UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Policies for the Control of Agricultural Point
and Non-point Sources of Pollution
&
Pilot Projects on Agricultural Pollution Reduction
(Project Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)
Inventory of Policies for
Control of Water Pollution by Agriculture in
the Central and Lower Danube River
Countries
Final Report
March 2004
GFA Terra Systems
in co-operation with Avalon
Your contact person
with GFA Terra Systems is
Dr. Heinz-Wilhelm Strubenhoff
Danube Regional Project - Project RER/01/G32
"Policies for the control of agricultural point and non-point sources of pollution"
and "Pilot project on agricultural pollution reduction"
(Project Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)
Review of Agricultural Water Pollution Control and Policy
in the Danube River Basin Countries
Authors: Jaroslav Prazan and Mark Redman
Address
GFA Terra Systems GmbH
Eulenkrugstraße 82
22359 Hamburg
Germany
Telephone: 00-49-40-60306-170
Telefax: 00-49-40-60306-179
E-mail: hwstrubenhoff@gfa-terra.de
Preface
The overall aim of the Danube Regional Project (DRP) is to support the activities of the International
Commission for Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) in implementing a regional approach in 11
countries of the Danube River Basin to solving the trans-boundary problems associated with the
protection of the Danube River - including the sustainable management of surface and ground waters,
the reduction of water pollution and the protection of water related ecosystems.
Objective 1 of the DRP is the creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water
management. Under this objective there are two key outputs relating to agriculture:
Output 1.2 reduction of nutrients and other harmful substances from agricultural point source and
non-point sources through agricultural policy changes
Output 1.3 development of pilot projects on reduction of nutrients and other harmful substances
from agricultural point source and non-point sources
The main focus of the UNDP/GEF assistance to controlling agricultural pollution is to:
· identify the main sources of agricultural pollution within the countries of the DRB
· review the current state of policy development for agricultural pollution control in the DRB
countries
· identify the main administrative, institutional and funding deficiencies in the development and
implementation of these policies
· provide support for developing the concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) in the DRB
countries including improvements in the management of livestock manure, minimising the use
of fertilisers and pesticides, better use of crop rotations and creation of buffer zones
· identify and develop pilot programmes and projects (e.g. training and institutional development)
for introducing and promoting the concept of BAP in order to improve environmental
management practices in agriculture in a number of priority countries.
Phase I of Output 1.2 and 1.3 was preparatory and undertaken by GFA Terra Systems (Germany) in
co-operation with Avalon (Netherlands). The GFA Terra Systems/Avalon consultancy team consisted
of 6 international consultants and a network of 35 national experts in the 11 central and lower DRB
countries eligible for UNDP/GEF assistance.
This report presents the survey and review of the current state of policy development for controlling
agricultural pollution in the central and lower DRB, and was a key step towards:
a) Identifying priorities for the strengthening of agricultural pollution control policies in the DRB
b) Preparation of recommendations for agricultural policy reforms for the promotion of BAP in
central and lower DRB countries to be implemented during Phase 2 of the DRP
The findings and analysis in the present report have been prepared by the principal authors Jaroslav
Prazan and Dr Mark Redman, supported by contributions from the following national experts:
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Prof. Dr Hamid Custovic
Dr. Mihajlo Markovic
Bulgaria
Association for Integrated Rural Development
Croatia
Ms. Ramona Franic
Czech Republic
Mr. Jaroslav Prazan
Hungary
Mr. Ferenc Tar
Moldova
Mr. Alexandru Prisacari
Romania
Ms. Viviana Bandol
Serbia and Montenegro
Mr Miroslav Spasojevic
Slovakia
Ms. Mirka Cierna
Slovenia
Ms. Anamarija Slabe
Ukraine
Ms. Natalia Pogozheva
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Aim of the Review .............................................................................................................................. 5
Policy-making for Agricultural Pollution Control .............................................................................. 5
EU Policy Context............................................................................................................................... 9
Harmonisation of National Legislation with EU Regulatory Instruments ........................................ 10
Preparation of EU Agri-environment Measures................................................................................ 14
Developing EU Concepts of "Cross Compliance"............................................................................ 16
Methodology Used ................................................................................................................................ 19
EU Acceding Countries......................................................................................................................... 21
Strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Regulatory Framework...................................................................................................................... 21
Economic Instruments and Measures................................................................................................ 27
Advisory/Informative Instruments and Measures ............................................................................. 30
Project-Based Instruments and Measures.......................................................................................... 32
Promotion of Best Agricultural Practice ........................................................................................... 34
Policy Mix ......................................................................................................................................... 36
EU Candidate Countries........................................................................................................................ 41
Strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 41
Regulatory Framework...................................................................................................................... 41
Economic Instruments and Measures................................................................................................ 45
Advisory/Informative Instruments and Measures ............................................................................. 46
Project-Based Instruments and Measures.......................................................................................... 48
Promotion of Best Agricultural Practice ........................................................................................... 51
Policy Mix ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Other DRB Countries ............................................................................................................................ 55
Strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 55
Regulatory Framework...................................................................................................................... 55
Economic Instruments and Measures................................................................................................ 58
Advisory/Informative Instruments and Measures ............................................................................. 60
Project-Based Instruments and Measures.......................................................................................... 63
Promotion of Best Agricultural Practice ........................................................................................... 64
Policy Mix ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Summary of the Current Status of Agricultural Pollution Control Policies in the Central and Lower
DRB....................................................................................................................................................... 69
Existence of Strategies for Agricultural Pollution Control ............................................................... 69
Regulatory Frameworks for Agricultural Pollution Control ............................................................. 69
Use of Economic Instruments and Measures for Agricultural Pollution Control ............................. 69
Use of Advisory/Information Instruments and Measures for Agricultural Pollution Control........... 70
Project-based Instruments and Measures for Agricultural Pollution Control ................................... 70
Existing Situation with Development and Implementation of Best Agricultural Practice ................ 71
Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................................... 73
Annexes (see separate volume)
Annex 1: Review of Agricultural Water Pollution Control Policy and Practice in the Danube River
Basin
Annex 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Annex 3: Bulgaria
Annex 4: Croatia
Annex 5: Czech Republic
Annex 6: Hungary
Annex 7: Moldova
Annex 8: Romania
Annex 9: Serbia & Montenegro
Annex 10: Slovakia
Annex 11: Slovenia
Annex 12: Ukraine
Acronyms & Abbreviations
AEM Agri-environmental
Measures
BAP
Best Agricultural Practise
CGFP
Code of Good Farming Practice
DRP
Danube Regional Project
GFP
Good Farming Practice
ICM
Integrated Crop Management
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
MoA
Ministry of Agriculture
MoE
Ministry of Environment
MoH
Ministry of Health
NVZs
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
WB World
Bank
Country Codes Used
BG
Bulgaria
BA
Bosnia and Herzegovina consisting of 2 entities:
FedBH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
RS Republic of Srpska
CZ
Czech Republic
HR
Croatia
HU
Hungary
MD
Moldova
RO
Romania
SK
Slovakia
SI
Slovenia
UA
Ukraine
CS
Serbia and Montenegro
(previously the Former Republic of Yugoslavia)
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this review was to develop understanding of the existing policy context regarding
agricultural pollution control in the 11 central and lower DRB countries. In particular, the review
aimed to classify, describe and analyse 4 key issues:
1. The current policy objectives and strategies of the different DRB countries regarding the control
of water pollution caused by agriculture
2. The various policy instruments and practical measures that are currently used in the DRB
countries in order to promote the control of water pollution caused by agriculture (e.g. to
implement national policy objectives) - this included regulatory, economic and
advisory/informative, as well as project-based instruments and measures
3. The overall effectiveness of the "policy mix" used to control water pollution, with particular
attention given to the targeting of policies and any reasons for poor implementation
4. The effectiveness of the institutional arrangements that are operating to implement the various
policy instrument and measures - are the institutions effectively organised to implement policies
and practice for agricultural pollution control? Do the relevant institutions have appropriate power
and authority? Are sufficient resources allocated to the relevant institutions?
In order to collect the necessary information, a survey was designed and undertaken by national
experts working in each country of the 11 DRB countries under study. The information gathered was
analysed in order to draw recommendations for policy reform.
All national experts reported some goals for water protection in their countries, although there is a
general lack of clear and targeted strategies for water protection that integrate different policy
measures and show the necessary path to the achievement of indicated goals. Most progress towards
the development of comprehensive water protection strategies has been made in those countries
preparing for EU accession in 2004 since these countries will shortly have to take over the whole
range of environmental legislation in the acquis communautaire, including the EU Water Framework
Directive.
Four basic types of policy instrument for the control of agricultural water pollution were reviewed:
Regulatory Instruments many of the main agricultural pollution issues (nutrients, pesticides, farm
waste and agricultural run-off) are addressed by existing regulatory instruments in the DRB countries,
with the most extensive coverage of issues in those countries preparing for EU accession in 2004. In
most other countries, existing regulatory instruments tend to be rather general with relatively few
specific regulatory instruments in place. Consequently there is much potential to prepare more
targeted instruments to prevent water pollution through the control of specific farming practices also
to improve compliance and enforcement.
Economic Instruments - not surprisingly, the economic instruments used in the DRB countries are
mainly disincentives due to the lack of financial resources to introduce incentive schemes. Where
economic instruments are in place they do not currently address all pollution issues in all countries.
The number of incentive measures in the four countries acceding to the EU in May 2004 is expected to
increase with EU accession and the availability of EU co-financing for rural development measures,
such as agri-environment programmes.
Advisory/Information Instruments - the transfer of knowledge and information to farmers via
advisory/informative instruments can play a key role in changing the management practices of farmers
and reducing agricultural pollution. However, the most frequent limitation upon this type of
instrument for controlling agricultural pollution in the DRB is that the actions taken are too small with
insufficient staff and financial resources. There is large potential to further develop
advisory/information instruments in all countries.
Project Based there are various types and sizes of projects targeting the prevention of agricultural
water pollution with a tendency towards research and policy implementation in those countries
working towards EU accession in 2004 and later.
2
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
There are significant differences regarding policies for the control of agricultural pollution among the
countries of the central and lower DRB ranging from those at the early stages of designing general
legal frameworks for water protection policies to those with more sophisticated legal frameworks in
accordance with EU requirements and already implementing specific agricultural pollution control
legislation.
Nonetheless there is scope for improvement in agricultural pollution control policies all of the central
and lower DRB countries particularly regarding implementation since all countries continue to have
problems arising from the slow growth in administrative capacity where there has not been sufficient
time and prevailing conditions to allow the mature enforcement of policies.
Based upon the results of the policy review, the following general recommendations were made for all
central and lower DRB countries:
· to design more targeted and integrated strategies for the control of agricultural pollution
· to improve the control and enforcement of regulatory instruments for agricultural pollution control
· to put more emphasis upon the design and implementation of advice/information measures for
agricultural pollution control
· to develop within available resources financial incentives as appropriate economic instruments for
promoting agricultural pollution control
· to promote organic farming and integrated crop management techniques as viable alternatives to
the use of agrochemicals
· to design and implement standards of Good Farming Practice
· to increase farmer and advisor awareness of the importance of agricultural pollution control
· to support capacity building amongst relevant stakeholders for the implementation of agricultural
pollution control policies
These are developed further in the separate report under Output 1.2 entitled "Recommendations for
Policy Reforms and for the Introduction of Best Agricultural Practices in the Central and Lower
Danube River Basin countries" which outlines appropriate intervention under Phase 2 of the DRP to
introduce new legal and institutional instruments for reduction and control of water pollution from
non-point sources of agricultural activities.
The following strategic aims, policy objectives and measures for policy reform and the introduction of
best agricultural practice (BAP) in the central and lower DRB countries are formulated on a basin-
wide context and should be adopted and adapted according to national/regional level context. There
are six Strategic Aims proposed:
· To reduce pollution from mineral fertilisers and manure
· To reduce pollution from pesticides
· To improve compliance and enforcement of regulatory instruments for agricultural pollution
control
· To develop appropriate economic instruments for agricultural pollution control
· To develop the capacities of agricultural extension services for agricultural pollution control
· To promote organic farming and other low input farming systems
In relation to the Strategic Aims, there are a total of eleven Policy Objectives proposed for national
governments to adopt:
· Develop greater understanding at a national/regional level of the relationship between agricultural
practice (fertiliser, manure and land management) and the risk of diffuse nutrient pollution
· Develop appropriate policy instruments and institutional arrangements for promoting better
management of fertilisers and manures
· Reduce the levels of harmful active substances used for crop protection by prohibiting and/or
substituting the most dangerous priority pesticides with safer (including non-chemical)
alternatives
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
3
· Improve controls on the use and distribution of pesticides
· Encourage the proper use of pesticides by farmers and other operators
· Improve the use of regulatory instruments to prevent water pollution through the control of
specific farming practices
· Develop and introduce appropriate economic instruments to encourage implementation of BAP
· Review and adapt the mandate and structure of agricultural extension and advisory services
· Develop the capacity of agricultural extension and advisory services for the promotion of BAP
· Develop and support pilot projects for the promotion of BAP by agricultural extension and
advisory services
· Promote certified organic farming and other low input farming systems as viable alternatives to
the conventional use of mineral fertilisers and pesticides
4
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
5
Introduction
The overall aim of the Danube Regional Project (DRP) is to support the activities of the International
Commission for Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) in implementing a regional approach in 11
countries of the Danube River Basin to solving the trans-boundary problems associated with the
protection of the Danube River - including the sustainable management of surface and ground waters,
the reduction of water pollution and the protection of water related ecosystems.
Objective 1 of the DRP is the creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water
management. Under this objective there are two key outputs relating to agriculture, including Output
1.2 reduction of nutrients and other harmful substances from agricultural point source and non-
point sources through agricultural policy changes
Aim of the Review
The purpose of this review is to develop understanding of the existing policy context regarding
agricultural pollution control in the 11 DRB countries supported by the DRP. In particular, the review
aims to classify, describe and analyse 4 key issues:
1. The current policy objectives and strategies of the different Danube River Basin (DRB)
countries regarding the control of water pollution caused by agriculture
2. The various policy instruments and practical measures that are currently used in the DRB
countries in order to promote the control of water pollution caused by agriculture (e.g. to
implement national policy objectives) where:
· policy instruments set the framework for changing agricultural practice (e.g. a Governmental
Act for Soil and Water Protection)
· practical measures are the day-to-day farm management practices that need encouraging at
farm level e.g. the prohibition of all fertiliser and manure application in water protection zones
or limits on quantity of total fertiliser nitrogen application in all areas, etc.
3. The overall effectiveness of the "policy mix" used to control water pollution caused by
agriculture this includes the effectiveness of the policy instruments and practical measures being
implemented do they match the main water pollution problems (nutrients, farm wastes,
pesticides and soil erosion)? Do they target all necessary enterprises? Are there any gaps in
implementation? What is the level of enforcement? Etc.
4. The effectiveness of the institutional arrangements that are operating to implement the various
policy instrument and measures - are the institutions effectively organised to implement policies
and practice for agricultural pollution control? Do the relevant institutions have appropriate power
and authority? Are sufficient resources allocated to the relevant institutions?
Policy-making for Agricultural Pollution Control
The ultimate objective of policy-making for agricultural pollution control is to reduce the risk of point
source and non-point source pollution by influencing the behaviour of farmers and to improve the
management practices they choose to adopt on a day-to-day basis. In order to understand the way in
which policies influence farmers' behaviour (including the adoption of less polluting practices), it is
necessary to consider some basic concepts about policy and policy making whereby:
a) governmental agreements at a national and/or international level establish broad policy frameworks,
and
b) in order to be effective, these policy frameworks encompass three key components - a policy strategy
(or number of strategies), policy instruments and an implementation structure.
Policy Strategies
Policy strategies expand upon a general policy framework by specifying:
a)
more detailed and quantifiable policy objectives, and;
6
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
b)
how these objectives will be pursued.
Since it is rare for one policy instrument to achieve all policy objectives simultaneously, policy strategies
usually include the most appropriate combination of policy instruments the so-called "policy mix" - to
achieve optimal pollution control. A number of factors are likely to influence the selection of policy
instruments selected for implementing any environmental protection strategy, including:
· environmental
effectiveness
· economic
efficiency
· equity
·
administrative feasibility and cost
· acceptability
As with many other areas of environmental policy-making, pollution control strategies are often
formulated and introduced on the basis of imperfect and incomplete information. However rather than
wait until full scientific certainty is reached about the nature and extent of a particular pollution risk,
prudent policy-making demands that the so-called 'precautionary principle' is applied and action is taken
against an environmental threat on the assumption that it is 'guilty until proven innocent'.
Policy Instruments
These are the means or mechanisms by which specific policy objectives are pursued. It is widely
acknowledged that the encouragement of more sustainable and environmentally-friendly agriculture
commonly depends upon using an appropriate "mix" of three types of policy instruments and
measures:
1. Regulatory Instruments - these involve the traditional "command and control"-type policy
mechanisms, such as statutory prohibitions and legal sanctions, which form the basis of state
intervention and control in most developed and developing countries.
The principal roles of regulation in agricultural pollution control are to:
a) prohibit those practices with a high risk of causing unacceptable levels of harmful and polluting
substances to be released into the natural environment. This includes substances which are: i)
deliberately introduced into the environment by farmers (e.g. pesticides and mineral fertilisers), ii)
produced as agricultural wastes (e.g. animal manures) and iii) produced by natural processes in
the course of agricultural activities (e.g. soil erosion).
b) establish maximum ceilings or standards for acceptable levels of pollution. This is commonly
done by setting environmental quality standards for the environmental resource receiving the
pollutant (e.g. drinking water standards for nitrates and pesticides).
It is important to note that the statutory regulation of agricultural pollution is not simply a technical
and legislative issue often the introduction of new regulations requires the re-orientation of
traditional attitudes within the farming community in order to accept the sanctions and controls
imposed upon their businesses. This is a particular issue where agricultural pollution problems have
traditionally been neglected or overlooked for example, because of the encouragement of maximum
food production. It is essential under circumstances such as these that regulatory instruments which
impose a new "moral authority" upon farmers are introduced in combination with the provision of
appropriate information and advice, as well as financial incentives such as capital grants, in order to
gain the support of farmers rather than risk alienating them.
2. Advisory/Informative Instruments - these are based upon "communication", including the
provision of information and advice as well as the opportunity for discussion and negotiation between
farmers, policy-makers and other stakeholder groups. These instruments are used extensively in
many areas of environmental policy and according to the OECD their goal is to achieve the delivery
of policy objectives via the simple process of "enlightened self-interest". For example, farmers are
often advised that the use of an alternative practice is not only better for the environment, but can also
save on agrochemical inputs and therefore improve the profitability of their farm businesses.
Advisory/Informative instruments are particularly important for controlling agricultural pollution
because of the need for farmers to use information, management ability and ecological understanding
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
7
to replace or rationalise the use of agro-chemical inputs and/or other management practices indeed,
sustainable agriculture is often described as "information intensive, rather than chemical intensive".
3. Economic Instruments - these involve the use of financial incentives and disincentives to encourage
or discourage the adoption or continuation of specific agricultural practices.
a) Financial Incentives
Financial incentives are potentially very powerful instruments for modifying the behaviour of farmers
- they are flexible, easily-targeted and can be linked to the implementation of both regulatory and
communicative policy instruments to help achieve specific objectives. Furthermore they are unlikely
to require any re-orientation of farmers' attitudes.
Examples of financial incentives include compensatory payments, capital grants, credit or low-interest
loans, as well as the market advantage and/or premium prices obtained for certified and labelled
products from environmentally-friendly farming systems.
For example, the use of compensatory payments to encourage environmentally-friendly farming
methods is well established within EU agri-environment programmes. These encourage farmers to
enter into a long-term "management agreement" (a legal contract) whereby they agree to follow an
agreed course of action to produce specified environmental benefits in return for an annual payment
(usually an area payment paid per hectare).
Capital grants normally involve one-off payments for investment in specific tasks (e.g. tree-planting)
or facilities (e.g. waste handling and storage) that have environmental benefits. However, unless
grant rates are 100% (i.e. none of the cost is shared by the farmers) their uptake can be limited by the
reluctance of farmers to meet the additional costs over and above the grant, especially where these are
perceived as producing little personal benefit.
Conventional production subsidies (i.e. financial support payments) to farmers can also be harnessed
to environmentally-friendly practices through a system of "cross-compliance". This requires that all
farmers who benefit from government support payments must in return undertake specified activities
which benefit the environment.
Obviously, the success of the financial incentives outlined above at modifying the behaviour of
farmers depends very much upon the ability and willingness of national governments (and ultimately
tax-payers) to pay for the environmental benefits which are accrued.
However, other incentives can be pursued more directly from the general public as consumers.
Environmentally-friendly practices can be encouraged through the adoption of production methods
according to prescribed environmental standards or codes of practice which have a strong 'market-
linkage'. Accredited products with recognisable labels often have a market advantage and in some
cases (e.g. organic food) may attract premium prices which significant numbers of consumers are
willing to pay.
b) Financial Disincentives
Financial disincentives, such as penalties and fines for non-compliance with legislation, are
commonly designed "...to confront the user (or polluter) of the environment with the full economic
consequences of his/her actions" 1.
