French contribution through the translated PDRN mid-term evaluation

(1)

HAL Id: hal-01462659

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01462659

Submitted on 7 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

mid-term evaluation

Yann Desjeux

To cite this version:

Yann Desjeux. French contribution through the translated PDRN mid-term evaluation. [Contract] ESITAES WP5 P1 DR01, auto-saisine. 2004, 24 p. �hal-01462659�

(2)

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

PRIORITY 8

Policy-Oriented Research

SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT n°SSPE-CT-2003-502070

Integrated Tools to design and implement Agro Environmental Schemes

Document number: ITAES WP5 P1 DR01

Dissemination level : public

French contribution through the translated PDRN

mid-term evaluation

Desjeux Y.

INRA-ESR, Rennes

(3)

1 INTRODUCTION ... 3

2 METHOD USED TO ESTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ... 3

3 ANALYSIS OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS ... 5

3.1 GENERAL UPTAKE ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENT AESS ... 5

3.1.1 Weighting, according to the concerned areas (or units) ... 5

3.1.2 Financial weight ... 6

3.1.3 Conclusions ... 6

3.2 RELEVANCE WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL STAKES ... 7

3.2.1 Limits of available data ... 7

3.2.2 Results per indicator: ... 9

3.3 COMPARISON OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS WITH ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE PREVIOUS REGULATION (EC2078/92) ... 14

3.3.1 Conversion to organic farming ... 15

3.3.2 Reduction of stocking rate ... 15

3.3.3 Protection of special/endangered breeds ... 15

3.3.4 Conversion of arable lands ... 15

3.3.5 Reduction of inputs ... 15

3.3.6 Local programmes (OLAE). ... 15

4 ANALYSIS OF THE CTE SET-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION ... 16

5 ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ... 17

6 APPENDIX 1: MAIN CONTRACTED AREA MEASURES ... 19

7 APPENDIX 2: MAIN CONTRACTED NON-AREA MEASURES... 19

(4)

The origin of the present translation lies on WP5 discussions held during the second ITAES meeting in Postdam (i.e. June 23-25th) where it has been agreed that each partner will have the environmental part of RDP mid-term evaluation, relevant for the case-study region, translated into English (at least the part related to environmental indicators and impacts).

This document refers to the RDP mid-term evaluation reports on AESs, conducted by Eureval-C3E and achieved on June 15th 2003.

Although the original document contains 88 pages (+ annexes), only data and information relevant with environmental issues and indicators are presented hereafter.

Other data has not be included, but may be provided upon WP leader’s (or Partners’) request.

1 Introduction

The RDP mid-term evaluation had three main objectives:

• To proceed with an evaluation of realisations done between 2000 and 2002 (up to September 30th, 2002);

• To analyse the joint enforcement of AESs (2078/92) and CTEs (1257/99);

• To evaluate the potential impacts of those programmes, from both an environmental and a socio-economic point of view.

From a more specific point of view, the AESs evaluation aimed at evaluating:

• The relevance of contracted measures with regard to environmental stakes;

• The integration of the measures within the CTE process;

• The effects of the measures on agricultural practices and the environmental conditions. The mid-term evaluation was conducted from documentary analysis, about twenty interviews, statistical and cartographic data analysis, phone interviews conducted among some 80 CTE farmers and 40 non-CTE farmers, as well as 3 round-tables.

2 Method used to estimate environmental indicators

Indicators have been set-up by crossing concerned measures grouped per environmental themes (soil, water, biodiversity, landscape) with defined stake zones. This work has been achieved from guidelines related to the indicator issue given by ASCA (consultancy enterprise that was in charge of writing an agroenvironmental assessment guide).

ASCA method is also proposing to rank the measures according to their potential impact on the environmental (for each of the targeted stake), but the steering committee did not set-up a regional adaptation of such classification. However, the classification of measures as weak or strong for a particular indicator is quite unclear. For instance, there is no consistency between being strong and the premium which is offered.

Questions such as “Is the uptake rate of the measures satisfactory with regard to environmental stakes?” and “Are AE measures validated through the AE regional synthesis relevant with regard to regional environmental issues?” are met to be addressed.

(5)

In order to determine each of the concerned indicators, uptake data will be crossed with stake zone data.

The indicator has been calculated as follows:

(

)

(

Sumof relevantareas accordingtotherisk

)

impact and risk the to according relevant areas AES of Sum S , , 1=

Such a result can be presented as:

AES area (ha) UAA (ha) Ratio Number of concerned measures

1 358 331 440 0,41% 41

7 groups of indicators were indeed taken into consideration:

1°) Soil erosion (S1): Area concerned by measures having a positive effect on soil erosion, within zones presenting a medium to high risk of erosion.

2°) Water quality – Nitrates:

- Reduction of inputs (Qn1): Share of “vulnerable nitrate zones” where measures aiming at reducing the nitrogen inputs have been contracted;

- Reduction of transfers (Qn2): Share of “vulnerable nitrate zones” where measures aiming at reducing the nitrogen transfers to aquifers have been contracted.

