in the implementation of the WFD and CAP reform will be highlighted. The article closes with an outlook on the needs of future research activities.

Participation in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Denmark: The prospects for active involvement

“…In this respect, local pollution control of the discharges from agriculture is one of the most cost-effective policy instruments for achieving the WFD's objectives (De Økonomiske Råd, 2009). Following on from this, comprehensive knowledge of the site-specific hydrological and agricultural conditions is indispensable in determining the appropriate local objectives and the most costeffective measures to achieve them (Heinz, 2008), whilst a combination of site-specific efficiency and costs helps to locate the most cost-effective locations . Some of the measures suggested in AGWAPLAN are listed in Table 4, all of which were implemented voluntarily and without state compensation.…”

Groundwater in Irrigation Systems: From Menace to Mainstay

“…This requires taking local formal and informal (as yet not so easily identifiable) institutions into account as these can develop, adopt, adapt and implement such groundwater management tools depending on their particular groundwater challenge and socio‐economic conditions. As a result, increasing attention is being paid to process‐oriented approaches to groundwater governance, in which cooperative agreements complete or precede formal policies (Heinz, ).…”

“…In Europe, the leeway given to local processes is now the approach promoted by the WFD. ‘Soft’ regulation, by promoting cooperative agreements, which are voluntary agreements between farmers and other stakeholders (water companies, authorities) have been shown to enhance the effectiveness of environmental regulations (Heinz, ). These cooperative agreements are increasingly included in public policies in different European countries, as they have been shown to be complementary to ‘command‐and‐control’ measures (Garin and Barraqué, , this issue).…”

“…We add to this statement that such ‘institutional design’ (Ostrom, ) will probably need to build on existing groundwater institutions, which we define as any formal and informal coordination modes related to the access, recharge and use of groundwater. These institutions are generally informal, volatile, fragmented and were developed locally (Shah et al , ; Errahj et al , ), but may also be more formalized legally recognized processes, such as the recent cooperative agreements around groundwater following publication of the European Water Framework Directive (Heinz, ). In such a bottom‐up view, the focus of the institutional design and reforms would be on incremental changes ‘without disrupting the functioning of the economy by much more than is justified by the benefits of the “desirable change”’ (Easterly, ).…”

An organisational innovation perspective on change in water and wastewater systems – the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in England and Wales

“…The aim was to improve water quality at the point of abstraction and to consequently reduce water treatment costs (operational expenditure and capital expenditure) and potentially to develop new incomes for farmers through accessing agri-environment funding schemes and improving on farm efficiency (Heinz 2008). The aim was to improve water quality at the point of abstraction and to consequently reduce water treatment costs (operational expenditure and capital expenditure) and potentially to develop new incomes for farmers through accessing agri-environment funding schemes and improving on farm efficiency (Heinz 2008).…”