This approach is derived from the so-called 'Polluter-Pays Principle' whereby those responsible for
causing the negative externalities generated by the harmful effects of economic activity upon the
environment (mainly, but not exclusively, by pollution) are forced to bear the cost of this damage
and/or the costs incurred in controlling the damage. The "Polluter-Pays Principle" is well established
in environmental policy-making2 and may, for example, be applied in agriculture via the government
1 Scheele, M. (1997). The Decomposition Approach: Spatially Differentiated Analysis and Implementation of
Environmental Strategies. In: Controlling Mineral Emissions in European Agriculture (Eds. Romstad, E.,
Simonsen, J. and Vatn, A.), 41-58. CAB International, Wallingford.
2 OECD (1975). The Polluter-Pays Principle: Definition, Analysis and Implementation. Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
8
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
imposition of taxes on fertilisers and pesticides. In theory this means that the external costs of using
these agro-chemicals (e.g. cost of water treatment by water supply companies) are 'internalised' to
become part of the normal business costs incurred by farmers, thereby encouraging the adoption of
less polluting practices/technologies.
However, studies suggest that if significant reductions in the use of these inputs are to be made then
very high taxes (e.g. well in excess of 200%) are required. No policy-makers have yet attempted to
introduce such drastic "supply control" taxes, preferring instead to impose relatively small revenue-
raising "environmental" taxes that generate funds for investment in research or extension services.
Although this approach does risk enshrining the polluter's right to carry on polluting by encouraging
polluters to pay the tax as an acceptable additional cost rather than to alter their practices.
A further criticism of taxing agrochemical inputs as means of pollution control is that the incidence of
pollution on individual farms is influenced by a great many other factors and husbandry practices than
simply the level of purchased inputs. Equally there is no incentive for farmers to adopt 'good
agricultural practice' if they will continue to be penalised on the same basis as other farmers who
ignore good practice.
A better approach (assuming an appropriate mechanism can be found) may be to impose a tax or levy
payment upon pollution itself. The Dutch government, for example, implemented legislation in 1987-
88 that included the introduction of a levy system that charges farmers for producing surplus manure
on their farms. Although innovative, the success of a system such as this depends upon:
· the participating farmers being sufficiently competent in the collection, management and
processing of relevant data
· farmers having sufficient income/motivation to afford the extra time and expense involved in
monitoring manure production on their farms
· the government having the means to monitor farmers' activities and to detect and punish
violations
At present, most emphasis on economic instruments within agricultural pollution control policy
appears to be on the provision of financial incentives such modifying land use via long-term
management agreements, rather than the imposition of financial disincentives.
Implementation Structure
This is the organisational arrangement within which policy strategies are implemented. The 'actors' within
this structure may include farmers and their representatives organisations (e.g. farmers' unions),
governmental agencies, sector authorities, private interest groups and even the general public, while their
success at implementing policy will depend upon:
· the way in which they organise themselves to solve problems of policy implementation
· their degree of power and authority, and
· the level of resources they are allocated
The implementation structure will obviously vary depending upon the policy strategies and instruments
adopted. For example, regulatory instruments tend to be associated with centralised decision-making and
'top-down' policy implementation. Advisory/informative instruments on the other hand are much more
flexible and offer the potential to encourage decentralised decision-making and 'bottom-up' policy
implementation by:
a)
developing common knowledge and understanding between the policy makers and individual
farmers, and;
b)
leaving the final decisions on specific management practices and actions to the individual farmer.
As a general principle, environmental policy strategies and their implementation structures should be
developed with a view towards minimising as much as possible the public costs of administration,
monitoring and enforcement.
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
9
One low-cost approach to implementing environmental policy which is increasingly favoured in some
countries is the government funding of voluntary and community assistance programmes to build the
'capacity' of local people to address local environmental problems with locally-developed solutions.
EU Policy Context
This policy review is undertaken during a period of great change in the Danube River Basin (DRB)
with Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia in the final stages of preparation for accession
to the EU in 2004, followed by Bulgaria and Romania preparing for EU accession in 2007 or later3.
The policy-making context for agricultural pollution control in the DRB is therefore undergoing
significant change and preparation for joining the EU is currently a major driving force for the reform
of agricultural pollution control policies in the 6 countries mentioned.
This includes the requirement to:
· harmonise national legislation with EU regulatory instruments
· prepare rural development measures for EU co-financing
· develop the principle of "environmental cross compliance" in other words, to set certain
environmental standards that farmers must meet in order to be eligible for government support
However, this policy context is not static since the main policy instrument for supporting the EU
agricultural sector the so-called Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - continues to undergo a series
of radical reforms that will impact upon all farmers in the EU, including those in the new Member
States of the DRB.
The first major reform of the CAP was according to the so-called `Agenda 2000' proposals published
by the European Commission in 1997 and took effect for the programming period of 2000 2006.
The Agenda 2000 proposals were an important development because they:
a) introduced a coherent rural development framework to the CAP for the first time the so-called
"second pillar" of the CAP as defined now by the Rural Development Regulation No. 1257/1999
and its implementing regulation4, and
b) shifted funding for Member States from the traditional market support measures in the "first
pillar" of the CAP to a range of rural development measures in the new "second pillar" including
support for:
· investment in agricultural holdings
· setting up young farmers
· training
· early retirement
· less favoured areas and area with environmental restrictions
· agri-environment
· and forestry
In June 2003, EU agriculture ministers agreed a further package of fundamental reforms following the
"Mid-term Review" of the CAP that it is claimed will completely change the way that the EU supports
its farm sector. The new CAP will be geared towards consumers and taxpayers, while encouraging
EU farmers to produce what the market wants. In future, the majority of subsidies will be paid
independently from the volume of production and will be linked to the respect of environmental and
other standards. More money will also be made available to support farmers joining environmental
programmes by reducing the direct payments that are made for bigger farms.
3 Croatia is also preparing its preliminary application for EU membership
4 Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the framework,
taking account of experience gained using European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and
its implementing regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down
detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development
from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
10
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
The key elements of the new, reformed CAP that will enter into force during 2004 and 2005 are as
follows5:
· a single farm payment for EU farmers that is independent from production and linked ("cross-
compliance") with defined environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards, as well as the
requirement to keep all farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition
· a strengthened rural development policy with more EU money and measures to promote
environmentally-friendly farming methods, as well as a new measure specifically intended to help
farmers to meet EU production standards
· a reduction in direct payments ("modulation") for bigger farms to finance the new rural
development policy
Special transitional arrangements have been made for the integration of the new Member States into
the CAP in 2004, including the progressive introduction of direct payments over a period of 10 years
and a significant increase in funds available for rural development at a co-financing rate of 80% from
the EU.
SAPARD
In 1999, a Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD)6 was
introduced to assist in the restructuring of the agricultural sectors of the 10 candidate countries from
central and eastern Europe that were preparing to join the EU. A total of EUR 520 million per year
was been allocated to SAPARD until 2006 and distributed to candidate countries on the basis of
farming population, agricultural area, GDP per capita in purchasing power, and the specific territorial
situation in each country. SAPARD funding aimed both to support preparation of the necessary EU
legislation by the candidate countries in the area of the CAP and rural development and to build-up the
capacity of the candidate countries' administrations to implement this legislation prior to their entry
into the EU. As such it offered the candidate countries the possibility of funding projects in a number
of areas similar to those funded in Member States under the Rural Development Regulation plus
some additional areas such as the establishment and updating of land registers. After 1 May, 2004, it
remains of most significance to Romania and Bulgaria.
Harmonisation of National Legislation with EU Regulatory Instruments
It is estimated that about 70% of environmental legislation currently operating in EU Member States
are derived from EU legislation. Countries preparing to join the EU have faced (and continue to face)
the huge task of harmonising their national legislation with the complex range of EU regulatory
instruments.
Table 1 presents a summary of the legislation relevant to reducing the risk and impact of agricultural
pollution by encouraging the responsible use of pesticides, improved management of nutrients and
avoidance of point source pollution.
5 For further information on the key elements of the CAP reforms agreed in July 2003 see:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/mtr/index_en.htm
6 Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures
for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-
accession period, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
11
Table 1: Summary of EU Legislation Relevant to Agricultural Pollution Control
Issue
Title of Legislation
Obligations
Responsible Directive 76/464/EEC on
·
The Directive sets a framework for the elimination of reduction of
Use of
pollution caused by
pollution of inland, coastal and territorial waters by particularly
Pesticides
certain dangerous
dangerous substances. It divides 129 dangerous substances
substances discharged
into two lists. List I contains those substances most hazardous
into the aquatic
with respect to persistence, toxicity and tendency to bio-
environment of the
accumulate. List II contains substances which are still identified
Community
as hazardous but to a lesser extent than those on list I.
·
The Directive requires Member States to eliminate pollution by
List I substances and reduce pollution by List II substances. A
large number of pesticide Active Ingredients used in agricultural
pesticides and herbicides are included on the Lists.
Directive 79/117/EEC
·
Directive 79/117 - the 'Prohibition Directive' - bans or restricts
prohibiting the placing on
the use of pesticides containing certain active ingredients and to
the market and use of
ensure that those that are marketed are of a specified quality
plant protection products
and appropriately classified, packaged and labelled.
containing certain active
·
The Directive prohibits all farmers' use of those substances that
ingredients
are listed in the Annex and also to require specified quality
standards to be met for other products listed in the Annex.
Directive 80/68/EEC on
·
The Groundwater Directive establishes a framework for the
the protection of
protection of EU groundwater by prohibiting discharge to ground
groundwater against
water of the most detrimental substances including pesticides.
pollution caused by
·
It is intended to reduce the amount of pesticides reaching
certain dangerous
drinking water and thus is not primarily environmental
substances (the
legislation. However, insofar as the intention is to limit or largely
Groundwater Directive)
exclude pesticides from water, this Directive contributes to
meeting environmental objectives by reducing the environmental
burden of pesticides.
·
The Directive places mandatory obligations on farmers relating
to disposal of pesticide waste (including washing water),
implemented in legislation described below. There are no other
mandatory obligations on farmers, rather the obligation is on
member states' to introduce sufficiently precautionary legislation
to exclude pesticides from water.
Directive 80/778/EEC on
·
The Drinking Water Directive (80/778) lays down standards for
the quality of water
the quality of water intended for drinking or for use in food and
intended for human
drink manufacture in order to protect human health.
consumption (the
·
The Directive does not impact upon farmers directly, but sets a
Drinking Water Directive)
maximum admissible pesticide residue level (0.1 parts per billion
to be replaced by
for individual pesticide Active Ingredients and 0.5ppb for all
Directive 98/83/EC from
pesticide Active Ingredients) in drinking water that water
2003
suppliers must comply with. This requires the use of water
treatment in some areas to ensure that the drinking water
supplied is acceptable.
Directive 91/414/EEC
·
Directive 91/414 - the 'Authorisation Directive' - introduces a
concerning the placing of
Community system to harmonise the authorisation and placing
plant protection products
on the market of plant protection products, i.e. pesticides, to
on the market
protect human health and the environment.
·
The Directive includes an EU wide common positive list of
permitted Active Ingredients. However, the process of review to
place substances on this list is not proceeding as planned, and
interim measures in Member States currently result in different
permitted substances in the Community.
·
The Directive places no mandatory obligations on farmers. The
obligation is on the regulatory system to only approve products
that pose an acceptable risk to human health and the
environment. Detailed criteria and protocols have been devised.
·
The legislation also requires Member States to prescribe that
pesticides '... must be used properly. Proper use will include
compliance with any conditions attached to the product and
specified on the label and the application of the 'principles of
good plant protection practice, as well as, whenever possible,
the principles of integrated control'.
12
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Issue
Title of Legislation
Obligations
Directive 2000/60/EC
·
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) has the overall
establishing a framework
environmental objective of achieving 'good water status'
for Community action in
throughout the EU by 2010 and for it to be maintained
the field of water policy
thereafter. It sets out to establish a Community framework for
(the Water Framework
the protection of surface and ground waters across the EU
Directive)
through a common approach, objectives, principals and basic
measures.
·
The WFD establishes the river basin as the primary
administrative unit for the purposes of water management. The
Directive will have widespread and significant impacts. It brings
together much of the existing water legislation into an overall
framework establishing broad ecological objectives for water
and provides an administrative framework to achieve these.
·
The Commission (via the OSPAR Convention agreement) has
proposed a priority list of substances, which will be targeted with
the aim of improving water quality. The pesticides in this list
have been selected according to the risk they pose to aquatic
life and to human health from polluted waters this includes
alachlor, atrazine, chlorfenvinphos, diuron, endosulfan, lindane,
simazine and trifluralin.
·
This Directive places no direct obligation on farmers, but they
influence the standards that must be met by them.
Improved
Directive 80/778/EEC on
·
The Drinking Water Directive (80/778) lays down standards for
Nutrient
the quality of water
the quality of water intended for drinking or for use in food and
Management intended for human
drink manufacture in order to protect human health.
consumption (the
·
The Directive does not impact upon farmers directly, but sets a
Drinking Water Directive)
maximum admissible concentration of nitrate in drinking water
to be replaced by
supplies of 50 mg per litre that water suppliers must comply
Directive 98/83/EC from
with. This requires the use of water treatment in some areas to
2003
ensure that the drinking water supplied is acceptable.
Directive 91/676/EEC
·
The objectives of the directive are to ensure that the nitrate
concerning the protection
concentration in freshwater and groundwater supplies does not
of waters against
exceed the limit of 50 mg NO3- per litre as imposed by the EU
pollution caused by
Drinking Water Directive (above) and to control the incidence of
nitrates from agricultural
eutrophication.
sources
·
Having set the overall targets, the directive requires individual
Member States to draw up their own plans for meeting them,
including:
Drawing up a Code of Good Agricultural Practice
Designating zones vulnerable to pollution by nitrates
Establishing and implementing Action Programmes within these
zones to prevent further nitrate pollution
Directive 2000/60/EC
·
See under Responsible Use of Pesticides
establishing a framework
for Community action in
the field of water policy
(the Water Framework
Directive)
Avoiding
Directive 80/68/EEC on
·
See under Responsible Use of Pesticides
Point
the protection of
Source
groundwater against
Pollution
pollution caused by
certain dangerous
substances (the
Groundwater Directive)
Directive 2000/60/EC
·
See under Responsible Use of Pesticides
establishing a framework
for Community action in
the field of water policy
(the Water Framework
Directive)
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
13
Issue
Title of Legislation
Obligations
Directive 96/61/EC on
·
This Directive aims to reduce air and water pollution by applying
Integrated Pollution
stronger controls to the regulation of emissions from a broad
Prevention and Control
range of industrial activities, including pig and poultry producers.
(IPCC Directive)
·
All new or substantially altered pig and poultry units housing
more than 750 sows, 2,000 finishers over 30 kg or 40,000 birds
will require an operating permit that will detail those practices on
the unit that may give to polluting emissions, their environmental
impact and the `Best Available Techniques' required to control
emissions.
It should be noted however that some of this legislation has so-far had relatively little impact upon
reducing agricultural pollution for example, the EU Nitrates Directive (No. 91/676) has consistently
failed to meet its environmental objectives because of both considerable resistance by the EU
agricultural community and poor implementation by many Member States7. The Nitrates Directive is
one of the EU's environmental legislative acts least well complied with by the Member States. In
2001, all EU Member States except Denmark and Sweden were subject to infringement procedures,
and in April 2000 9 countries were facing charges before the European Court of Justice due to
incomplete implementation of the Nitrate Directive8.
There is hope that the rules of the Water Framework Directive (No. 2000/60)9 will provide a more
comprehensive framework for agricultural pollution control, as well assisting the implementation of
existing "single issue" legislation such as the Nitrate Directive.
Opportunities for Implementing the Water Framework Directive
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was adopted in December 2000 and arises out of a long
debate concerning the limitations of existing EU water legislation the existing body of legislation
was criticised for being too fragmented, concentrating on specific aspects of environmental quality or
specific threats to that quality.
The Directive requires that surface waters (rivers, lakes and coastal waters) and ground waters are to
be managed within the context of River Basin Management Plans10. All waters are to be characterised
according to their biological, chemical and hydro-morphological characteristics. These together are to
be compared with an assessment of waters unmodified by human activity and classified into different
categories of ecological status. All waters are required to meet `good status', except where specific
derogations are applied.
The means to achieve this is through the use of the River Basin Management Plans which should
integrate existing EU measures to protect the water environment and identify all remaining human
pressures which may result in a failure to achieve `good status'11. Member States are required to
establish a programme of measures in each river basin appropriate to these pressures.
There is now considerable debate within many Member States on what the implications of the WFD
will mean for agriculture - in particular, how the Member States (including the 10 new Member States
joining the EU in 2004) will use appropriate policy instruments to tackle the significant pressures upon
7 European Commission (2002). Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of
waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources: Synthesis from year 2000 Member States
reports. Report No. COM(2002) 407 final, Brussels, 17.07.2002
8 De Clercq, P.; Sinabell, F.; Hofman, G.; Jarvis, S. C.; Neetson, J. J.; Gertsis, A. C. (2001). Discussion and
conclusions. In: DeClercq et al. (Ed.): Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries. Wageningen
Pers, The Netherlands. 307-327.
9 EC Directive No. 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ
L327 (22.12.2000)
10 Bloch, H. (2000). EU policy on nutrients emissions: legislation and implementation. In: Wastewater and EU-
Nutrient Guidelines, pp 52-59. International Water Association, London.
11 Griffiths, M. (2002). The European water framework Directive: an approach to integrated river basin
management. European Water Management Online, 2002.
14
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
water resources that arise from agriculture, including the risk of pollution. A potential problem in
many Member States is that unlike other sectors, regulation of the agricultural sector is highly
politically sensitive a situation that arises and results from a range of socio-political and cultural
factors. Many governments have therefore tended to avoid the simple imposition of environmental
conditions upon farmers even basic conditions which they would otherwise readily apply, for
example, to heavy industry.
The WFD requires that Member States now address this issue and consequently there is much interest
in using the policy tools available in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to support and
implement the WFD12, including:
· CAP Pillar 1 Market Support Measures according to the revised `Common Rules'
Regulation (No. 1782/2003)13, it will be obligatory for all Member States to include specific
environmental requirements as a condition for farmers receiving direct support payments from the
government (so-called "cross compliance"). Member States were previously reluctant to
voluntarily use this policy instrument, but it could now be used for numerous aspects of water
pollution control
· CAP Pillar 2 - Rural Development Measures EU co-financed rural development programmes
provide funding for several measures that support farmers, rural communities and protection of
the natural environment. Some of these measures could directly contribute to the implementation
of the WFD and the reduction of agricultural water pollution, particularly "investment in
agricultural holdings", "training" and "agri-environment measures"
Of all the tools of the CAP, agri-environment measures seem the most useful for supporting
implementation of the WFD however, EC rules currently prevent agri-environment payments being
made to farmers for complying with the requirements of EC legislation. For example, farmers cannot
be offered support payments to encourage them to meet the obligatory reductions in fertiliser
application required in designated "nitrate vulnerable zones" by the Nitrate Directive. If this rule is
also extended to the WFD then it will significantly limit the use of CAP Pillar 2 funding for
encouraging farmers to the wide range of actions on water pollution that are necessary to achieve good
ecological status, etc.
No decisions have been made in relation to this issue yet. However, early indications from DG
Environment suggest that it would not seek to restrict payments under agri-environment for
implementing the WFD as has been done for the Nitrates Directive. The CAP Pillar 2 - Rural
Development Measures are discussed in more detail in the next section.
Preparation of EU Agri-environment Measures
As mentioned above, the EU Rural Development Regulation 1257/1999 (the "second pillar" of the
CAP) makes provision for Member States to encourage more environmentally-friendly farming
methods, including practices and actions that reduce the risk of agricultural pollution, by:
a) offering grant-aided investment (up to 50%) in agricultural holdings that helps to "...preserve and
improve the natural environment" for example, by:
· purchasing up-to-date equipment to spread manure and apply fertilisers or pesticides in a more
environmentally-friendly way
· improving manure storage facilities (e.g. to meet the requirements of the Nitrate Directive)
b) training farmers for the "...application of production practices compatible with the maintenance
and enhancement of the landscape and the protection of the environment" this includes:
· training for organic farming or integrated crop management practices
· training for farming management practices with a specific environmental protection objective
12 DG Environment (2003) - Working Document on The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and tools within
the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to support its implementation
13 Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
15
c) introducing agri-environment schemes that offer area payments to support "...agricultural
production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside" this is
very important tool for introducing environmentally-friendly farming methods and is discussed in
more detail below.
Additionally, following agreement on proposals arising from the recent "mid-term review" of the CAP
a new "meeting standards" measure will be introduced to "help farmers adapt to the introduction of
demanding standards based on EU legislation not yet included in national legislation concerning the
environment, public, animal and plant health, animal welfare and occupational safety". This will
potentially be useful for farmers in the new Member States of the DRB.
Aid will be payable on a flat-rate basis for a maximum period of five years and will be subject to a
ceiling per holding in a given year. Support will also be provided to farmers to help them with the
costs of using farm advisory services by paying up to a maximum of 80 % of the cost of such
services14.
Agri-environment Measures
EU Member States began implementing the first so-called "agri-environment programmes" in the
1980s and 1990s, and today such programmes cover over 20% of all agricultural land in the EU.
These programmes pay farmers to modify their farming practices in order to benefit the environment.
This is not a subsidy - it is effectively promoting a form of "alternative economic activity" with
farmers paid as "environmental managers" in addition to their usual production of food and other
products.
Extensive monitoring of agri-environment programmes in EU Member States shows that they lead to
significant benefits for the conservation of valuable semi-natural habitats, biodiversity, landscape,
water and soil resources. They are also found to support farm incomes, provide employment and
retain traditional rural skills as well as to underpin a range of other economic activities such as farm
tourism and the marketing of quality food products. The potential for agri-environment schemes to
contribute to a wide range of rural development objectives, including agricultural pollution control, is
recognised by the fact that they are now the only compulsory measures for EU Member States to
introduce under Regulation 1257/1999.
It will therefore be obligatory upon accession for all new Member States to introduce an EU co-
financed agri-environment scheme that offers payments per hectare to farmers (for a minimum of 5
years) who voluntarily change their methods of farming in ways "...which are compatible with the
protection and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the
soil and genetic diversity" this includes support for a range of actions contributing to the control of
agricultural pollution, including the adoption of organic farming
According to Regulation No. 1257/1999 and its implementing regulations:
1. the financial aid offered to farmers who volunteer to join an agri-environment scheme is
calculated on the basis of:
· the increased net costs incurred by complying with the requirements of the agri-environment
measure (total additional costs minus savings)
· the expected loss of income suffered (using appropriate reference data) by complying with the
requirements of the agri-environment measure
2. participating farmers will only be compensated for income foregone and additional costs
associated with agri-environmental actions which involve more than usual Good Farming Practice
(see 1.2.3 below). Furthermore, farmers must follow standards of Good Farming Practice on the
whole of their farm.
While the 4 DRB countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia) joining the EU in 2004
will shortly be implementing national agri-environment programmes, 2 DRB countries (Romania and
Bulgaria) are unlikely to join the EU until at least 2007. In these latter countries, financial assistance
14 DG Agriculture (2003). CAP Reform Summary: Special Edition of the DG Agriculture Newsletter (July 2003)
16
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
is also available for developing and implementing "pilot" agri-environment measures with SAPARD
co-funding the Special Pre-accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development.
According to the SAPARD Implementing Regulation No. 1268/1999, EU co-financing support may be
provided for all the agri-environment actions described in the Rural Development Regulation No.
1257/1999.
The resources available for agri-environment measures, including those with a positive role in
controlling diffuse pollution from agriculture are proposed to increase following the recent "mid-term
review" of the CAP. Such a shift would provide a helpful foundation for other measures aimed at
pollution abatement. However, there is no certainty that a significant change in farm management will
occur. Not only will there be technological and market development affecting management decisions
at farm level, there remain considerable uncertainties about the way in which it will be implemented in
the Member States.
Developing EU Concepts of "Cross Compliance"
The concept of cross-compliance in agriculture (setting conditions which farmers have to meet in
order to be eligible for direct government support) has been growing in importance since the 1970s.
After many years of debate it is now also seen as an important policy tool in the EU to help improve
standards in farming and protect the environment.
The "Agenda 2000" reform of the CAP introduced cross-compliance for the first time as a key policy
instrument for improving the environmental performance of farmers in the EU by:
a) allowing Member States to attach environmental conditions to the so-called `First Pillar' of the
CAP, and;
b) requiring Member States to define verifiable standards of Good Farming Practice (GFP) for
farmers to follow before they could certain receive funds under the Rural Development Regulation
(No. 1257/1999) - the so-called `Second Pillar' of the CAP.
Member States showed relatively little interest in the option for voluntary cross-compliance introduced
in the original "Agenda 2000" CAP reform. In most countries it was not adopted at all, in others it
appears only to have been used to address very specific environmental problems e.g. limits on
pesticide use in maize in the Netherlands.
The June 2003 Mid-term CAP reform package however now obliges all Member States to have a
system of cross compliance in place for all direct support schemes from January 2005 in accordance
with the revised `Common Rules' Regulation 1782/200315.
"First Pillar" Cross Compliance
Discussions are currently underway in Member States on how to implement the new obligations for
"first pillar" cross compliance which require that the full payment of direct support schemes under the
CAP must be linked to compliance with rules relating to the management of agricultural land and
production activities. If these rules are not met, Member States must withdraw direct aid from farmers
either in whole or in part on the basis of criteria that are "proportionate, objective and graduated".
Most Member States have not yet (December 2003) established a formal position or initiated
consultations on "first pillar" cross compliance, but are waiting for clearer guidance from the
European Commission in the form of an Implementing Regulation (this is not expected until spring
2004). However, it is clear from Regulation 1782/2003 that there are two general obligations upon
Member States:
A. Statutory Management Requirements
There are a total of 18 Directives listed in Annex III of Regulation 1782/2003 on the environment,
public, plant and animal health and animal welfare. Member States are required to ensure that all
farmers receive a list of statutory management requirements for fulfilling obligations under these
15 Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
17
Directives. Eight of these Directives have to be implemented from 1 January 200516, a further
seven from 1 January 2006 and the remainder from 1 January 2007.
This will require the development of appropriate verifiable standards, as well on-the-spot checks to
ensure compliance with the management requirements. In preparation for drawing up a list of
management requirements some Member States are first carrying out an analysis of implementation
of the Directives. It is likely that many Member States will take the opportunity to improve
existing standards and will be using various lessons learned to further improve the targeting and
efficiency of control procedures.
B. Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
Annex IV of the revised Common Rules Regulation requires Member States to ensure that land is
maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, especially land no longer used for
production purposes. Member States must decide how they will define Good Agricultural and
Environmental Condition (GAEC) as set out in Annex IV.
Appropriate standards can be set for maintaining GAEC at national or regional level, and must take
into `account `the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic
condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices, and farm
structures'. Member States are also required to ensure maintenance of the total area of permanent
pasture (2003 baseline).
Various approaches to the implementation of obligatory cross-compliance are expected, since Member
States have considerable subsidiarity on many aspects. Although most Member States will probably
only require farmers to meet minimum standards set out in the Regulation, it is again expected that
some will use this as an opportunity to raise standards in agriculture and may go beyond EU standards.
The implications of the revised `Common Rules' Regulation for the 4 new Member States (Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia) in the central DRB are currently unclear, but it is a
potentially useful tool for reducing certain pollution risks although inevitably the true extent of its
influence upon reducing pollution will depend upon the commitment and willingness of the new
Member States to both implement and effectively police this new policy instrument.
"Second Pillar" Cross Compliance
Another useful tool will be the "verifiable standards of Good Farming Practice (GFP)" that all farmers
receiving payments from agri-environment and less-favoured area schemes funded by the Rural
Development Regulation - the so-called CAP `Second Pillar' - must comply with across the whole of
their farm17.
Good Farming Practice (GFP) is a relatively new concept to emerge within the EU and its practical
implementation is still being tested in many Member States. Obviously the interpretation of what
constitutes a "reasonable" standard of farming will vary from country to country, however it is generally
assumed that it will consistently involve farmers:
· following relevant existing environmental legislation, and;
· not deliberately damaging or destroying environmental assets, including the pollution of
watercourses.
16 Those relating to the environment are Directives 79/409/79 on conservation of wild birds, 80/68/79 on
protection of groundwater, 86/278/86 on sewage sludge, 91/676/91 on nitrates and 92/43/92 on conservation of
habitats
17 Under Section 9 of EC Regulation No. 1750/1999, which sets out the rules for several measures including
agri-environment, it is stated that: "Usual good farming practice is the standard of farming which a reasonable
farmer would follow in the region concerned.....Member states shall set out verifiable standards in their rural
development plans. In any case, these standards shall entail compliance with general mandatory environmental
requirements."
18
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
It should be noted that GFP is not equivalent to the Code of Good Agricultural Practice (CoGAP) that
Member States must introduce in accordance with the requirements of the EU Nitrates Directive
676/91.
GFP is likely to become an even more important element of agricultural policy in future and is very
relevant to the concept of Best Agricultural Practice promoted by the ICPDR. However, the verifiable
standards of GFP prepared by Member States do vary considerably since there are currently no
detailed requirements for the establishment of GFP standards and no common baseline exists across
the EU.
As natural, socio-economic and political conditions differ between Member States, the harmonisation
of GFP standards at EU level seems both unlikely and impractical especially with the increasing
number of Member States however clear definitions and guidance on the how Member States should
define and implement GFP standards is a high priority.
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
19
Methodology Used
Three main sources were used in order to collect relevant information about current agricultural
pollution control policies in the central and lower DRB countries, and the level of their
implementation:
· existing reviews and publications including Znaor (1999) who used a similar policy
classification to that used in this review18
· preliminary work by the ICPDR EMIS Expert Group on setting up an inventory of national
programmes of measures to reduce the diffuse sources of N and P in DRB;
· a questionnaire survey undertaken by the GFA national experts working in each country of the 11
DRB countries under study.
It quickly became apparent that there was relatively little existing policy information for the DRB
countries under study and that most emphasis should be placed upon the questionnaire survey
undertaken the GFA national experts. The questionnaire used is included in Annex 1 and the results
are included in Annexes 2-12. The objective of the questionnaire was to clearly classify, describe and
analyse 4 main issues:
1. The current policy objectives and strategies of the different Danube River Basin (DRB)
countries regarding the control of water pollution caused by agriculture this includes the control
of harmful substances in water that are derived from:
· agrochemical inputs, such as mineral fertilisers and pesticides, that are used deliberately by
farmers to improve crop and animal production
· farm wastes, such as silage effluent and animal manure, that are produced during usual
agricultural activities
· natural processes, such as soil erosion, that are enhanced by usual agricultural activities
These can occur either by:
· Point source pollution including the regular and large-scale discharges of agricultural waste
products directly into a river, lake or other water resource (e.g. the discharge of treated or
untreated animal waste into a river from a large pig or poultry-breeding enterprise), or;
· Diffuse pollution this includes pollution from non-point sources (e.g. nitrate losses from
cultivated arable land) and multiple "small-scale point sources" (e.g. irregular discharge of
relatively small amounts of untreated animal waste into a river from a leaking manure store on
a dairy farm)
The national experts were requested to include consider all policies, strategies and projects
relating to water pollution by plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), farm wastes (manure,
slurry, silage effluent etc.), pesticides and soil erosion.
2. The various policy instruments and practical measures that are currently used and/or in
preparation for implementation in the DRB countries in order to promote the control of water
pollution by agriculture (e.g. to implement national policy objectives, prepare for joining EU or
comply with international conventions). This includes:
· Regulatory instruments and measures these use a country's legal system to establish
norms/standards, regulations, prohibitions, permits etc.
· Economic instruments and measures these use "money" as the driving force for changing the
management practice of farmers and may involve instruments which are either "incentives"
(e.g. subsidies and compensatory payments) or "disincentives" (e.g. fines and penalties)
18 Znaor, D. (1999). Regulatory and policy instruments to protect European waters from the consequences of
agricultural activities: status of implementation. ETC Netherlands, report for UN Economic Commission for
Europe, Leusden
20
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· Advisory/informative instruments and measures these use information (e.g. publicity
campaigns) and advice (e.g. agricultural extension service) to encourage farmers to voluntarily
change their farming methods in order to reduce the risk of water pollution.
· Project-based instruments and measures in some countries the agencies most actively
working on agricultural pollution control are often operating outside of national policy-making
activities and are working instead with some other form of alternative assistance (e.g. from an
international donor) within the framework of a project.
The national experts were advised to be clear about the differences between the policy instruments
that sets the framework for changing agricultural practice, the practical measures that are
encouraged or required at farm level and the institutional arrangements for implementing the
various policy instrument and measures.
3. The current development of existing programmes and projects promoting best agricultural
practice for the reduction of water pollution by agriculture. For the purposes of the questionnaire,
Best Agricultural Practice was defined as "those practices and activities that reduce the risk of
causing water pollution and that it is reasonable to expect a farmer to do as part of the normal day-
to-day management of their agricultural enterprises".
4. The overall effectiveness of the "policy mix" used to control water pollution caused by
agriculture. The national experts were advised to be as objective as possible and to cover:
a) the
effectiveness of the policy instruments and practical measures being implemented do
they match the main water pollution problems (nutrients, farm wastes, pesticides and soil
erosion)? Do they target all necessary enterprises? Are there any gaps in implementation?
What is the level of compliance by farmers? Are the regulations effectively enforced by the
responsible authorities?
b) the effectiveness of the institutional arrangements that are operating including are the
institutions effectively organised to implement policies and practice for agricultural pollution
control? Do the relevant institutions have appropriate power and authority? Are sufficient
resources allocated to the relevant institutions?
Finally the experts were advised to only review those policies, programmes and projects etc that are
directly relevant to the Danube River catchment area in their country. For example whilst all
national legislation is likely to be relevant, any area specific legislation that does not include territory
of the Danube River catchment area is not be relevant.
The GFA national experts completed the questionnaires with the assistance of ministry officials,
research institutions, advisory services and by referring to relevant national literature and other
sources. The national reports received from the experts are included in the Annexes of this review.
Inevitably some of the analysis is rather qualitative. The approach and scope of the project still left
some issues unquestioned especially because investigation and evaluation of policies remain sensitive
issues in some of the countries under study. Furthermore, in some countries the complex political
situation and lack of transparency did not allow all possible factors to be bought into the review and
analysis.
In order to address the potential sources of error on a country-by-country basis, the results from the
national questionnaires were summarised into tables and then grouped into one of three categories
according to their status relating to EU accession and the associated stages of policy design and
implementation:
EU Acceding
Entering EU in 2004 Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia
Countries
EU Candidate
Entering EU after
Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia (preparing
Countries
2004
application to join EU)
Other DRB
No immediate plans
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova, Serbia &
Countries
for EU entry
Montenegro and Ukraine
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
21
EU Acceding Countries
Czech Republic Annex 5
Hungary Annex 6
Slovakia Annex 10
Slovenia Annex 11
Strategies
Of all the middle and lower DRB countries reviewed, only Slovakia was reported to have clearly
defined strategies for the control of water pollution caused by agriculture including pollution caused
by nutrients, farm wastes, pesticides and soil erosion. These are defined in the following documents:
· Concept of Water Management Policy in the Slovak Republic (2001-2005) addresses the need
national strategies to reduce the risk of water pollution caused by agriculture
· The Concept of Agricultural and Food Policy for the Slovak Republic 2000-2005 (AFP)
defines the 5 year objectives for agriculture and food industry including the conservation of
natural resources
· National Environmental Action Plan 2003 implements the "Strategy, Principles and Priorities of
the State Environmental Policy of the Slovak Republic", set long term and short term priorities for
protection of environment in Slovakia for ongoing period from 2003
· Integrated Waste Management Policy is part of State Environmental Policy of the Slovak
Republic. Waste Management and addresses the need integrated approach to waste management,
including the improvement of waste management in agriculture
No clearly defined national strategies for agricultural pollution control were reported in the Czech
Republic, Hungary or Slovenia in other words, there was no evidence of the existence of single
policy framework clearing defining the goals for agricultural pollution control and the means of
achieving these the goals within a given timeframe (relevant measures, timing, priorities etc.).
This does not imply that agricultural pollution is not recognised as a significant issue since the process
of preparing for EU accession requires this and there is evidence of considerable activity relating to
agricultural pollution control. A more likely explanation is that:
· there is relatively little experience of developing integrated pollution control strategies,
particularly where the issues are divided between policy-makers in agriculture and environment
with little tradition of communication or co-operation;
· during the rapid process of transition since the early 1990s policy-makers have understandably
tended to focus upon the development of specific policy instruments (often under pressure to meet
EU deadlines) with relatively little strategic thinking about the connections between different
policy objectives, instruments and measures.
Regulatory Framework
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
CZECH REPUBLIC
Law No.156/1998
Pol ution
by
nutrient
Storage of fertilisers
Col. about fertilisers
Directive No.
Pollution by nutrient Localities, ways of fertilisers and in addition
274/1998 Col. About
capacities of manure storage, application: even,
storage and use of
not on water logged, frozen, covered by snow,
fertilisers
to avoiding pollution of water, keep record per
field
22
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
Water Law No.
Framework for other Framework for: effluent issue, Nitrate
254/2001
legislation, issuing of Vulnerable Zones implementation (fertilisers
polluted water,
use and storage)
protection of surface
and ground waters,
Nitrate Vulnerable
Zones framework,
Government decree
Water pollution by
Use (timing, amount max. 170 kg N/ha,
No. 103/2003 about
nitrates
according to locality type, according to type of
vulnerable zones,
crops and soils, close to waters, on slopes),
use and storage of
storage locality, capacity, of fertilisers and
fertilisers and
manure. Farming on slopes concerning
manure, crop rotation
erosion.
and erosion
prevention
Law No. 334/1992
Erosion, decrease of Land use change could be ordered
about soil protection
water quality in
(amended as
connection to land
13/1994)
use
Law No. 147/1996
Pollution by
Approving proper products, machinery (their
Col. About plant
pesticides
regular control),
protection (amended
No. 409/2000
and314/2001)
Law on organic
Pesticides, nutrients, Avoiding pesticides use, whole system of
farming
soil erosion
sensitive farming practices
HUNGARY
Regulation 8./2001.
Pollution by nutrients Storage and use of fertilisers
(I.26.) on store, trade
and use of fertilisers
Law on agricultural
Framework for other Good Farming Practice, soil protection, soil
land LV./1994.
legislation
sampling, nutrient management
Environmental
Framework for other Framework for: water pollution protection, waste
Protection Law No.
legislation,
management, etc.
LIII./1995.
Government decree
Water pollution by
Use (timing, amount max. 170 kg N/ha,
No. 49/2001 about
nitrates
according to locality type, according to type of
protection of waters
crops and soils, close to waters, on slopes),
against nitrate
storage locality, capacity, of fertilisers and
pollution
manure. Farming on slopes concerning
(EU Nitrate Directive)
erosion.
Law No.
Pollution by
Approving proper products, machinery (their
XXXV./2000. on
pesticides
regular control),
plant protection
Regulation no.
Pollution by
Rules to be applied during plant protection
5/2001 on plant
pesticides
activities
protection activities
Regulation on
Pesticides, nutrients, Avoiding pesticides use, whole system of
organic farming
soil erosion
sensitive farming practices
SLOVAKIA
The Water Act
Pesticide,
silage
Limits (permission required) and regulations on
184/2002 Coll.,
effluent, organic and waste water discharge, land drainage, using
which establishes
mineral fertilisers
dirty water for irrigation in all areas.
basic duties in water
and its liquid parts,
Limits (permission required) on airplane
management and
Farm waste.
application of fertilisers and building of large-
general protection of
scale livestock production farms in all areas.
ground- and surface
Limits/conditions on waste handling from large-
waters including
scale livestock production farms in all areas.
aquatic ecosystems -
The prohibition of sanitation buildings
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
23
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
this transposes all
(slaughterhouse), large-scale livestock
important directives
production farms, airplane application of
of European
fertilisers, irrigation of agricultural land over 50
legislation that
ha in water areas of significant importance.
include Directives
Limits on pasturing practices to avoid soil
76/464/EEC,
erosion and surface in water areas of significant
80/68/EEC,
importance.
91/676/EEC,
Agricultural practices, particularly pasturing,
78/659/EEC
shall consider good status of soil (erosion) and
waters in all areas.
State authority can order the implementation of
special agricultural practices to achieve good
status of water in all areas.
Recommended implementation of Code of
Good Agricultural Practices in all areas:
Obligations: limits and prohibition of fertiliser
use on timing, soil conditions, slope of terrain,
and distance to water flow. Definition of storage
conditions of organic fertilisers including silage,
and procedures of application of fertilises and
manure on agricultural land.
Optional: application of crop rotation rules,
evaluation of plans for fertiliser use,
implementation of measures for water
protection against pollution from irrigation water
and surface discharge.
Action Plans of agricultural practices for
vulnerable areas:
Limits or prohibition of fertilisers use on timing,
climatic conditions, soil type, slope of terrain,
and grazing carrying capacity. Conditions or
prohibition of storage of organic fertilisers.
Evaluation and implementation of Programme
for reducing water pollution by harmful and
particularly harmful substances
Decree on of
Nutrients, pesticides. Limits on waste farm storage and use (liquid
protection zones for
farm waste.
and hard), building of large-farms, use of
water resources and
pesticides, mineral and organic fertilisers, and
measures for water
irrigation in protection zones of water resources
protection 398/2002
(set up according to environmental conditions
Coll.
on site).
Prohibition of waste storage facilities in the I.
and II. Protection zone of water resources, and
keeping distance from water resources in the III.
zone of protection.
Prohibition fertilisers and pesticides in first
protection zone of water resources, keeping
distance from water spring and flows (set up
according to environmental conditions on site,
usually 50 m from drinking water springs, and
100 m from drinking water reservoirs, 12 m from
lakes, streams, rivers).
Decree on qualitative
Farm waste.
Define rules and limit values of water discharge
objectives of surface
quality for substances, which constitute a risk to
waters and limit
the environment including agricultural waste.
values for waste
water and particular
waters 491/2002
Coll.
The Waste Act
Farm waste.
Farmer is obliged to develop and implement
223/2001 Coll.,
the Waste management Plan in case of
which establishes
overcoming of certain threshold of waste
basic duties and
(number of animals), which defines the
responsibilities in
conditions of handling and storage of the farm
24
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
waste prevention and
waste (substances from pesticide processing,
waste management.
silage effluent, organic and mineral fertilisers
and its liquid parts) including agrochemicals (in
Decree on Storage of
harmony with district and regional waste
Waste in farms.
management plans).
Act on Application of
Nutrients
Prohibition of sludge and sediments on wet and
Sludge and
frozen soil, arable land = fruits and vegetables,
Sediments in Soil
over certain treshold of terrain slope and pH,
adopted in February
time limit on grasslands for grazing,
2003, in force from
July?
The Act on
Soil erosion,
Permission on change of land type, ensure
Agricultural Land
contaminations
general protection of soil and its functions and
Conservation
(nutrients, farm
the prevention against invasive species.
307/1992 Coll (am.
waste), protection of Act allowed to establish "special management"
83/2000 Coll.), that
other elements of
for agricultural land that is prone to risk:
set duties to protect
environment.
·
measures for improvement of water regime
natural functions of
and water quality
agricultural land.
·
limits of fertilisers and pesticides
Resolution 531/1994-
·
waste treatment measures
540 on limits of soil
·
revitalisation of agricultural land
pollution by harmful
(conversion of arable land to grasslands)
substances
·
prohibition of agrotechnologies
Resolution 152/1996
regulating the rate of
compensation for
restricted agricultural
practices.
The Act on
Nutrients
Limits (rules) and conditions on application and
Fertilisers 136/2000
storage of fertilisers.
Coll., that establish
Farmers is allowed to use only registered
conditions for use,
fertilisers. Fertilisers can not be applied by the
storage, introduction
way that damage the environment. Prohibition
and registration of
of all fertilisers and manure application in wet
fertilisers.
(drench), frozen or snow-covered land, and in
case of damage of the environment in all areas.
Decree on type,
Fertilisers
Lay down the type of fertilisers, storage
storage and
conditions for solid and liquid fertilisers and its
examination of
application on agricultural land.
fertilisers 26/2001
Coll
The Act on Plant
Pesticides
Rules for application and control of the
Treatment 471/2001
pesticides use. Farmer is obliged to respect the
Coll. that establish
time and scale of application of pesticide,
duties in using and
including the limits in protection zones of water
handling the plant
resources.
protection
substances.
The Act on Organic
Pesticides, nutrients, Limits or prohibition on pesticides and fertilisers
Farming 224/1998
use, crop rotation, in areas of organic farming.
Coll., that lays down
rights and obligations
for the
implementation of
organic farming and
processing of
bioproducts.
The Act on Nature
Pesticides,
nutrients,
Limits on wetland management, change of land
and Landscape
farm waste.
type, and air application of pesticides and
Protection 543/2002
fertilisers in all areas.
Coll. That set duties
Limits on grazing capacity, outdoor keeping of
for nature protection,
animals and using water places for animals
rational use of nature
(napajadiel), use of mineral and organic
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
25
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
resources and
fertilisers, pesticides and silage effluent, storage
maintenance of
facilities and plough grasslands areas in
typical landscape.
protected areas.
SLOVENIA
Water Act (Zakon o
agrochemical
inputs
Prohibited fertilisation and use of pesticides and
vodah; 12.7.2002)
(plant nutrients,
herbicides on the land within the ground plan
pesticides);
width 15 m from the water bank for waters of 1st
farm wastes
degree and 5 m from the waters of 2nd degree.
Environmental
no specific reference to agricultural water
Protection Act (OJ
pollution demands only monitoring of
RS no. 32/93, 1/96)
imissions (inputs) into soil, water etc.
Agriculture Act (OJ
water
pollution
from
- announces the introduction of payments to
RS no. 54/2000,
agriculture in general encourage environment friendly agricultural
16.06.2000)
protection of
practices;
drinking water
- describes organic farming and integrated plant
production and announces preparation of
detailed rules for those
Agricultural Land Act
(1, 2) a general
(1) demands prevention of pollution of water
(OJ RS no. 59/96)
reference
and agricultural land and prevention of erosion
(2) provides possibility to use the tax paid for
the change of agricultural land use for
encouragement of environment friendly farming
(3) demands from the farmer to act as a "good
(3) a very short and
farmer" on the land rented from the State Fund
unspecific reference of Agricultural Land
Nature Protection Act
very unspecific: introduces the possibility of
(OJ RS no. 56/99)
prohibition of farming practices and use of
substances (in protected areas) that could
negatively influence biodiversity , by special
acts on protected area
Phytopharmaceutical
pesticides
sound use of pesticides:
s Act (OJ RS no.
(1) describes the duties of public services in the
11/2001, 16.02.2001)
training of the pesticide users
(2) demands certification of pesticide spraying
devices before selling and every 2 years of use
Regulation on the
plant nutrients
(1) maximum input of nitrogen from animal
input of dangerous
(mineral fertilizers,
fertilizers (manure, slurry...) is 170 kg/ha in the
substances and plant
manure, slurry;
whole area of Slovenia (whole country has been
nutrients into soil, +
compost);
declared environmentally sensitive area);
its changes and
(2) max. input of phosphorous (as P2O5) from
amendments (OJ RS
animal fertilizers is 120 kg/ha;
no. 68/96)
(3) max. input of potassium (as K2O) from
animal fertilizers is 120 kg/ha;
(4) sets maximum input of nitrogen (kg/ha/year)
on water protection zones for different types of
crops;
(5) obliges farms with exceeding per ha
production of nitrogen (from animal breeding) to
remove the surpluses adequately;
(6) prohibits fertilization in forests, with few very
limited exemptions;
(7) prohibits the use of manure and slurry on
agricultural and other land, specifically for the
type of use and soil conditions, in certain
periods of year;
(8) prohibits the use of mud from water
treatment plants and certain types of compost
on certain agricultural land, water catchment
areas and several other areas;
(9) demands from farm holdings to set up an
operational programme for the implementation
of relevant articles from this Regulation.
26
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
Regulation on the
pesticides (by active input of pesticides limited to specific amounts of
imission values of the
substances)
active substance (in mg substance per kg of
dangerous
soil)
substances in the soil
(OJ RS no. 68/96)
Ordinance on the
dangerous
monitoring only, very general (agriculture only a
operational
substances
in a very limited way)
monitoring of the
input of dangerous
substances and plant
nutrients into soil
(OJ RS no. 55/97)
Rules on organic
agrochemical inputs Organic farming: prohibits use of chemical
production and
(plant nutrients,
pesticides and synthetic mineral fertilizers;
processing of
pesticides);
demands good agricultural practice
agricultural products
soil erosion
and food (OJ RS no.
31/01)
Regulation on the
agrochemical inputs introduces a tax for water pollution, also from
water pollution tax
(plant nutrients,
agriculture
(OJ RS no. 41/95,
pesticides);
44/95, 8/96)
Regulation on the
nutrients (nitrogen,
appropriate removal of the waste water with
emission of
phosphorous,
nutrients exceeding the limits for their use on
substances in the
potassium)
agricultural land of the farm that produced them,
flow off of waste
as set by other regulations
water from animal
breeding buildings, +
its changes and
amendments (OJ RS
no. 10/99 and 20.
January 1999)
Typical comments from national experts on the adequacy of pollution control regulations, including
reasons for poor implementation and/or enforcement, in the four EU acceding countries were as
follows:
· Low awareness amongst farmers of environmental regulations relevant to their farming activities
· Lack of financial resources for farmers to comply with regulations e.g. to improve manure storage
facilities. Recognition of the problems of the high investment costs associated with compliance is
often associated with poor enforcement by authorities and the relaxation of penalties
· Lack of compliance checks and controls upon farmers by relevant authorities due to their low
inspection capacity arising from lack of staff, poor organisation of resources, limited funds etc.
· Some regulatory requirements are difficult to check and enforce because appropriate control
procedures have not been developed some regulatory requirements upon farmers are considered
to be overambitious in the current circumstances of most farms
· Not enough inspectors to control large number of very small farms
· Lack of co-ordination and communication between Ministries and control authorities (although
this is improving rapidly)
· There are still some deficiencies in the design of certain regulations, including those developed for
EU accession.
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
27
Economic Instruments and Measures
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward? Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
CZECH REPUBLIC
Government decree
Nutrients and silt in
Arable land conversion to grassland on slopes,
505/2002 about non-
waters caused by
All practices associated to organic farming
productions functions
erosion, and
according EU and Czech rules
support - MoA
pesticides use
Program for Nature
Nutrients and silt in
Erosion prevention
and Landscape - MoE
waters caused by
erosion
Investment support
Nutrients pollution
Manure storage facilities renewal
MoA and SAPARD
Law about fertilisers
Nutrients pollution
Manure storage facilities renewal, record
keeping, timing of fertilisers use and locations
with restriction (into waters)
Directive about
Nutrients pollution
Manure storage facilities renewal, record
storage and use of
keeping, timing of fertilisers use and locations
fertilisers
with restriction (into waters)
Government decree
Nutrients pollution
Manure storage facilities renewal, record
about vulnerable
keeping, timing of fertilisers use and locations
zones
with restriction (into waters), soil erosion
practices-contour farming etc.
Law about soil
Any
pollution,
heavy
Preventing any activities causing soil
protection
soil erosion
degradation
Law about plant
Pesticides
Proper
storage, use only approved machinery
protection
and pesticides according to guidelines on
product
HUNGARY
Agri-environment
Nutrient and
Environmental y friendly farm management
measures
pesticides pollution
techniques
Government decree
Nutrients pollution
Manure storage facilities renewal, record
about vulnerable
keeping, timing of fertilisers use and locations
zones
with restriction (into waters), soil erosion
practices-contour farming etc.
Investment support
Nutrients pollution
Manure storage facilities renewal
MoA and SAPARD
Regulation on
Nutrients pollution
Manure storage facilities renewal, record
fertilisers
keeping, timing of fertilisers use and locations
with restriction (into waters)
Law about plant
Pesticides
Proper
storage, use only approved machinery
protection
and pesticides according to guidelines on
product
SLOVAKIA
The Water Act
Pesticide
nutrients,
Penalties are set in case of violance of Water Act
184/2002 Coll., which
farm waste
(see chapter above), particularly:
set penalties in case of
Limits on waste water discharge into ground and
violation of regulations
surface waters in all areas.
on general protection
Limits on airplane application of fertilisers and
of ground- and surface
building of large capacity farms in all areas.
waters including
The prohibition of sanitation buildings
aquatic ecosystems
(slaughterhouse), large capacity farms, airplane
application of fertilisers in water protection
zones.
Limits or prohibitions of agricultural practices in
protection zones of water resources.
28
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward? Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
The Waste Act
Farm
waste
Penalties for not keeping rules of the
223/2001 Coll., which
manipulation of farm waste according to Waste
set penalties for
Management Plan (substances from pesticide
violation of regulations
processing, silage effluent, organic and mineral
of waste treatment
fertilisers and its liquid parts), which identify the
waste products and how managed.
The Act on
Soil erosion,
Penalties on change the land type, do not
Agricultural Land
(nutrients, waste)
implement agricultural practices which ensure
Conservation
general protection of soil and its functions and
307/1992 Coll (am.
the prevention against invasive species.
83/2000 Coll.), which
Act allowed to establish "special management"
set penalties for
for agricultural land that is prone to risk:
violation of the rules.
·
measures for improvement of water regime
and water quality
·
limits of fertilisers and pesticides
·
waste treatment measures
·
revitalisation of agricultural land (conversion
of arable land to grasslands)
·
prohibition of agrotechnologies.
State Fund for
Soil erosion, farm
Improvement of waste management, storage
protection and
waste.
facilities for manure, silage, slurry, and
revitalisation of
investment into agrotechnologies, measures
agricultural land.
against soil erosion, revitalization of grasslands.
The measures are provided through regular
subsidy system which set priorities every year.
Decree on Rural and
Nutrients, pesticides, Reduction of fertilisers and pesticides on arable
Agricultural
soil erosion
land and on grasslands, maintanace of
Development Plans
grasslands, conversion of arable land to
316/2001 (am.
grasslands, special measures for wetlands
515/2002 and
protection, measures against soil erosion (non
717/2002) - Agri-
forest wood vegetation).
environmental
programme (pilot
areas under the
SAPARD)
The implementation
Nutrients
Penalties for use of unregistered fertilisers,
of The Act on
application of fertilisers by the way that damage
Fertilisers 136/2000
the environment. Application of all fertilisers and
Coll.
manure application in wet (drench), frozen or
snow-covered land.
Act on Nature and
Nutrients, pesticides, Penalties for not allowed agricultural practices in
Landscape
sillage effluent.
all areas or in protected areas (application of
Protection 543/2002
fertilizers and pesticides, ploughing the
Coll., that set
grasslands, inappropriate use of wetlands, etc).
penalties for violence
Compensations for restricted agricultural
of the law and provide
practices (outside of terms of Act on Soil
compensation of
Conservation) or financial contribution to achieve
limited agricultural
good status of land that requires implementation
practices.
of measures outside of obvious land
management.
The Act on Organic
Pesticides, nutrients. Rewards for limits or prohibition on pesticides
Farming 224/1998
and fertilisers use and crop rotation in areas of
Coll., that provide
organic farming.
special subsidies for
implementation of
organic farming
according to FAO.
Programme for
Water protection and The objective of improvement of water pollution
support of
waste management. is generally defined, however, it provides option
implementation of
for support of agricultural practices to improve
environmental
water quality.
measures (mainly
water pollution issues)
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
29
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward? Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
SLOVENIA
Regulation on SAEP
pesticides, nutrients, Measures encouraged:
and introduction of
soil erosion
(1) Reduction of the negative impact of
direct payments for
agriculture on the environment:
measures in 2002-
- reduction of animal density/ha and excessive
2003 (EKO2, EKO 3)
input of farm wastes into soil
the Slovenian agri-
- suppress overgrowth of agric. land with forest
environment
cleaning of overgrowth once a year
programme
- reduction of erosion in orchards and vineyards
by planting/sowing adequate vegetation
- maintenance of plant rotation to improve soil
characteristics and fertility - greening of the
fields in winter
- integrated fruit production
- integrated viticulture (vine growing)
- organic farming
(2) Maintenance of natural features, biodiversity,
soil fertility and traditional cultural landscape:
8 measures, not directly related to the reduction
of pollution but more to the maintenance of
extensive and otherwise appropriate agricultural
activity to achieve the goals of (2)
(3) Protection of the protected zones (nature
AND water protection zones):
- maintenance of farmed and populated
landscape on nature protection areas;
- restructuring of animal breeding in the area of
large wild animals (bear etc.);
- maintenance of birds' habitats
- plant cover on water protection zones
- introduction of grass cover and of fallow
All measures within (3) reduce pollution from
agriculture.
Obligation for the farmer: to implement the
selected measure(s) for 5 years (until 2006).
Local communities:
pesticides, nutrients, Organic farming, integrated plant production
refunding inspection
soil erosion
costs
(indirectly)
Local communities:
pesticides, nutrients, Organic farming (50%) and integrated farming
higher % of grants
soil erosion
(30%)
(indirectly)
Penalty (4.200
plant nutrients and
use of fertilisers or pesticides on water protection
42.000 EUR); Water
pesticides
zones
Act
Penalty (630 5.100
very
general pollution of agricultural land
EUR); Agricultural
reference to pollution
Land Act
Penalty (630 5.100
very
general good agricultural practice
EUR); Agricultural
reference to the
Land Act
"good farmer
/manager"
Penalty (420 630
pesticides
misuse / overuse / improper use of pesticides
EUR);
Phytopharmaceuticals
Act
Penalty (minimum
plant nutrients
violation of the Regulation (see above)
840); Regulation on
the input of plant
nutrients and
dangerous substances
into soil
30
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Typical comments from national experts on the adequacy of economic instruments for pollution
control regulations, including reasons for poor implementation and/or enforcement, in the four EU
acceding countries were as follows:
· Low levels of financial incentives to encourage farmers to make significant changes to their
farming systems e.g. to convert to organic farming methods although more resources will
become available following EU accession in May 2004
· Lack of targeting of the limited national resources that are available to provide financial incentives
leads to poor utilisation and limited impact
· General lack of financial incentives (e.g. investment grants) to support farmers in the
implementation of regulations regarding the improvement of pollution control facilities (e.g. to
improve manure storage facilities) although more resources will become available following EU
accession in May 2004
· Lack of capacity to implement financial incentive schemes, although this is changing rapidly with
the final stages of preparation for EU accession
· Lack of administrative capacity to fully and effectively implement systems for the control and
collection of fines and penalties etc. also limited funds available for institutional capacity
building on this issue
· Lack of trained staff in the design and implementation of effective economic instruments
· Lack of co-ordination and communication between Ministries and control authorities (although
this is improving rapidly)
· There are still some deficiencies in the design of certain economic instruments, including those
developed for EU accession.
Advisory/Informative Instruments and Measures
Advisory/Information
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Yes/No
Pollution Issue
Discouraged
CZECH REPUBLIC
Technical assistance by
Yes
Nutrients
Fertiliser application rates
independent advisory service
Technical assistance by State
Yes
Nutrients, erosion
Timing and quantity of fertilizers use, erosion
advisory service
prevention, storage capacities for manure,
nutrients balances.
Technical assistance by
Yes
Pesticides
To keep rules provided on product label (avoid
providers of farm inputs
water in application, mind air drift)
Education and awareness-raising Yes Nitrates
in
Keep manure storage capacities, fertilisers
campaigns
vulnerable zones
application rules (no autumn application of
(nutrients), farm
artificial fertilisers etc.), nutrients balances
waste
calculations etc.
Demonstration farms
No
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes Nutrients,
soil BAP
among the farmers
erosion
Publications and other
Yes Pesticides,
fertilisers
Sensitive pesticides and fertilisers use (close to
information materials
use,
waters etc.), reduction of application rates, the
most economic use etc.
Training Yes
Nutrients,
farm
Application rates, nutrients management
waste
according to site
HUNGARY
Technical assistance by
Yes
Nutrients
Fertilisers application rates
independent advisory service
Technical assistance by
Yes
Pesticides
To keep rules provided on product label (avoid
providers of farm inputs
water in application, mind air drift)
Demonstration farms
Yes
Pesticides, nutrients Part of the National Agri-environment
Programme, environmental y sound techniques,
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
31
Advisory/Information
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Yes/No
Pollution Issue
Discouraged
integrated pest management, organic farming,
nutrient management, erosion control, etc.
Publications and other
Yes Pesticides,
fertilisers
Sensitive pesticides and fertilisers use (close to
information materials
use,
waters etc.), reduction of application rates, the
most economic use etc.
Training Yes
Nutrients,
farm
Application rates, nutrients management
waste
according to site
Technical assistance by
Yes
Nutrients
Fertilisers application rates
independent advisory service
SLOVAKIA
Technical assistance by
Yes
Pesticides, nutrients Organic farming general rules.
independent advisory service
Technical assistance by State
Yes Pesticides,
nutrients
Environmental Friendly Agriculture,
advisory service
protection of water sources (seminars, excursions
- mainly to Western Europe).
Best Agricultural Practices to prevent water
pollution (seminars).
Advisory and consulting on contamination of soil
and water due to agricultural practices and soil
erosion (seminars).
Technical assistance by
No
providers of farm inputs
Education and awareness-raising No
campaigns
Demonstration farms
No
Learning by sharing of ideas
No
among the farmers
Publications and other
Yes
Main relevant publications:
information materials
Ecological Farming
Code of Good Agricultural Practices water,
fertilizers, soil (see bellow).
Water in threat from agricultural production.
Training Yes
General
Environmental Friendly Agriculture,
environmental
water sources protection/distance studies,
issues
seminars.
SLOVENIA
Technical assistance by
Yes Pesticides,
nutrients,
encourage organic farming
independent advisory service
erosion
Technical assistance by State
Yes Pesticides,
nutrients,
encourage: integrated plant production; organic
advisory service
erosion
farming;
Technical assistance by
Yes Pesticides,
nutrients
encourage: less environment-damaging
providers of farm inputs
pesticides
Education and awareness-raising Yes
general
encourage farmers to enter Slovenian agri-
campaigns
environment programme
Demonstration farms
No
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes Pesticides,
nutrients,
organic farming, integrated plant production
among the farmers
erosion - indirectly
Publications and other
Yes Pesticides,
nutrients,
good practice of fertilization; good agricultural
information materials
erosion
practice;
organic farming, integrated plant production;
Training
Yes
Pesticides
integrated plant production;
organic farming;
proper use and application of pesticides;
Information / awareness raising
Yes Pesticides,
nutrients
discourage
excessive use of pesticides and
campaign by City Community of
fertilizers
Ljubljana
32
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Comments from national experts on the adequacy of advisory/informative instruments and measures,
including reasons for poor implementation, in the four EU acceding countries were as follows:
· independent agricultural advisors are more focused upon providing agronomic and economic
advice to farmers for improving productivity and profitability there is little interest in providing
advice on environmental protection
· many advisers remain sceptical about the agronomic potential of organic and integrated farming
systems, plus they have no knowledge of the environmental benefits
· much advice is provided to farmers by pesticide retailers they have no interest in reducing the
risk of pollution or promoting more environmentally-friendly farming systems. Open days etc.
organised by them are more focussed upon production than environment
· there are not enough advisers to provide full and effective advice to all farmers
· most small-scale farmers cannot afford to pay for advice or information
· the qualifications and experience of advisers should be broadened and extended
· there are very few new or updated advisory materials/publications on environmental protection
being produced for farmers. When new materials are produced they are not printed in sufficient
quantities and are quickly unavailable to the majority of farmers
· the availability of relevant advisers (e.g. for organic farming) varies from region-to-region so that
information and technical assistance on more environmentally-friendly farming methods is not
evenly distributed
· extension services and advisers have poor co-operation with the Ministry of Environment and
limited access to relevant information on environmental protection
· there are no advisory or information instruments specifically focused on protecting water from
agriculture. Advisory institutions provide only general information on environmentally friendly
agriculture that sometimes touch water pollution issue
· due to lack of finances, as well as poor management, the code of Good Farming Practices and
other relevant publications are inefficiently advertised and produced only in limited copies
· training activities which are provided tend to be irregular and limited in geographical coverage
· the limited training which is available on the environmental aspects of agriculture tends to be too
general for practical farmers and focussed more upon the "expert" public then on farmers. There
are also concerns about the quality of training offered
· there is great potential for involvement of farmers organisations etc. in the promotion of more
environmentally-friendly farming methods, but relatively little activity at present
Project-Based Instruments and Measures
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
CZECH REPUBLIC
No projects aimed in changes of
farming practices in Danube river
basin
HUNGARY
No projects aimed in changes of
farming practices in Danube river
basin
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
33
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
SLOVAKIA
Regional Environmental
Smal Farm
waste,
Policy recommendations for improving the soil
Management Plan for Hron River
Erosion
erosion and farm waste management (very
Basin (SAZP)
general).
Regional Environmental
Smal Nutrients,
Development of Code of Good Agricultural
Accession Project (Phare)
pesticides,
Practices Water focused on prevention of
Water protection against pollution
farm waste.
water pollution from agriculture. Assistance on
by nutrients from agricultural
implementation of Directive 91/676EEC on
production
water protection against pollution from
agriculture.
Restoration and Management of
25 000
Nutrients,
Transformation of arable land into grasslands,
the Species Rich Meadows in
Euro
pesticides.
management of grasslands in river basin.
Morava River Floodplain
Remediation of Polluted Soil and
Smal Nutrients,
Evaluation of methodology for identification of
Groundwater
pesticides,
potential water pollution resources, risk
farm waste
assessment analyses and prioritizing and
identification of adequate measures to
minimize water pollution.
Research on quality of drinking
Smal Erosion,
Research project addresses the contribution of
water and environmental aspects
nutrients,
agriculture to water pollution due to
of flows.
pesticides
inappropriate use of agrochemicals and soil
erosion.
Consultancy in harmonisation of
Smal Erosion,
Aspects of implementation of Water
sectoral policies and capacity
nutrients,
Framework Directive in Slovakia and
building in the field of water
pesticides,
integrated management of river basins with
management and water
farm waste
focus on water quality.
protection.
SLOVENIA
1. a) Integrated viticulture
? Pesticides,
(a) integrated plant production
(Integrirana pridelava grozdja,
plant nutrients
predelava, prodaja in promocija
vina)
(b) less chemical inputs-intensive farming
b) Sustainable vegetable and
herb production (Naravi prijazna
proizvodnja vrtnin in zdravilnih
zelisc)
2. Organic farming and inspection
? Al
organic
farming
(Ekolosko kmetijstvo in kontrola
ekoloskih kmetij)
3. Farming on water protection
? Pesticides,
green plant cover in winter; N-fertilisation on
zones and protection of drinking
plant nutrients,
the basis of N-min analyses; control of organic
water (Kmetovanje na
farm waste
fertilisation; reduction of pesticide use;
vodovarstvenih obmocjih in
zascita pitne vode)
4. Conversion of farms in City
? Al
organic
farming
Municipality of Ljubljana to
Organic Farming
5. Evidence of Water Polluters in
4,160 General
less
chemical inputs-intensive farming
Pomurje Region
6. Fertilization of Vegetables with
4,800
Nitrates
less chemical inputs-intensive farming
Nitrates as an Ecological Problem
7. Water Pollution and Water
5,000 General
less
chemical inputs-intensive farming
Protection in Municipality Sentilj
8. Decreasing Negative Impacts
3.203 General
less
chemical inputs-intensive farming
of Agriculture for the Water
Quality in Dreta River Basin
34
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
9. Sanitation of the Quality of
15,000
Pesticides and their
organic farming, integrated plant production
Underground Water as a Source
metabolites (aldrine,
of
atrazine, simazine,
Drinking Water and Strengthening
etc.)
of the Public Participation Action
Fertilizers (nitrogen
plan involves further activity:
concentration)
·
Underground water
monitoring
·
Preparing the project for
building a lysimeter
·
Building the measurements
shaft for lysimeter
·
Advising to the farmers
·
Providing information for the
public
10. Local Agenda 21: Programme ?
All water and soil
organic farming; integrated plant production;
for Environment Protection in The
pollution
maintenance of green covering during winter
City Municipality of Maribor
Soil erosion
(prevention of erosion and nitrogen leaking);
problems
sound management of manure; a balanced
input of nitrogen and other plant nutrients into
soil; point source pollution
Project activities in the EU acceding countries have clearly become more focused upon applied
research relating to water pollution from agricultural sources, rather than the large-scale investment-
type projects found in other DRB countries. This is largely due to the fact that the EU acceding
countries are no longer targeted by donors, such as the EU, for such projects. Instead technical
assistance has come to focus upon capacity building for policy development and implementation,
including building stronger links again between research and policy-making.
Promotion of Best Agricultural Practice
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
CZECH REPUBLIC
Yes
Yes
Description These are more like "Verifiable standards", because these are supposed to be
controllable, simple and not numerous (wil become even more simple in RDP). One of
the reasons is there are enough standards already in legislation.
How is information Published annually and attached to application form for support
available to farmers?
Are there any special Only in case of Code of Good Farming Practice towards nitrates there is massive
projects or campaign (web pages, training, seminars etc.)
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
35
HUNGARY
No
No -
-
-
-
Description Concept of good agricultural/farming practice is planned to be introduced as part of EU
co-funded agri-environment schemes from 2004 under Rural Development Plan
How is information -
available to farmers?
Are there any special -
projects or
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
SLOVAKIA
Yes
Yes
Description Elaboration of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices is part of the Strategy for
Implementation of Nitrate Directive 91/676/EEC -protection of waters against nutrients
from agricultural resources. So far, the Code does not have legislative obligation. Since
2004, it is supposed to be obligatory for area of agri-environmental schemes, less
favourate areas and volnurable zones. A draft report titled Code of Good Agricultural
Practice for the Protection of Water Resources was already produced. This
comprehensive document deals with pollution from nitrates and all other types of pollution
arising from agricultural activities, including the following areas:
·
Rules for storage of solid manure, slurry, silage effluent, dirty waters (evaluation of
storage capacity according to animal production, etc.).
·
Rules for application of organic and mineral fertilisers to soil (time, maximum dose,
measures for application, inappropriate weather or soil conditions for applying
fertilisers prohibition in the first protection zone of water resources, etc.)
·
The construction of new facilities (prohibition in first and second protection zone of
water resources, buffer strips to observe near water courses and other water bodies).
·
Appropriate irrigation practices.
·
Animal production - technical requirement for in door keeping facilities, limits on
grazing capacity (number of animals per hectare), and conditions for pasturing.
·
Appropriate soil cultivation practices.
How is information Published in brochure
available to farmers?
Are there any special Strategy for implementaion of Nitrate Directive 91/676/EEC -protection of waters against
projects or nutrients from agricultural resources
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
SLOVENIA
Yes
Yes
Description The MAFF document titled "Principles of a good agricultural practice and a good farmer"
are composed of two chapters that refer to the previously published documents (different
Guidelines, Regulations etc.) that have been published in the Official Journal of the Rep.
Slovenia or by the MAFF. This is a relatively short document (3 pages) that has been
published by the MESP as a booklet.
Besides from issuing the booklet on good agricultural practice mentioned above, the
"Principles" are not specially promoted. In the introductory paragraph, the document
states that "...in a considerable extent, these principles are already a part of established
practice on good Slovenian farms...". The current status of good agricultural practice
36
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
respectively this document is rather worrying. The responsibility for its contents and
implementation is shared by several ministries (Health, Environment, Agriculture) and up
to now it has not find its proper place in the agricultural practice.
The first chapter "Principles of a good agricultural practice" deals with:
Fertilization. This chapter refers to the "Guidelines for good agricultural practice in
fertilization" (Official Journal of the Rep. Slovenia 34/00).
Contents: to ensure a maximum uptake of nutrients by plants and minimum loss; to
fertilize accordingly to the needs of individual crops; to respect water protection acts;
different suggestions regarding the use, storage etc. of manure and slurry; a yearly
fertilization plan according to the soil analysis (the later to be repeated every 5 years).
Plant protection. This chapter refers to the Principles of good agricultural practice in plant
protection (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, 2000).
Contents: optimisation of cultivation (time, hygiene, fertilisation, other technology etc); use of
resistant varieties; priority to non-chemical pest treatment; use of appropriate and registered
pesticide; consider previous experiences and forecasts of the plant protection services;
different measures to prevent occurrence of resistance in pests and to reduce the quantities
of pesticides used; need for training on the use of pesticides; use of faultless and regularly
checked spraying devices. The users must keep records on the use of pesticides.
The second chapter is titled "Principles of a good farmer": This chapter refers to the Law
on Agricultural Land (OJ RS 59/96) that requires from the owner, tenant or any other user
of agricultural land to farm the land as a good farmer, adjusting agricultural production to
the environmental and soil conditions and preventing erosion, pollution and ensuring a
durable fertility of the soil. The criteria for a good farmer are set in the Guidelines for
judging the appropriateness of the farmer's practice (OJ RS 29/86) that are the reference
for the contents of the principles
How is information A small booklet on good agricultural practice has been published by the Ministry of
available to farmers? Environment and Spatial Planning. The booklet is not available anymore.
Are there any special No
projects or
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Policy Mix
* Where 1 highly successful (high potential to reduce water pollution plus high compliance/uptake by farmers); 2
= moderately successful (moderate potential to reduce water pollution plus moderate compliance/uptake by
farmers); 3 = unsuccessful (low potential to reduce water pollution plus and/or compliance/uptake by farmers)
Practical
Pollution
Policy Instruments Potential to
Effectiveness in
On-farm Measures
Issue
Used
Reduce
Reducing Pollution
Reg Econ Adv Proj Pollution
(average score)*
CZECH REPUBLIC
·
nutrient and IPM
Nutrients,
High
2
·
manure storage
farm waste
·
organic farming
erosion
·
cleaning of pesticides dump
Manure/fertilizers storage and
application, arable to grassland
permits, permits for waste water
discharge,
Pesticides storage and use
Pesticides
High
2
Waste management plans
Waste
High
1
Action plan for NVZs
Nutrients,
High
3 (will be
waste
implemented)
Pesticides, fertilisers limits in
Pesticide
High
1
water/nature protected areas
nutrients
Organic farming
Pesticides
High
1
erosion,
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
37
Practical
Pollution
Policy Instruments Potential to
Effectiveness in
On-farm Measures
Issue
Used
Reduce
Reducing Pollution
Reg Econ Adv Proj Pollution
(average score)*
nutrients
HUNGARY
Manure and fertilisers storage and
Nutrients
High
2
application, limits in protected areas
Erosion prevention
Erosion
High
2
Pesticides use (rates, sound methods, Pesticides
High
1
storage), machinery approval, limits in
protected areas
Arable conversion to grassland
Erosion
High
2
nutrients
Organic farming
Nutrients,
High
1
pesticides
erosion
SLOVAKIA
Development limited, fertilisers/
Farm
High
2
pesticides application limits in water
waste,
and nature protected areas + buffer
pesticides
strips along these waters, not plough nutrients,
the grass, pasture, drainage and
erosion
irrigation limited,
Organic farming
Pesticides
High
2
fertilisers
Fertilisers/pesticides use, arable land Farm
High
3 (will be
to grassland, erosion prevention,
waste,
implemented)
wetland/grassland management
pesticides
nutrients
Action plan for NVZs
Nutrients
High
3
(to be implemented)
Storage and use of fertilisers and farm Nutrients,
High
2
waste
farm waste
Permits for waste water discharge
Waste
Moderate
2
Permits/limits on airplane application Nutrients
Moderate
2
of fertilisers in key water areas
Erosion prevention measures,
Erosion,
High
2
grassland renewal
nutrients
On vulnerable soils is regulated:
Pesticides
Moderate
3
fertilisers/pesticides use, waste
nutrients,
treatment, arable to grass
waste
Waste management planning required Farm
Moderate
2
waste
SLOVENIA
No pesticides/fertilisers in water
Pesticides
High
2
protection zones
Nutrients
Timing to nutrients
Nutrients
High
2
ICP Pesticides
Moderate
2
Nutrients
erosion
Organic farming
Pesticides
High
1
Nutrients
erosion
Reduction of animal density and
Farm
Moderate
2
waste use on land,
waste
Reduction of erosion in orchards
Erosion
Moderate
2
38
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Practical
Pollution
Policy Instruments Potential to
Effectiveness in
On-farm Measures
Issue
Used
Reduce
Reducing Pollution
Reg Econ Adv Proj Pollution
(average score)*
Crop rotation, green cover in water
Nutrients
Moderate
2
zones, conversion of arable to
pesticides
grassland
erosion
The following specific gaps in policy development and implementation were identified by the national
experts:
Czech Republic
· Policy mix is addressing agricultural pollution quite well but some particular issues are missing
(for example pesticides application compliance check is not covered well the institutional role is
weak).
· Current polices are more down stream oriented solving incidences and not focused enough to
prevention.
· Therefore information transfer (advisory, dissemination etc.) should be developed more.
Rewarding instruments are supported by low budget and administrators have not enough strength
to impose penalties to economically weak farmers.
· Following policy instruments should be more developed: financial support to help to observe new
regulations (manure storage facilities etc.), advisory and dissemination, campaigns etc.
Hungary
· Regulatory framework is regarded as sufficient in the country in addressing the issues in question
but it is felt clear lack in enforcement (control etc.).
· Supporting (economic) instruments and advisory/information transfer policy tools are not
addressing the issues sufficiently.
· Capacity building is needed to ensure more efficient compliance check. There should be
developed more ambitious financial support of investment and advisory, training and awareness
rising activities.
· Investment support to renew/newly build manure storage capacities is needed and targeted DRB
project is needed too. All above mentioned policy measures need demo and information
campaigns.
· There is lack of necessary information about links farming-water quality and other data needed for
good decision making.
· There should be started strong awareness rising campaign, training farmers about agri-
environmental measures combined with demonstration farms. Agricultural policy should well
reflect farm structures in country.
Slovakia
· Current legal framework for water protection is sufficient (in some cases even too ambitious). The
weakness is in implementation, compliance check and generally enforcement (lack of staff due to
low budget). Controlling bodies carry control only in case of warning/suspicion (not targeted to
prevention).
· Soil protection legislation is too vague with no targeted measures.
· The rest of policy instruments is not so well developed. GFP are not enforced enough and
economic (rewarding) and information based instruments are developed insufficiently.
· The general lack is regarded in coordination of policies on national level (Ministry of
Environment and Ministry of Agriculture) and integration of policies on river basin level.
· The whole policy is not balanced and more developed in regulator instruments than in case of the
other instruments like awareness rising, information campaigns, advisory and training, economic
instruments etc.
· Institutions are not operating effectively enough.
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
39
· The next important goal is to adopt and implement EU Water framework directive.
· Broader inclusion of all relevant stakeholders should be done.
Slovenia
· Policy mix is addressing pollution issues but is failing in implementation. There is not water
pollution prevention strategy and there is lack of priorities.
· There is lacking legislation dealing with misuse/overuse of pesticides and plant nutrients only
policy instrument dealing with this issue is agri-environmental measure initiating voluntary
reduction of fertilisers/pesticides use.
· One of the most important gaps in policies is lack of evaluation there are not records on
frequency of law violation and its consequences etc. Fines are quite rare and not preventing further
regulation breach.
· Training and education, awareness rising is generally lacking and should be developed.
· There should be designed national strategies to deal with the water pollution issues and legislation
regulating use of pesticides and nutrients. Especially support to build manure storage facilities
should be implemented.
40
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
41
EU Candidate Countries
Bulgaria Annex 3
Croatia Annex 4
Romania Annex 8
Strategies
No clearly defined national strategies for agricultural pollution control were reported in Bulgaria,
Croatia or Romania in other words, there was no evidence of the existence of single policy
framework clearing defining the goals for agricultural pollution control and the means of achieving
these the goals within a given timeframe (relevant measures, timing, priorities etc.).
There are several likely reasons for this:
· in Croatia it was noted that although there is a National Strategy for Environmental Protection,
including the control of water pollution, agricultural activities are not identified as an important
source of pollution
· there is relatively little experience of developing integrated pollution control strategies,
particularly where the issues are divided between policy-makers in agriculture and environment
with little tradition of communication or co-operation;
· during the rapid process of transition since the early 1990s policy-makers have understandably
tended to focus upon the development of specific policy instruments (often under pressure to meet
EU deadlines) with relatively little strategic thinking about the connections between different
policy objectives, instruments and measures.
Some progress has been made in Bulgaria and Croatia with the formulation of goals and strategies for
reducing pollution from agricultural point and non point sources. For example, while there are no
overall strategies for reducing pollution by nutrients and pesticides in Bulgaria, pollution problems
associated with farm wastes (manure and slurry) are addressed in the National Strategy for
Protection of the Environment: Action Plan (2000-2006) with the stated objectives to:
· train farmers in the use of more environmentally-friendly management practices in livestock
production
· provide financial assistance for the introduction of more environmentally-friendly production
technologies
In Croatia, pollution problems associated with farm wastes (manure and slurry) are also considered a
priority within the National Plan of Environment Activities (NN 46/2002) with the objectives of
improving control over mineral fertilizer consumption, support for ecological agriculture, stronger
control over harmful pesticide application and supporting construction of facilities for cleaning liquid
manure. Objectives for reducing pesticide use and introducing more integrated crop protection are
also included in the Strategy of Agriculture and Fisheries of the Republic of Croatia (NN
89/2002).
Regulatory Framework
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
BULGARIA
Water act
Nutrients
It is prohibited:
Pesticides
·
the storage of pesticides and waste on river
Farm wastes
banks and in coastal flooded areas
·
the construction of cattle-breeding farms on
river banks and in coastal flooded areas
·
the disposal of fertilisers and organic
42
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
manures (including any associated
"packages" e.g. fertiliser bags) directly into
surface waters or abandoned wells
·
the washing-out of "packages, special
uniforms and equipment" associated with
fertiliser application in any surface water
·
applying fertiliser in the sanitary protection
zone around water sources used for
drinking water
Act on protection of
It refers to all
There are no concrete forbidden farming
soil from
potential pollutants
practices or restrictions.
contamination
including the ones
from agricultural
origin
The act on protection
Nutrients
The usage of pesticides, mineral fertilizers and
of the agricultural
Pesticides
biologically active ingredients, that have not
land
Farm wastes
received toxicological registration from the
respected specialized commissions and
committees of the Ministry of agriculture and
forests, ministry of health and Ministry of waters
and environment is prohibited
Act on protection of
Nutrients Waters that contain dangerous and harmful
the agricultural lands
Pesticides
wastes or substances above the maximum
Farm wastes
permitted levels could not be used for irrigation
purposes
Ordinance
Nutrients
The good agricultural practice is voluntary
concerning the
Farm wastes
applied but the farmers are obliged no to:
protection of waters
·
fertilize in belt II of sanitary security area of
from nitrate pollution
water sources for water drink supply where
originating from
the contents of nitrates exceed 35 mg/l;
agricultural sources
·
stock organic and mineral fertilizers in the
lands adjacent to water sites or rivers or in
the lands of coastal flooded river strips;
·
deposit oddments of fertilizers and
packages in the superficial waters or
abandoned draw-wells;
·
wash in the rivers, dams and other
superficial water sites packages, special
clothing and equipment related to the
fertilization
The farmers are obliged to apply the validated
agricultural practices for the territories of
sanitary security areas around the water
sources and facilities for water drink supply and
around the water sources of mineral springs,
intended for curative, prophylactic, drinking and
hygienic purposes.
CROATIA
Law on environment
only
definition
of
- suggestions for tax and tariff privileges in case
protection (NN
emissions harmful
of using environmental friendly rpoduction
82/1994, 128/1999)
for the environment
procedures, production and distribution
practices (to be regulated by separate
legislation)
Law on water (NN
nutrients, pesticides
afforestation, growing protection vegetation,
107/1995)
soil erosion
marking, adequate use of agricultural land
utilization, drainage
Directive on
nutrients, pesticides
- prescribe harmful substances and their
dangerous
quantities harmful for water resources (indirectly
substances in water
connected to farming practice)
(NN 78/1998)
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
43
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
State Water
defining
limitation of building and producing on small
Protection Plan (NN
contamination and
waterstreams where waste water can endanger
8/2002)
pollution of water, all water quality
harmful stuffs
adopting new, better production technologies
included
Law on agricultural
soil erosion
land (NN 54/1994)
Regulation on
nutrients, pesticides
calcification materials, soil conditioners,
agricultural land
different organic and mineral products for
protection from
improving soil quality
harmful substances
pollution
(NN15/1992)
Law on ecological
nutrients, pesticides
- defining system of sustainable management in
agriculture (NN
agricultureand forestry, involving plant and
12/2001)
livestock growing, production of food, row
material and fibre
- additionally regulated by specific regulations
(NN 13/2002)
Law on state support
indirectly nutrients, - higher payments for ecological production
in agriculture, fishery
pesticides
practices
and forestry (NN
87/2002)
Law on plant
pesticides
protection (NN
10/1994)
ROMANIA
Water Law no.
Nutrients, pesticides Regulates risk of point source pollution,
107/1996,
including from agriculture. Within the law there
are different requirements concerning 4
categories of water quality from drinking water
(1st) to degraded water (4th)
Law no. 137
Use of pesticides
Includes section on section "Use of pesticides
For Environmental
and fertilisers
and fertilisers" which places obligations upon
Protection from
Protection of water
natural and legal persons who produce, trade
17/02/2000,
and aquatic
and/or use fertilisers and pesticides, including
republished
ecosystems
restrictions on:
·
aerial spraying of pesticides
·
spraying close to honeybees
·
types of insecticide to be used to avoid
harm to pollinating insects
In the section "Protection of water and aquatic
ecosystems" there are additional obligations
regarding:
·
the disposal of wastes and dangerous
substances, such pesticides, in or near to
rivers and other waters
·
the washing of equipment and containers in
natural waters, including those that have
contained pesticides
Ministry of Health
Drinking water and
STAS defines the admissible level of nitrites
and Family STAS
water used in
45mg/l into drinking water, which is lower than
no1342/1991
households
50mg\l allowed by European legislation.
regarding the quality
of drinking water
Government
a) decreasing of
The maximum admissible limit of nitrate
Decision No.
waters pollution
concentration into the waters shall be below 25
964/10.13. 2000 for
caused by nitrates
mg/l.
approval of Action
resulted from
For each animal farm the quantity of fertilisers
Plan regarding the
agricultural sources; of animal origin annually applied on the land,
44
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
water protection
b) prevention of
including manure shall not exceed the specific
against pollution with
nitrates pollution;
norm/hectare. The specific norm/hectare is
nitrates resulted from
c) optimising and
represented through the quantity of
agricultural sources
rationing of chemical administered fertiliser which contains 170 kg of
and organic
nitrate. Derogation can be made for the first 4
fertilisers which
years of implementation, when the specific
comprise
norm/hectare of 210kg is allowed.
compounds of
Limitation the number of fertilisers applied on
nitrate.
the land according to good farming practices,
taking into account the characteristic of
vulnerable areas, especially by:
·
land slope, characteristics and type of soil,
climatic conditions, irrigation systems etc.;
·
agricultural practices and land use
modalities, including the system of crop
rotation
This Government Decision sets out a general
framework of Good Agricultural Practices.
Government
Prevention of
This Government Decision sets out:
Decision no. 118/
pollution of surface
·
A list comprising selected substances
02.17.2002 regarding
and underground
based on more characteristics toxicity,
the approval of
waters against
persistency, bio-accumulation - except for
Action Plan for
dangerous
the substances which are both harmless
decreasing of
substances and
against aquatic biologic components or are
pollution into the
restriction of pollution
transformed into substances which become
aquatic environment
consequences over
harmless
and underground
the aquatic
·
Criteria for identification of polluted waters
waters, caused by
environment and
both with dangerous substances or liable to
removing of
humane health.
such pollution.
dangerous
·
A table with maximum limits of dangerous
substances
substances at evacuation on surface
waters;
Typical comments from national experts on the adequacy of pollution control regulations, including
reasons for poor implementation and/or enforcement, in the three EU candidate countries were as
follows:
· Regulations for pollution control are too general, sometimes over-ambitious, lacking detailed
definitions, are poorly co-ordinated with agricultural policy measures and not sufficiently focussed
upon agricultural pollution issues
· Many national regulations still need revising to make them relevant to the prevailing
circumstances (e.g. harmonization with EU legislation), but there is a lack of policy-making
experience
· Concerns remain that national policy-makers (and implementing authorities) do not sufficiently
recognise the importance of agriculture as a source of water pollution
· The role and responsibilities of different authorities, institutions and organisations regarding the
control of agricultural pollution are unclear
· There is a lack of communication and co-operation between the policy-makers and other relevant
authorities, institutions and organisations (including NGOs) this commonly includes poor co-
ordination between the responsibilities of the Ministries of Environment/Water and Agriculture.
This is an obstacle to the necessary decision-making for robust and integrated pollution control
policies
· Authorities responsible for the control, monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation
do not have sufficient administrative capacity (including adequately trained staff) at both national
and regional levels to adequately perform the checks and controls that are required to make the
regulations effective
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
45
Economic Instruments and Measures
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward?
Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
BULGARIA
Water act
Fine
Nutrients Fine, or respectively estate sanction is imposed
(2500 -
Pesticides
on natural or legal entity that pollutes the
7000
Farm wastes
coastal areas, that could be potentially flooded
EURO)
and violates the following restrictions:
1. storage of pesticides, fertilizers pesticides,
disposal and treatment of wastes
2. building of livestock farms;
3. construction of buildings
Act on protection of
Tax
and
Erosion
The land owners and land users have the right
agricultural lands
credit
to certain tax or credit preferences when the
preferences
apply:
1. the obligatory restriction for the usage of the
agricultural lands;
2.the recommendations for preservation of the
surface layer and its ecological functions;
3. antierosion agrotechnics;
4. systems for organic agriculture and
agriculture with reduced use of pesticides and
fertilizers;
5. projects for restoration and improvement of
the fertility of the agricultural lands
Act on protection of
Fine (60
Erosion
The fine is imposed when certain activity that
agricultural lands
- 1000
leads to damaging, pollution or land
EURO
degradation is performed
for first
violation;
120 to
2000
EURO
for
second)
Water protection act
Fine
Everyone who is responsible for dangerous soil
changes ( including pollution with pesticides,
manure and mineral fertilizers, as well as soil
degradation from water and wind erosion with
its anthropogenic aspects) is obliged to restore
by himself the normal quality and functions of
the soil to such extent that ii will not be
dangerous for the human race permanently.
SAPARD measure
Incentives
From the beginning of the next year the
Development of
(direct
farmers are entitled to certain incentives for
environmentally
payments)
performing environmentally friendly practices
friendly practices and
and in certain regions. One of the conditions of
activities
the measures is compliance with codes for
Good farming practice on the whole-territory of
their farms
CROATIA
Subsidies for
nutrients, pesticides all ecological y based systems of agricultural
ecological agriculture
production crop production, livestock
production, aquaculture
Water protection fee,
harmful
substances
n.a.
penalties for non-
over permited
observance the Law
marginal values
on water
Fines, charges and
nutrients
rarely enforced to small-size private farms,
penalties for farmers
mostly to the big (ex-state) farms
applying slurry and
liquid manure during
46
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward?
Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
winter and in
quantities other than
those prescribed by
the Regulation on
agricultural land
protection from
contamination with
harmful substances
ROMANIA
Fines and penalties
Nutrients a) Storage and using of pesticides, nutrients
Pesticides
or other toxic and dangerous substances
Farm wastes
within protected areas;
b) Storage of any types materials on river
beds or banks of water flows, water
channels, dams, lakes, ponds and see-wall
or in their protected areas;
c) Washing in water flows, lakes and their
beds of animals disinfected with toxic
substances by using of detergents and
packages which contains pesticides or
other dangerous substances;
d) Grazing within protected areas of water
flows;
Comments from the national experts on the adequacy of economic instruments used for pollution
control, including reasons for poor implementation, in the three EU candidate countries were as
follows:
· The role and responsibilities of different authorities, institutions and organisations regarding the
control of agricultural pollution are unclear
· Financial penalties imposed upon polluting farmers are claimed to be too low
· There is a lack of communication and co-operation between the policy-makers and other relevant
authorities, institutions and organisations (including NGOs) this commonly includes poor co-
ordination between the responsibilities of the Ministries of Environment/Water and Agriculture.
This is an obstacle to the necessary decision-making for robust and integrated pollution control
policies
· Authorities responsible for the control, monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation
do not have sufficient administrative capacity (including adequately trained staff) at both national
and regional (e.g. local environmental inspectorates) levels to adequately perform the checks and
controls that are required to effectively implement these policy instruments. There are a lack of
financial resources available to build capacity
· There are currently various incentive schemes under development (notably agri-environment
measures for co-financing with EU SAPARD funds), but the administrative capacity to implement
these is still limited at present. Many policy-makers are also likely to remain sceptical about their
value until they are "seen" to work
Advisory/Informative Instruments and Measures
Advisory/Information
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Yes/No
Pollution Issue
Discouraged
BULGARIA
Technical assistance by
Yes Nutrients,
farm Organic farming
independent advisory service
wastes, pesticides
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
47
Advisory/Information
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Yes/No
Pollution Issue
Discouraged
Technical assistance by State
Yes Nutrients,
farm Recommended levels of applications of fertilisers
advisory service
wastes, pesticides
and pesticides
Technical assistance by
No
providers of farm inputs
Education and awareness-raising Yes Nutrients,
farm Best practices approaches
campaigns
wastes pesticides
Demonstration farms
Yes
Nutrients, farm
Agri-environmental activities
wastes, pesticides
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes Nutrients,
farm Exchanges of experience between farmers, open
among the farmers
wastes, pesticides
days, etc...
Publications and other
Yes Nutrients,
farm
information materials
wastes, pesticides
Training Yes
Nutrients,
farm
wastes, pesticides
CROATIA
Technical assistance by
Partial
nutrients, pesticides Recommendation for some kind of "good
independent advisory service
agricultural practice" within the agricultural firms
Technical assistance by State
Yes nutrients,
pesticides,
Always available suggestions and
advisory service
erosion
recommendations of agricultural production
technologies
Technical assistance by
Yes nutrients,
providers of farm inputs
pesticides, erosion
Education and awareness-raising Yes
nutrients, pesticides Recommendation for ecological systems of
campaigns
agricultural production
Demonstration farms
No
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes nutrients,
pesticides,
among the farmers
soil erosion
Publications and other
? pesticides,
nutrients
information materials
Training ?
ROMANIA
Technical assistance by
No
independent advisory service
Technical assistance by State
Yes
farm wastes
The farmers who live in the mountain area
advisory service
benefit of training for farm management in which
are included courses for management of waste
management in animal farms
Technical assistance by
No
providers of farm inputs
Education and awareness-raising No
campaigns
Demonstration farms
No
Learning by sharing of ideas
No
among the farmers
Publications and other
No
information materials
Training No
Comments from national experts on the limitations and problems found with the implementation of
advisory/informative instruments and measures in the three candidate countries preparing for EU
accession were as follows:
· extension and farm advisory services are mainly orientated towards recommendations for
conventional practices only a very few activities are dedicated to the application of
environmentally friendly practices
48
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· there are not enough advisers to provide full and effective advice to all farmers. The resources
available for development of agricultural extension services are limited and most small-scale
farmers cannot afford to pay for advice or information.
· local NGOs are potentially important for the dissemination of information to farmers, but they
usually have no permanent staff, limited organization, lack of financial resources etc.
· training activities for farmers tend to be irregular and limited in geographical coverage they are
often associated with project-based activities undertaken by local NGOs in specific regions. There
are only a few relevant organizations working on a national level
· the availability of relevant advisers (e.g. for organic farming) varies from region-to-region so that
information and technical assistance on more environmentally-friendly farming methods is not
evenly distributed
· the qualifications and experience of agricultural advisers should be broadened and extended to
include greater knowledge about pollution problems.
· there are very few new or updated advisory materials/publications on environmental protection
being produced for farmers. When new materials are produced they are not printed in sufficient
quantities or promoted enough
· promotional campaigns targeted at farmers can be successful, but are not sufficiently funded
· extension services and advisers have poor co-operation with the Ministry of Environment and
associated environmental protection agencies, consequently they tend to have limited access to
relevant information on environmental protection
· there are no advisory or information instruments specifically focused on protecting water from
agriculture. Advisory institutions provide only general information on environmentally friendly
agriculture that sometimes include water pollution issues
Project-Based Instruments and Measures
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
BULGARIA
Bulgaria Wetlands Restoration
Total
Nutrients
Practices Encouraged
and Pollution Reduction Project
WRPRP
Farm wastes
(WRPRP)
budget
Manure management
"Farmer Transition Support
$13.28 mill
Improper storage of manure and organic
Fund" (FTSF)
of which
wastes is recognized in the two project areas
$400,000
as a major source of groundwater pollution.
equivalent
The farmers will receive support for
wil be made
construction of manure storage facilities.
available
They have to apply efficient manure
over 3 years
management; to optimize the number of the
period for
livestock units per ha and the surface of the
the FTSF
area on which the manure will be spread by
(starting in
limiting the amount of manure per ha; to
2004)
observe a special period of time for spreading
the manure on the field
Organic farming
Low inputs of fertilizers and pesticides during
the last decade provide good pre-conditions
for the development of organic agriculture in
the region.
Support will be provided for organic
production of fruits (orchards) and
vegetables, herbs and essential-oil crops.
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
49
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
PHARE Twinning code:
1 MEURO
Nitrates
The immediate objectives of the project are:
BG/2002/IB/AG/02
Farm wastes
Assistance in the finalization of the
Support to pre-accession
Good agricultural
harmonization of the Bulgarian legislation
strategy of Ministry of Agriculture
practices
with the EU legislation and EU practice,
and Forestry and Ministry of
according to the requirements of the Directive
Environment and Water in the
91/676/EEC (Nitrate Directive) in the field of
Field of Agri-environment
Good Agricultural Practice and assistance in
the implementation of the Code for Good
Agricultural Practice.
Assistance in the harmonization of the
Bulgarian legislation with the EU legislation
and EU practice according to the
requirements of the Regulations 1257/99 and
445/2002 (agri-environment and rural
development legislation).
Assistance in strengthening the agri-
economic capacity to establish area related
payment calculation methods regarding the
agri-environmental schemes.
Assistance in setting up a monitoring and
control system for Agri-environmental
measures, the Code for Good Agricultural
Practice and the Rural Development
Measures according to the EU requirements.
PHARE project BG 360006-
n.a. Nitrates
Harmonization of legislation
03/2001 Protection of waters
Good Agricultural
The results of the project are pilot codes for
against pollution caused by
practices
Good Agricultural Practice (developed on the
nitrates from agricultural sources
base of Plovdiv region, but disseminated
directive 91/676/EEC The
throughout the country)
results of the project (the pilot
codes for Good Agricultural
Practice for Plovdiv region) are
going to be incorporated in the
project
Black sea ecosystem recovery
n.a. Nutrients Control
of
nutrients discharges emerging
project (UNDP-GEF)
from agricultural sector is highlighted in the
following components of the project:
Objective 2. Regional actions for improving
land based activities and legislation to control
eutrophication and for tackling emergent
problems
Objective 4 Introduce new sectoral laws and
policies and a system of process, stress
reduction and environmental status indicators
for monitoring the effectiveness of measures
to control eutrophication (and harmful
substances)
Objective 6. Assist the public in
implementing activities to reduce
eutrophication through a programme of
grants for small projects and support to
regional NGOs
Partnership for preservation of
n.a. Nutrients Gathering
and
dissemination of "best farming
Black sea from eutrophication
practices" and best experience for protection
and introducing sustainable
and control of the eutrophication. Publishing
agricultural practices
a manual for the farmers with best
agricultural practices and measures for
protection of water basins. Analysing the
European legislation and the mechanisms for
support of the good farming practices
Organisation of seminars for promotion of the
concept of sustainable agriculture
50
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
CROATIA
Various applied research
Nutrients
projects on
Pesticides
integrated/sustainable
Soil erosion
agricultural practices by
universities and other institutes
Evaluation of the situation,
n.a.
Nutrients,
Including elements of sustainability in farming
sources and the level of
Faculty of
Farm waste
practice; improvements in farm waste
agricultural pressure on water
Agriculture
Pesticides
management (manipulation, capacities),
resources and sea in the
Croatian
Soil erosion
planning the volume of agricultural (livestock)
Republic of Croatia
Water
production in connection with the size of farm
(arable land); ensuring correct data keeping
on used pesticides at the local level and in
general, determing active subastances in
pesticides and locations for monitoring this
substances in water resources, ensuring
education of farmers regarding use of
pesticides
Policy of support for
n.a.
Nutrients
suggestions for the state adminisrative
environment protection in
Ministry of
measures toward environmental friendly
agriculture
Agriculture
farming system support
and
Forestry of
the Republic
of Croatia
Ecological agriculture and
n.a.
Nutrients,
demonstrations and experiments on selected
sustainable rural development in
Ecologica
Farm waste
farms
Croatia
(Croatian
Pesticides
popularization of ecological production
NGO) and
Soil erosion
systems
AVALON
informing and education
(Netherland)
ROMANIA
The "Agricultural Pollution
financed by
The overall project
·
Reducing the discharge of nutrients and
Control Project"
GEF (4,5
development
other agricultural pollutants and yield
million US$) objective is to
substantial benefits in terms of improved
and the
increase
quality of Romanian surface and ground
Government significantly the use
waters and the Black Sea through land
(450,000
of environment-
and water management of the Calarasi
US$)
friendly agricultural
region and ecological rehabilitation of
practices in the
two agricultural polders.
project area and
·
Activities in the Calarasi Judet
thereby reduce
(US$9.21m) Manure management
pollution from
Practices (US$5.27m). This sub-
agricultural sources
component will provide grants for the
in Romania to the
manure collection and application in the
Danube River and
seven communas. Grants on a cost
Black Sea.
sharing basis of about 70% of total cost
will be provided for the construction of
village level solid waste manure facilities
and small storage bunkers with effluent
collection facilities at the household
level, as well as supply of equipment for
manure handling and spearing.
·
Promotion of environment friendly
agricultural practices (US$2.48m). This
sub-component will promote the
adoption of better agricultural practices
that would improve agriculture
production while reducing nutrient
discharge pollution for agriculture. The
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
51
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
proposal activities would include: I) the
promotion of environmental y friendly
agricultural practices; and ii)
demonstration program of integrate crop
and nutrient management, including crop
rotation and efficient application of
organic and inorganic fertiliser based on
soil tests using soil testing kits provided
by the project. This component will
consider adapting the Code of Best
Agricultural Practices used by EU
countries according to the EC Council
Directive regarding water protection
against pollution with nutrients originated
from agriculture - 91/676/CEE (Nitrates
Directive). Promotion of regional co-
operation and replication
activities.
The project for promotion of
Nutrients,
farm
Sustainable development of Peris Commune,
Environment Strategic Analyse -
wastes, soil erosion in the context of rehabilitation the pigs
Bilateral project between
breeding farm with more than 60,000 heads;
Romania and Nederland
·
Observing of production technologies
form the pigs breeding farm;
·
Adequate applying of disinfection and
rodent control methods for farm;
·
Observing the feeding recipes of pigs
taking into account age, breed and
categories (in order to prevent the
appearance of mineral imbalances) with
impact over the feed assimilation and
characteristics of waste products waste
water and mud;
·
Proportioning the pig number as against
wastewater treatment capacity and land
surfaces capacity on which the residual
products are applied.
Project activities in the EU candidate countries are a combination of:
· traditional investment-type projects with large budgets and a range of project activities commonly
integrating some policy support with indirect investment into farms to prevent water pollution.
Some of these large projects are operating on a catchment level and are targeted into spreading the
experiences to the rest of the country;
· technical assistance for capacity building for the development and implementation of policies
relating to agricultural pollution control
· small budget research and development projects with some link to policy-making
Promotion of Best Agricultural Practice
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
BULGARIA
Under
Yes
development
Description -
52
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
How is information It is expected that the Code of Good agricultural practices will be developed and
available to farmers? published in a booklet till the end of 2004
Are there any special No
projects or
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
CROATIA
No -
-
-
-
-
Description -
How is information -
available to farmers?
Are there any special -
projects or
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
ROMANIA
Yes Yes
Description Advice is offered to farmers on good practice regarding:
·
Fertilization rates e.g. adapting fertiliser rates to suit the type of crop and soil
·
Precautions for avoiding the risk of water pollution when using mineral fertilisers e.g.
when soil is waterlogged or frozen
·
Fertilisation with manure and other waste resulting from poultry and animal
husbandry
·
Soil erosion control e.g. depth, direction and time of poughing
·
Good agricultural practices for optimising the use of fertilisers and manures
How is information The Code of Good Agricultural Practice is under preparation through a World Bank
available to farmers? project. Its completion is foreseen to be in the third quarter of 2003
Are there any special This project shall promote public awareness and mechanisms for replicability. The project
projects or envisaged as a demonstration activity in Calarasi County in the southern part of Romania,
programmes for along the lower Danube, may provide replicable lessons for introduction of similar
promoting GAP/BAP? practices in other districts of Romania as well as other Black Sea Riparian Countries
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
53
Policy Mix
* Where 1 highly successful (high potential to reduce water pollution plus high compliance/uptake by farmers); 2
= moderately successful (moderate potential to reduce water pollution plus moderate compliance/uptake by
farmers); 3 = unsuccessful (low potential to reduce water pollution plus and/or compliance/uptake by farmers)
Pollution
Policy Instruments Potential to
Effectiveness in
Practical
Issue
Used
Reduce
Reducing Pollution
On-farm Measures
Reg Econ Adv Proj Pollution
(average score)*
BULGARIA
Waste and pesticides storages and
Nutrients,
High
2
cattle close to waters,
farm waste,
Direct pollution of waters (disposal,
pesticides
wahing),
Inputs in protection zones,
organic farming.
GFP,
Nutrients,
High
3 (Not implemented
AEM in SAPARD.
farm waste,
yet)
pesticides
erosion
CROATIA
Liquid manure management.
Farm
High
3
waste
No pesticides along rivers.
Pesticides
Moderate
2
No development and farming in the
Nutrients,
High
1
most sensitive areas.
farm waste,
pesticides
ROMANIA
Storage materials risky for water in
Pesticides
High
2
water proximity
farm waste,
Grazing in water proximity, destroying erosion
Moderate
2
of green belt along waters
The following specific gaps in policy development and implementation were identified by the national
experts:
Bulgaria
· Regulatory framework is regarded as sufficient but administration is not sufficient and fines are
not adequate (some too low and other too high).
· It is similar with other instruments in case of implementation but these are not in addition
sufficiently designed to address the pollution issues.
· Codes of Good Farming Practices, Good Farming Practices, economic instruments (especially
those rewarding farmers) and training are lacking and should be developed to assure efficiency of
policies regarding water pollution.
Croatia
· It is believed small-scale farming operating on sustainable basis is not harmful to water quality in
this country therefore general awareness increase should be supported.
· Even there is large amount of legislation adopted, policies are too general and lacking specific
legislation targeting particular issues in farming related to water pollution. Regulatory instruments
should be better controlled.
· Whole system of water protection is lacking sufficient data supporting effectiveness of all policy
instruments and decision-making.
· Policies should start with education at different levels (from administration to farmers).
54
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· Ministries of Environment and Agriculture should extent cooperation to avoid lack of
coordination.
· There is general lack of rewarding measures.
Romania
· General lack is in implementation capacities (inspections, enforcement etc.) and low experiences
in management, economic instruments and thus the water pollution issues are not addressed well.
· Reasons for low level of implementation is understaffing as a results of budgetary restrictions.
· On national level there is lack of coordination between Ministry of Environment and Agriculture
· Low enforcement is represented by low fines, which are not motivating for behaviour change.
· There is lack of necessary information about links farming-water quality and other data needed for
good decision making.
· There should be started strong awareness rising campaign, training farmers about agri-
environmental measures combined with demonstration farms. Agricultural policy should well
reflect farm structures in country.
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
55
Other DRB Countries
Bosnia & Herzegovina Annex 2
Moldova Annex 7
Serbia & Montenegro Annex 9
Ukraine Annex 12
Strategies
No clearly defined national strategies for agricultural pollution control were reported by the national
experts in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova, Serbia & Montenegro or Ukraine. Although some
national policy objectives for specific agricultural pollution issues were identified in both Moldova
and Serbia & Montenegro notably regarding farm wastes, pesticides and soil erosion.
This appears to be largely related to the fact that agriculture is not recognized as an important source
of water pollution (especially diffuse pollution from farmland) in these countries and there is no
pressure upon policy-makers to develop a strategic approach for pollution control.
Regulatory Framework
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Water Law
Point
Source Agricultural pollution is addressed in very
pollution; Soil
general way
Erosion
Water Protection Law
Restriction on the
According to the new Water Protection Law,
use of fertilizers and responsible bodies may limit, regulate or even
agents for plant
prohibit the use of artificial fertilizers, natural
protection
manure and agents for plant protection. The
responsible Minister shall establish a code of
good agricultural practice in order to reduce
water pollution by nitrates and pesticides. The
implementation of good agricultural practice will
be obligatory in vulnerable zones.
Detailed requirements and restrictions that
farmers are required to comply with are not yet
established. When the new law enters into force
it is expected that the relevant authorities shall
adopt sub-laws with the requirements and
restrictions for the farmers to comply with.
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Republic of Srpska
Water protection
Nutrients,
Prohibition of discharges farm wastes into
law
Slurry & farm
underground water, lakes, fish pond and
Official Bulletin SG
wastes, Pesticides
irrigation systems
of RS No. 53/2002,
Soil erosion
Prohibition of pesticides and fertilisers
§ 1, § 24, § 25, § 28,
application in specified areas
§ 29
Prohibition of storage and transport of
pesticides and fertilisers in specified areas
Prohibition on the building Farm and
Enterprises in areas where manure and slurry
are a pollution risk
Law about
Erosion
Measures for erosion reducing
Agricultural Land,
Mineral Fertilisers
Getting soil for production organic farming,
Official Bulletin -
Manure
Level of erosion
56
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
SG of RS, No.
Pesticides
Prohibitions of discharges of harmful
13/1997
substances in soil
§ 8, § 10, § 25, § 26,
Recommendation of mineral fertilisers and
§ 27, § 46
manure norm due to arable farming and fruit
growing
Regular control of water quality
Environment
Erosion
Restriction on the method, limit of manure
protection law,
Harmful substances
application Mineral Fertilisers and pesticides
Official Bulletin SG
Mineral Fertilisers
Prohibition of discharges waste water and
of RS No. 53/2002,
Pesticides
sewerage systems without refining
§ 13, § 14
Waste water
Waste management
Animal
waste
Preventive measures, environment risks reduce
law Official Bulletin
Liquid waste
SG of RS No.
53/2002,
§ 6
MOLDOVA
Law on
Nutrients,
farm
The prohibition of all fertilizers, pesticides and
Environmental
wastes, pesticides
manure storage and use in water protection
Protection (1993)
zones; the prohibition of pesticides use in period
of crops bloom
Water Code (1993)
Nutrients,
farm
The prohibition of water pollution with fertilizers,
wastes, pesticides
pesticides, farm wastes
Law on Drinking
Nutrients,
farm
For protection Zone 1: the prohibi-tion of
Water (1999)
wastes, pesticides
fertilizers, manure, pesticides storage and use
within 50 m of shallow wells and 30 m of deep
wells
The general
Nutrients
The prohibition of fertilizers storage within 50 m
requirements on
of water sources; the prohibition of fertilizers
water protection from
and its packages storage in uncovered places;
fertilizers pollution.
the limits of nitrogen fertilizers application in
State Standard
autumn
17.1.3.11-84
Law on Protection
Nutrients, farm
The prohibition of fertilizers, pesti- cides and
Areas and Forested
wastes, pesticides
manure storage and application within 300 m of
Strips for Rivers and
a river or lake; the prohibition of animals
Reservoirs (1995)
pasturing in water protection zones
Law on Plant
Pesticides
The prohibition of pesticides using which did not
Protection (1999)
pass the test and are not recorded in Moldova
List of chemical and
Pesticides
There are indicated: the norm of consumption;
biologic preparations
the mode, period and limits of using; the period
permitted for use in
of last treatment until the harvest; the maximum
agriculture (1997)
number of treatment
Law on Regime of
Nutrients, pesticides The general requirements concerning the
Harmful
produce, storage, use of harmful substances
Products and
(pesticides, fertilizers)
Substances (1997)
On Measures for
Pesticides
The concentration of pesticides wastes in 3-4
Centralizing Storage
typical storehouses in every judets
& Disposal of
Obsolete Unused
and Prohibited
Pesticides (2001)
Law on Wastes of
Farm wastes
The prohibition of waste disposal into waters
Produc-tion and
and water protection and sanitary zones
Consumption (1997)
Law on Payment for
Farm wastes
The law has introduced payments for pollutants
Environmental
discharge into water bodies and also for farm
Pollution (1998)
wastes disposal sites
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
57
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Law on
Water protection
Art. 23. Prohibition to release polluted waters in
Environmental
Soil Protection
surface and ground waters if contain harmful
Protection of R. of
and hazardous substances.
Serbia
Art. 28 Prohibition of unregulated use mineral
(Official Gazette
and organic fertilisers, and plant protection
no.49/92)
substances...
Law on Water (Off.
Water protection
Art. 56 Stipulates prohibition of release and
Gazette no 46/91)
intake of harmful and hazardous substances in
surface and ground waters and sewerage
system if it will result in pollution.
Law on Agricultural
Soil & water pollution Art. 14 prohibits release and storing of
Land
hazardous and harmful substances at the
(Off. G. 49/1992, with
agricultural land and irrigation channels in
later
quantities that could damage and change
amendments)
production quality of the agricultural land and
Chapter II Protection
water for irrigation purposes.
of agricultural land
Art. 16. To protect and maintain chemical and
biological characteristics of the agricultural land
and securing appropriate use of organic and
mineral fertilisers owner and user of the land
should implement systematic control of the
fertility of the soil , and producers and importers
of mineral fertilizers have to comply with
regulations of its quality.
Rule on kind and
Nutrients
Art. 5. Fertilising and protection of the crops and
content of measures
Pesticides
agricultural land - defines that, measures to
which owner of
fertilise and protect agricultural land means use
agricultural land
of organic and mineral fertilisers and protection
should apply (Off. G.
from weeds, diseases and pests.
no.33, May 1993)
The Law on Plant
Pesticides
This law regulates protection of the plants of
Protection (Off. G. of
harmful organisms, plant health control in
FRY no. 24 from 15
internal and
May 1998)
external traffic and traffic of the plant protection
substances and plant nutrition substances.
Law establishes a set of measures and
regulations to protect plant protection. It has
very close relation with control of the pollution of
the agricultural land with pesticides and
fertilisers.
UKRAINE
State Committee on
Pol ution
by
al
Compliance with requirements of environmental
Water Industry of
substances
protection legislation regarding water resources
Ukraine. "On
Approval of
Regulation On
Execution of Control
by State Committee
on Water Industry of
Ukraine bodies over
Economic Use,
Protection and
Replenishment of
Water Resources"
KMU Directive "On
Pol ution
by
al
Compliance with requirements of environmental
Procedures
substances
protection legislation regarding water resources
Regulating Water
Resources State
Monitoring"
58
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regulatory
General
Specific Pollution
Farming Practices Required/Restricted by
Instrument
Reg.?
Reg.?
Issue
Regulatory Instruments
KMU Directive "On
Pesticides Use of Pesticides and Agrichemicals in
State Inspection and
Nutrients
accordance with the current legislation
State Control over
requirements
Execution of
legislation on
Pesticides and
Agrochemicals"
Typical comments from national experts on the adequacy of pollution control regulations, including
reasons for poor implementation and/or enforcement, in the other DRB countries were as follows:
· Inadequate monitoring agricultural pollution means that agriculture is not recognized as an
important source of water pollution
· The development of appropriate laws for the control of agricultural pollution is very slow due to
the lack of policy-making experience, adequately trained officials and financial resources
· Inadequate institutional framework and capacity necessary for the implementation of relevant
legislation
· General pollution control legislation often imposes restrictions upon farmers, but there are no
implementing regulations or sub-laws to elaborate and implement the legislation in detail,
including no provision for penalties
· Where legislation does exist, agricultural pollution issues are not considered a serious enough
problem by the implementing authorities to be concerned with. Co-ordination between
implementing authorities and policy-makers can be poor
· Implementing authorities lack the financial resources to target farmers for checking compliance
with legislation. Some are also poorly organised and managed, and lack the technical knowledge,
particularly regarding agricultural pollution
· Farmers do not believe they cause any decline in water quality decline. They are poorly informed
about regulations where they exist and not deterred by poorly enforced penalties and sanctions
(often they cannot pay them)
· There are no effective sanctions available to use against the large agricultural enterprises causing
pollution
Economic Instruments and Measures
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward? Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Water protection
General
water
The water protection charge is not specifical y
charge
pollution
focused to any farming practice. Buyers of
fertilizers and chemical agents for plant
protection are charged per unit of fertilizer and
chemical agent sold: they are therefore
encouraged to reduce the amount of these
chemicals bought and used.
Penalties
General
water
Penalties are not specifical y focused to any
pollution
farming practice
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Republic of Srpska
Law about Agricultural
Harmful substances Prohibition and punish discharges of manure
Land SGRS 13/9
Fertilisers
and harmful waste in water and irrigation
systems
Punishment regulation
Prohibition of use fertilisers that does not suit the
Prohibition of use
standards
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
59
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward? Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
Environment
Measures for strengthen of conscience of
protection law Official
Dangerous and
farmers.
Bulletin SG of RS
harmful substances
Directing on right storaging of waste and slurry.
No. 53/2002,
Payments for
damages
Responsibility
Water protection law,
Waste
water Prohibition of application fertilizers and pesticides
Official Bulletin SG
Fertilisers and
on waterside
of RS No. 53/2002,
pesticides
Prohibition of discharges farm waste
Punishment regulation
MOLDOVA
The payments for the
Farm wastes
Storage of farm wastes in permitted places and
waste-water pollu-
in limits of established specifications
tants discharge into
water bodies and
waste disposal sites
The fines for soil
Farm
wastes,
The prohibition of soil pollution with pesticides
pollution with pesti-
pesticides, soil
and farm wastes, annihilation of fertile layer of
cides and farm wastes
erosion
soil
and causing of soil
erosion
The fines for non-
Pesticides
The prohibition of infringement of the standards
observance of the
on evidence, storage and use of pesticides,
requirements on
application of pesticides in sanitary and water
evidence, storage and
protection zones
use of pesticides
The fines for infrin-
Nutrients,
farm
The prohibition of water pollution with nutrients,
gement of the water
wastes, pesticides,
farm wastes, pesticides and provocation of soil
protection rules
soil erosion
erosion by the water
The fiscal facilities for
Nutrients, farm
The application of nutrient, manure and
the reduction of water
wastes, pesticides
integrated pest management
pollution
SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Law on plant
Pesticides
protection (Off. G. FRZ
no.24 1998)
Rules on pesticides
Pesticides,
fertilisers
Pesticides and fertilisers packing storing and
and fertiliser packing
disposal (protection of the soil and water)
and disposal (Off. G.
FRZ no. 59, 2001)
Ordinance on banned
Pesticides
Legal instrument to harmonize our standards
and restricted use of
with international.
plant protection
products
Law on the Fund for
Nutrients, pesticides, Financially support to farmers, under favourable
stimulation of
fertilisers,
conditions, to introduce new agricultural
development of
erosion
technologies, switch to organic farming and
agricultural regions
similar.
(Off. G. FRY no. 21
2001)
Law on Environmental
Fertilizers, Establish criteria for monitoring and planning
protection (Off. G. RS
pesticides,
documents for its realization.
no.66 from 1992
Hazardous waste,
Chapter IV- Protection
solid and liquid
of soil art. 26 -31)
waste
60
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Economic
Pollution
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Punish? Reward? Issue
Discouraged by Economic Instrument
UKRAINE
KMU Directive "On
Pol ution
by
al
Penalties for non-compliance with requirements
Approval of
substances
of environmental protection legislation regarding
Environmental
water resources
Pollution Fees
Elaboration
Procedures and
Payment of such
Fees"
Law of Ukraine"
Pol ution
by
al
Application of the "polluter-pays" principle in
Ratification of
substances
compliance with additional regulations elaborated
Convention on
in order to guarantee execution of the
Cooperation on
Convention requirements
Protection and Proper
Usage of Danube
River"
Typical comments from national experts on the problems with implementation of economic
instruments for agricultural pollution control, in the other DRB countries were as follows:
· New legislation and economic instruments relating to agricultural pollution control are only
slowly being adopted
· Lack of financial resources for the development of incentive schemes. Where incentives are
offered they are too low to encourage uptake by farmers
· Lack of legal power to collect fees and levies - avoidance of usage fee payments and fines for
violation of water protection regulations is common
· Lack of policy-making experience in the development of appropriate mechanisms for the control
and monitoring of the agricultural pollution
· Inadequate institutional framework and capacity necessary for the implementation of relevant
legislation
· Poor organization and management of implementing authorities can be a problem
· Lack of administrative capacity amongst implementing authorities - either for enforcing penalty
system (e.g. by making more comprehensive and regular inspections) or for running an incentive
scheme. No resources available to develop this administrative capacity
· Poor co-ordination between policy-makers (including between Ministries) and implementing
authorities with no single agency responsible for protection of water resources
· Poor communication with farmers
Advisory/Informative Instruments and Measures
Advisory/Information
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Yes/No
Pollution Issue
Discouraged
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
None
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Republic of Srpska
Technical assistance by
Yes Nutrient
Regular application of fertilisers, pesticides,
independent advisory service
Farm waste
periods and time of treatment, selection of
pesticides
preparations and fertilisers.
Technical assistance by State
Yes Nutrient
Regular application of fertilisers, pesticides,
advisory service
Farm waste
periods and time of treatment, selection of
Pesticides
preparations and fertilisers.
fertilisers
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
61
Advisory/Information
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Yes/No
Pollution Issue
Discouraged
Technical assistance by
Yes Fertilisers
Farmers education by booklets and information
providers of farm inputs
Farm waste
leaflet for regular application fertilisers and
pesticides
Education and awareness-raising Yes Nutrient
Techniques of application pesticides and
campaigns
Farm waste
fertilisers
Pesticides
fertilisers
Demonstration farms
Yes
Nutrient
Demonstration of techniques application
Farm waste
pesticides on experimental field
Pesticides
fertilisers
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes Nutrient
Application fertilisers and preparations on
among the farmers
Farm waste
experience
pesticides
Publications and other
Yes
pesticides
Regular application, permitted doses
information materials
Training
Yes
pesticides
Regular application of pesticides
MOLDOVA
Technical assistance by
Yes
Nutrients, farm
Promotion of environmental y-friendly agricultural
independent advisory service
wastes, pesticides,
practices: crop rotation, anti-erosion tillage,
soil erosion
nutrient and manure management, integrated
pest management
Technical assistance by State
No
advisory service
Technical assistance by
Yes
Nutrients, pesticides Promotion of nutrient and integrated pest
providers of farm inputs
management
Education and awareness-raising Yes
Nutrients, farm
Promotion of nutrient and integrated pest
campaigns
wastes, pesticides,
management, manure storage, crop rotation,
soil erosion
organic farming
Demonstration farms
Yes
Nutrients,
Promotion of nutrient and integrated pest
pesticides, soil
management, crop rotation, strip cropping
erosion
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes
Nutrients,
Promotion of nutrient and integrated pest
among the farmers
pesticides, soil
management, crop rotation
erosion
Publications and other
Yes
Nutrients, farm
Promotion of nutrient and integrated pest
information materials
wastes, pesticides,
management, crop rotation, manure storage
soil erosion
Training
Yes
Nutrients, farm
Promotion of nutrient and integrated pest
wastes, pesticides,
management, manure storage, crop rotation, strip
soil erosion
cropping
SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Technical assistance by
Yes
Nutrients, pesticides Consultations concerning improvement of soil
independent advisory service
conditions and appropriate use of fertilisers
Technical assistance by State
Yes Nutrients,
farm
Appropriate timing and type of fertilisers to be
advisory service
wastes, pesticides , used, erosion prevention, storage and use of
soil erosion
manure, nutrients
Technical assistance by
Yes Fertilisers,
Appropriate use of the products, particularly of
providers of farm inputs
pesticides
the pesticides
Education and awareness-raising
Yes Pesticides,
Campaigns for introduction of new agro technical
campaigns
fertilisers, farm
measures in agricultural production, campaigns in
wastes
favour of organic agriculture, advisory services
concerning appropriate use of pesticides,
appropriate use of fertilisers, measures to
improve soil quality and other
Demonstration farms
Yes
Biological re-
All aspects in connection with of organization of
cultivation 30 ha;
agricultural production, including pollution control.
Transformation of
non-arable to arable
62
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Advisory/Information
Farming Practices Encouraged/
Instrument
Yes/No
Pollution Issue
Discouraged
land 125 ha;
Preparation of plans
and projects for
protection, use and
organization of
agricultural land
30.000 ha
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes Fertilisers,
Very common for this region due to fact that
among the farmers
pesticides,
private farming has long tradition. More focused
on production than on environmental issues per
se.
Publications and other
Yes Fertilisers,
These information materials covering all aspects
information materials
pesticides, soil
of agricultural production, but much less
erosion, nutrients
concerning environmental consequences, like
water pollution
Training Yes
Fertilisers,
Application rates, nutrients, organic farming
pesticides, farm
waste
UKRAINE
Technical assistance by
No
independent advisory service
Technical assistance by State
No
advisory service
Technical assistance by
No
providers of farm inputs
Education and awareness-raising
No
campaigns
Demonstration farms
Yes
Fertilisers,
Use of up-to-date technologies
pesticides, farm
More efficient agricultural production due to the
waste
use of more efficient means and technologies
Learning by sharing of ideas
Yes Fertilisers,
Use of up-to-date technologies
among the farmers
pesticides, farm
More efficient agricultural production due to the
waste
use of more efficient means and technologies
Publications and other
Yes Fertilisers,
Improvement of understanding of environmental
information materials
pesticides, farm
issues by farmers
waste
Training No
Comments from national experts on the limitations and problems found with the implementation of
advisory/informative instruments and measures in the other DRB countries were as follows:
· There is relatively little information available on agricultural water pollution and it is not accepted
as an important issue. Most awareness is about serious point source pollution there is little
awareness of diffuse pollution from agricultural land
· Most agricultural extension and advisory work focuses on production issues pollution control is
a secondary issue and there is very little interest in or understanding of environmental issues
· There is relatively little technical information available for farmers explaining how to avoid water
pollution when using fertilisers, pesticides and manures
· Advisers and staff of extension services are not interested or adequately trained in more
environmentally-friendly farming methods. Extension services do not have the experience or
resources to train staff particularly at a regional and local level where staff are working most
directly with farmers
· Economic instability in agricultural sector reduces the efficiency of technical assistance of the
advisory services
· There are financial resources available for making publications and other information materials
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
63
· There is poor co-operation between scientific institutes, NGOs, ministries etc. in the
communication of information about agriculture and water pollution
· The division of land into small, fragmented plots is an obstacle for the implementation of "good
agricultural practice" and is difficult for advisers to assist
· Most information campaigns are organized by NGOs or other organizations of civil society,
usually as result of some specific environmental problems or incidents. Agricultural pollution is
not such an obvious problems for NGOs to take interest
· Even with good advice, small farmers are less inclined to invest in more environmentally-friendly
farming practices
Project-Based Instruments and Measures
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Strengthening of Diffuse Source
400,000
Nutrients (nitrogen,
The output of the project is a handbook on
Pollution Control in FB&H
Euro
phosphorus)
best management practices to reduce diffuse
The
pollution. Sections of the handbook are
project is
dedicated to the agricultural practices.
funded by
There is a strong dissemination component in
LIFE-Third
the project, aimed to promote best
Countries
management practices to reduce diffuse
and HEIS
pollution on a voluntarily basis.
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA: Republic of Srpska
Researching of heavy metals,
5,000 Euro Pesticides
Increase or reduce pesticides quantity in
pesticides presence and
dependence on their presence in soil
radioactivity in "Lijevce field",eco-
system, Ministry of Science and
Technology of RS
MOLDOVA
First Agricultural Project
11.8 mill
Pesticides
One of the scopes of this Project was the
USD
implementation of integrated pest
management
Containment actions and
0.10 mill
Pesticides
Development of a remediation plan for
remediation plan for an
EURO
pesticide dump
agricultural pesticide dump near
Vulcanesti
Prut River Tributaries:
1.30 mill
Nutrients, soil
Promotion of nutrient management, crop
Environmental Review,
EURO
erosion, farm
rotation, conservation tillage, manure storage,
Protection Strategy and Options
wastes
organic farming
Agricultural Pollution Control
5.00 mill
Nutrients, farm
Promotion of nutrient and manure
Project (APCP)
USD
wastes, soil erosion
management, conservation tillage, crop
rotation, strip cropping, buffer strips, grassed
waterways, pastures management, organic
farming
SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Multi year macro project financed In 2002,
Nutrients and
It is anticipated that some aspects of Best
by Ministry of Agriculture and
approx.
pesticides
Agricultural Practice for Serbia will be
Water Resources " Fertility
90 000
developed by this project.
control and determination of
Euro
contamination with harmful and
hazardous substances of Serbian
soils" ( 400 samples at 400.000
ha) . In 2002 there was IV phase
of the project realization.
64
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Project
Pollution
Farming Practices
Project
Budget
Issue
Encouraged/Discouraged by the Project
Activities
Ministry of Science, Technologies Not
& Development, in cooperation
announced
with Ministry of Agriculture and
yet
Water Resources and Ministry for
Protection of Natural Resources
& Environment will finance as
one of the National programmes
following one: Organization,
Protection and Use of the waters
in Serbia.
UKRAINE
None
Project activities in the other central and lower DRB countries are predominantly traditional
investment-type projects with relatively large budgets and a range of project activities commonly
integrating some policy support with local/regional investment to prevent water pollution. Some of
these large projects are operating on a catchment level and are targeted into spreading the experiences
to the rest of the country
Promotion of Best Agricultural Practice
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
BOSNIA &
The concept only
Yes
-
HERZEGOVINA
exists in
Federation B&H.
But no Legal
framework to
enforce the
concept is in force
yet. Best
agricultural
practices are
applied voluntarily
by the farmers,
although very
occasionally.
Description
How is information There is no code of good agricultural practice issued by authorities yet. Within the
available to farmers? framework of the project entitled "Strengthening of Diffuse Source Pollution Control in
FB&H" a handbook on best management practices to reduce diffuse pollution has been
printed.
Are there any special The project entitled "Strengthening of Diffuse Source Pollution Control in FB&H", financed
projects or by the LIFE-Third Countries program of the EC.
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
65
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
MOLDOVA
The concept of
Farmers apply
"good agricultural
few procedures
practice" exists in
which reduce the
Moldova, but is
risk of water
not implemented
pollution
Description The practical measures on implementation of "good agricultural practice" in Moldova are
developed in following Programmes and Project:
·
the National Complex Programme concerning the increase of soil fertility for 2001-
2020 period envisages the elaboration of the Law on soil conservation and the
implementation of agrotechnic and ameliotative procedures to combat soil erosion;
·
one of the scopes of the National Programme on Production and Municipal Wastes
Management for 2000-2010 period is to implement activities regarding farm waste,
phytotechnic waste and mud management;
·
Agricultural Pollution Control Project aims at implementing in Moldova the EU Nitrates
Directive, at implementing the Organic Farming System and at elaborating the Code of
Good Agricultural Practices, in accordance with the peculiarity of agricultural
management in Moldova.
How is information The booklet "The methods of soil protection. Your Guide for 30 ecological methods in
available to farmers? farmer activity", elaborated by USDA, was translated from English into Romanian in 1998
Are there any special Agricultural Pollution Control Project (APCP)
projects or
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
SERBIA &
Yes Yes
-
MONTENEGRO
Description -
How is information There is no such publication on "good" or "best agricultural practice". There are
available to farmers? publications on organic farming and a set of legal regulations on organic farming
Are there any special Only those programmes and projects that had been mentionedabove
projects or
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
Specifically includes water pollution by:
Concept of
Includes
Crop
Animal
Soil
GAP/BAP
Reducing Water
Nutrients
Wastes?
Pesticides
Erosion
Exists?
Pollution?
?
?
UKRAINE
No -
-
-
-
-
Description -
How is information -
available to farmers?
Are there any special -
projects or
programmes for
promoting GAP/BAP?
66
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Policy Mix
* Where 1 highly successful (high potential to reduce water pollution plus high compliance/uptake by farmers); 2
= moderately successful (moderate potential to reduce water pollution plus moderate compliance/uptake by
farmers); 3 = unsuccessful (low potential to reduce water pollution plus and/or compliance/uptake by farmers)
Practical
Pollution
Policy Instruments Potential to
Effectiveness in
On-farm Measures
Issue
Used
Reduce
Reducing Pollution
Reg Econ Adv Proj Pollution
(average score)*
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA
None of the practices have been
- -
-
-
-
-
promoted on field level
MOLDOVA
Limits in use of fertilisers, IPM (limits Pesticides
High
2
in use of pesticides)
nutrients
Manure storage, strip cropping,
Farm
High
3
conservation tillage
waste,
erosion
Crop rotation
Nutrients,
High
2
pesticides
erosion
SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Manure storage
Nutrients
High
2
Fertilisers storage
Nutrients
Medium
1
Pesticides use
Pesticides
High
1
Erosion prevention
Erosion
High
2
Organic farming
Nutrients,
High
2
pesticides
erosion
Conversion of non-arable to arable,
Erosion
Medium
2
erosion prevention
UKRAINE
Nutrients and animal waste
Nutrients
High
1
management
Green cover, strip cropping, terraces, Soil
Low
3
sensitive grazing, conservation tillage, erosion
crop protection systems
Fertilisers/pesticides management.
Nutrients,
High
2
pesticides
The following specific gaps in policy development and implementation were identified by the national
experts:
Bosnia and Herzegovina
· Some key legislation is not still in force and a lot of specific should be developed in order to create
framework for the rest of policy.
Moldova
· Policy mix has not significant effect to reduction of nutrients pollution caused by farm waste and
erosion.
· There are still lacking both general and especially specific legislation (nitrates, CGFP etc.).
Polluter pays principle is not applied and small number of campaigns for awareness rising and
training are undertaken.
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
67
· All policy instruments should be developed in Moldova. First gaps in legal framework should be
filled, second institutional responsibilities should be clearly stated, and education and training
should be started.
Ukraine
· The policy mix is not addressing the agriculture water pollution issues enough and does not
guarantee the water quality increase.
· The strategies are not designed. Legislation is not covering all important issues and those already
adopted are usually vague and not followed by clear standards etc. It means targeted specific
legislation is missing.
· There is lack of coordination of several governmental bodies.
· Wide spread is lack of implementation power among institutions involved (not carrying control
and easy to corrupt). Current administration is not able to prevent import o banned pesticides
(huge amount of not safe storages of such pesticides around the country etc.
· The role of local/regional government is weak (not fulfilling its role in control).
· Policy is not balanced because it is nearly whole regulatory (punishing) and not implementing
supporting measures or other measures.
68
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
69
Summary of the Current Status of Agricultural Pollution Control Policies
in the Central and Lower DRB
Existence of Strategies for Agricultural Pollution Control
All national experts reported some goals for water protection in their countries, but only Slovakia was
reported to have already adopted a "water protection strategy". Most countries in the central and
lower DRB are therefore lacking a clear, targeted and overall strategy for water protection that
integrates different policy measures and shows the necessary path to the achievement of indicated
goals.
Most progress towards the development of water protection strategies is made in those countries
preparing for EU accession in 2004, but in some of the other DRB countries there remains concern
that agriculture is still not identified as an important source of water pollution.
Regulatory Frameworks for Agricultural Pollution Control
The EU Acceding Countries were reported to be addressing the major agricultural pollution issues
(nutrients, pesticides, farm waste and erosion) with a range of regulatory instruments. These
instruments are increasingly specific to the regulation of farming practice rather than general water
protection consequently these countries now have targeted regulations controlling undesirable
farming activities plus the potential to fulfill their role in water protection if successfully enforced.
In the EU Candidate Countries it was reported from Bulgaria and Romania that not all of the main
agricultural pollution issues are addressed by existing regulatory instruments. Existing instruments
still tend to be rather general, with fewer specific regulatory instruments in place. Consequently there
is still potential to prepare more targeted instruments to prevent water pollution through the control of
specific farming practices.
In the other DRB Countries it was again reported that not all agricultural pollution issues are addressed
by existing regulatory instruments. In these countries there is a noticeable lack of specific and
targeted regulatory instruments for controlling water pollution by agriculture. In some countries this
appears due to the fact that agriculture is still not identified as an important source of water pollution
consequently the available legislation is too general to effectively control polluting activities by
farmers.
Use of Economic Instruments and Measures for Agricultural Pollution Control
Economic instruments may be incentives (farmers are financially rewarded for some activities
undertaken) and/or disincentives (farmers are penalized for certain activities causing pollution) and
can be used as a fundamental tool for modifying the management practices of farmers and reducing
agricultural pollution. However, effective measures (or mixes of measures) need to be well-designed
and balanced as well as successfully implemented. Not surprisingly, the economic instruments used
in the DRB countries under study are predominantly disincentives due to the lack of financial
resources to imtroduce incentive schemes. Furthermore, the economic instruments which are in place
do not currently cover all pollution issues in all countries.
The number of incentive measures in the EU Acceding Countries is obviously expected to increase
from 2004 with EU accession and the availability of EU co-financing for rural development measures
such as agri-environment programmes. If these measures are well implemented there is great potential
for effective water pollution prevention (this should mitigate to some extent against the risk of
increasing pressure upon water quality due to expansion of the CAP in the central DRB.
The EU Candidate Countries, on the other hand, have so-far only designed implemented a small
number of disincentive measures and there are even fewer incentive schemes. This situation should
change rapidly with the introduction of SAPARD-funded pilot agri-environment projects and
continuing preparation for EU accession after 2004.
The Other DRB Countries are reported to have implemented a larger number of disincentive measures,
but still relatively few incentive measures. Although there is considerable potential for the
70
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
introduction of further incentive schemes, this is likely to be limited by prevailing economic
circumstances.
Use of Advisory/Information Instruments and Measures for Agricultural Pollution
Control
The transfer of knowledge and information to farmers via advisory/informative instruments can play a
key role in modifying the management practices of farmers and reducing agricultural pollution. The
national experts were given a list of 8 types of this measure and asked to recognized how many of
them are implemented in their country. The types of measure were:
· Technical assistance by independent advisory service
· Technical assistance by State advisory service
· Technical assistance by providers of farm inputs
· Education and awareness-raising campaigns
· Demonstration farms
· Learning by sharing of ideas among the farmers
· Publications and other information materials
· Training
All experts reported that the most frequent limitation upon this type of instrument was that actions
were too small with insufficient staff and financial resources. In some countries not all water pollution
issues are addressed by information measures.
There remains considerable potential for the further design and implementation of advisory
/information instruments for the control of agricultural pollution in all lower and central DRB
countries.
Project-based Instruments and Measures for Agricultural Pollution Control
There are a great variety of types and sizes of project targeted at improving the control of water
pollution from agricultural sources in the central and lower DRB countries, including:
·
scientific (investigating causal links between farming practices and water pollution etc.)
·
designing of needed agricultural practices (winter cover crop recommendation etc.)
·
policies developing projects (support to national policy design
·
awareness rising projects campaigns etc.
·
support of actual physical changes (e.g. investment in manure storage, erosion control etc.)
It is not possible at this stage to assess the success or otherwise of these different interventions.
Finally, the most frequently reported reasons for the poor implementation of agricultural pollution
control policies in the central and lower DRB region are:
· Poor coordination of Ministries of Agriculture and Environment
· Lack of financial resources and staff
· No support for information dissemination
· Lack of targeting, too general measures
· Lack of preventive application of measures
· Poor organisation and management in administrative bodies
· Lack of policy-making experience
· Poorly defined responsibilities of different agencies and organisations
· No organisations or agencies specifically focused upon the control of agricultural pollution
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
71
Existing Situation with Development and Implementation of Best Agricultural Practice
There are no concrete and universal definitions available for what is or is not best agricultural practice
indeed, there is a risk that it is a potentially confusing term because it is so prone to being interpreted
by different people in many different ways. For example, in the context of the DRB it is important to
clearly distinguish between the concept of BAP and the existing EU concepts of Codes of Good
Agricultural Practice (under the EC Nitrate Directive) and verifiable standards of Good Farming
Practice (under the EC Rural Development Regulation, 1257/1999).
For the purposes of this project, the term "best agricultural practice" (BAP) was only applied to farm
management practices that reduce the risk of pollution occurring from agricultural non-point sources
in the DRB this includes classical diffuse pollution and "small point source" pollution arising from
multiple, small-scale (and often accidental) discharges that occur from different farming activities.
It was the understanding of the project team that BAP actually encompasses a broad spectrum or
hierarchy of activities that must be interpreted according to local agronomic, environmental, social and
economic context. Not all elements of this hierarchy are relevant in all countries of the central and
lower DRB instead Best Agricultural Practice was defined as: "...the highest level of pollution
control practice that any farmer can reasonably be expected to adopt when working within their
own national, regional and/or local context in the Danube River Basin"
The objective of policy strategies for agricultural pollution control in the different DRB countries should
therefore be to promote BAP by encouraging farmers to improve their pollution control practices as far
as possible in the context in which they operate and deliver the highest level of pollution control that it is
feasible for them to do.
Obviously the pursuit of such strategies will require a combination of policy instruments the so-called
"policy mix" - to achieve optimal pollution control and it is clear that those countries with the most well-
developed "policy mixes" are joining the EU in 2004 (CZ, HU, SK and SI), followed by Romania and
Bulgaria preparing to join in 2007.
For example, CZ, HU, SK and SI have all recently finalised Rural Development Plans for
implementation during 2004-2006 which contain verifiable standards of so-called Good Farming
Practice (GFP) as a baseline for agri-environmental measures and Less Favoured Area (LFA) payments.
Similar verifiable standards are being developed in Bulgaria and Romania for implementation of "pilot"
agri-environment measures under SAPARD.
The approach to the design of GFP standards varies greatly among the 6 DRB countries preparing for
EU accession the most common approach being simply to base verifiable standards upon existing
environmental legislation. For example, in Bulgaria GFP is based upon existing environmental
legislation, but also includes reference to additional recommendations taken from the voluntary code of
good agricultural practice for the protection of water that is under development. Verifiable standards
concerning water protection include the prohibition of storing or disposing of pesticides and constructing
of cattle shed or manure storage within 20 m of a river bank, stream, lake, water reservoir or seashore.
After consultation with the EU Commission it was also necessary to include limits on stocking densities
for animals and the level of fertiliser application according to crop.
In most other DRB countries, the national experts reported awareness of the concept of good
agricultural practice amongst policy-makers and an interest in promoting it to farmers. However, the
biggest problems remain:
a) the lack of resources for preparation of information materials and appropriate awareness-raising
campaigns
b) the lack of understanding and capacity amongst extension services for promoting good practice,
and;
c) the tendency for innovative ideas and approaches concerning good practice to remain "locked"
within projects without the possibility of effective dissemination
72
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Inventory of Policies for the Control of Agricultural Pollution in the DRB Countries
73
Conclusions and Recommendations
There are significant differences regarding policies for the control of agricultural pollution among the
countries of the central and lower DRB ranging from those at the early stages of designing general
legal frameworks for water protection policies to those with more sophisticated legal frameworks in
accordance with EU requirements and already implementing specific agricultural pollution control
legislation.
Nonetheless there is scope for improvement in agricultural pollution control policies all of the central
and lower DRB countries particularly regarding implementation since all countries continue to have
problems arising from the slow growth in administrative capacity where there has not been sufficient
time and prevailing conditions to allow the mature enforcement of policies.
Based upon the results of the policy review, the following general recommendations were made for all
central and lower DRB countries:
· to design more targeted and integrated strategies for the control of agricultural pollution
· to improve the control and enforcement of regulatory instruments for agricultural pollution control
· to put more emphasis upon the design and implementation of advice/information measures for
agricultural pollution control
· to develop within available resources financial incentives as appropriate economic instruments for
promoting agricultural pollution control
· to promote organic farming and integrated crop management techniques as viable alternatives to
the use of agrochemicals
· to design and implement standards of Good Farming Practice
· to increase farmer and advisor awareness of the importance of agricultural pollution control
· to support capacity building amongst relevant stakeholders for the implementation of agricultural
pollution control policies
These are developed further in the separate report under Output 1.2 entitled "Recommendations for
Policy Reforms and for the Introduction of Best Agricultural Practices in the Central and Lower
Danube River Basin countries" which outlines appropriate intervention under Phase 2 of the DRP to
introduce new legal and institutional instruments for reduction and control of water pollution from
non-point sources of agricultural activities.
The following strategic aims, policy objectives and measures for policy reform and the introduction of
best agricultural practice (BAP) in the central and lower DRB countries are formulated on a basin-
wide context and should be adopted and adapted according to national/regional level context. There
are six Strategic Aims proposed:
· To reduce pollution from mineral fertilisers and manure
· To reduce pollution from pesticides
· To improve compliance and enforcement of regulatory instruments for agricultural pollution
control
· To develop appropriate economic instruments for agricultural pollution control
· To develop the capacities of agricultural extension services for agricultural pollution control
· To promote organic farming and other low input farming systems
In relation to the Strategic Aims, there are a total of eleven Policy Objectives proposed for national
governments to adopt:
· Develop greater understanding at a national/regional level of the relationship between agricultural
practice (fertiliser, manure and land management) and the risk of diffuse nutrient pollution
· Develop appropriate policy instruments and institutional arrangements for promoting better
management of fertilisers and manures
74
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· Reduce the levels of harmful active substances used for crop protection by prohibiting and/or
substituting the most dangerous priority pesticides with safer (including non-chemical)
alternatives
· Improve controls on the use and distribution of pesticides
· Encourage the proper use of pesticides by farmers and other operators
· Improve the use of regulatory instruments to prevent water pollution through the control of
specific farming practices
· Develop and introduce appropriate economic instruments to encourage implementation of BAP
· Review and adapt the mandate and structure of agricultural extension and advisory services
· Develop the capacity of agricultural extension and advisory services for the promotion of BAP
· Develop and support pilot projects for the promotion of BAP by agricultural extension and
advisory services
· Promote certified organic farming and other low input farming systems as viable alternatives to
the conventional use of mineral fertilisers and pesticides