3°) Water quality – Pesticides:

- Reduction of inputs (Qp1): Share of “pesticides areas” where measures aiming at reducing the agri-inputs have been contracted;

- Reduction of transfers (Qp2): Share of “pesticides areas” where measures aiming at reducing the pesticide transfers have been contracted.

4°) Water quantitative management:

- Irrigation giving up (Q1): Share of water distribution areas where measures aiming at reducing the irrigation have been contracted;

- Irrigation reduction (Q2): Share of water distribution areas where measures aiming at reducing water quantities have been contracted.

5°) General biodiversity:

- Input reduction (B1): Share of the regional area where input reduction measures, favourable to the biodiversity, have been contracted;

- Crop arrangement (B2): Share of the regional area where crop arrangement measures, favourable to the biodiversity, have been contracted;

- Vegetation in critical periods (B3): Share of the regional area where measures aiming at promoting the setting up of vegetation, favourable to the biodiversity, during critical periods of the year have been undertaken;

- Ecological infrastructures (B4): Part of the regional territory covered by measures promoting ecological infrastructures (or unexploited plots) potentially used as habitat.

(6)

6°) Remarkable biodiversity:

- Species protection (Br1): Share of the regional area concerned by measures specifically targeting the protection of remarkable species;

- Habitats protection (Br2): Share of Natura 2000 areas concerned by measures aiming at protecting those habitats;

- Rare breeds protection (Br3): Number of engaged animals compared with the total number of the concerned breed. But none of the concerned measures (1501 to 1506) were contracted.

7°) Landscape:

- Diversification (P1): Share of the regional area concerned by measures contributing to maintain and enhance the landscape diversification;

- Territorial identity (P2): Share of the regional area concerned by measures contributing to the heritage preservation and/or the creation of a territorial identity.

3 Analysis of the achievements

The mid-term evaluation aims at conducting:

• a general analysis of the uptake;

• an analysis of the relevance between measures and environmental stakes;

• a comparative analysis between 2078/92 and 1257/99 schemes.

3.1 General uptake analysis of the different AESs

It aims at evaluating the relative weight of the different measures undertaken and their geographical distribution.

AE measures can be considered with regard to : - The number of uptakes;

- Their importance in terms of covered area (or linear / units); - Their financial weight.

Only the last two ways of ranking were taken into account in the present evaluation, given the lack of relevance of the number of contracts.

3.1.1 Weighting, according to the concerned areas (or units)

8 measures cover around 80% of the total engaged area, 0301A measure, “winter covering of arable land”, representing more than 23% of the total engaged area (cf. Appendix 1).

The other main measures are:

1 2001A: Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or grazing).

1 0901A: Reduced use (-20%) of nitrogen fertiliser.

1 0801A: Integrated crop management.

1 2001B: Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or grazing), Option:

Withdrawal of the organic fertilisation.

(7)

1 2001C: Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or grazing), Option:

Mineral fertilisation limited to 30-20-20.

1 0303A: Stubble crushing and incorporation without tillage.

Regarding linear measures (cf. Appendix 2), 0602A measure, “maintenance of hedgerows”, represents 94% of engaged linear metres.

3.1.2 Financial weight

With regard to the financial aspects, it came out that 13 measures (1257/99) make up a bit more than 90% of the total allocated budget.

The financial analysis leads to notice the heavy financial weight of some measures that have a limited impact in terms of concerned area (e.g. 0202A measure, introduction of non-vegetable crops within vegetable farms).

Table 1: Financial weight of the main measures

Measure Designation Allocated budget (€)

% 0202A For vegetable farms, introduction of non-vegetable crops 1 719 420,55 14,43% 2001B Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or

grazing), Option: Withdrawal of the organic fertilisation

1 551 429,69 13,02% 2001C Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or

grazing), Option: Mineral fertilisation limited to 30-20-20

1 144 516,13 9,61% 2001A Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or grazing) 1 132 194,20 9,50% 0301A Winter covering of arable land (intercropping) 1 127 244,58 9,46% 0901A Reduce use (-20%) of nitrogen fertiliser 1 122 643,57 9,42% 0602A Maintenance of hedgerows 908 031,48 7,62% 2100D Conversation to organic farming. Option: permanent pastures 631 995,18 5,30% 2100C Conversation to organic farming. Option: other annuals crops 551 277,09 4,63% 0102A Conversion from arable land to temporary pastures 288 920,45 2,42% 0801A Integrated crop management 272 051,56 2,28% 0101A Conversion from arable land to extensive grasslands: permanent

pastures for at least 5 years.

175 058,23 1,47% 0303A Stubble crushing and incorporation without tillage 153 815,68 1,29% Other measures 1 136 686,13 9,54% TOTAL Budget: 11 915 284,52 100%

3.1.3 Conclusions

In total, only about ten measures had a significant uptake rate and 57 were contracted while more than hundred were proposed at the regional level.

This can be explained through the following elements:

1 The simplicity to enforce the prescriptions: Most of the main measures are concerned

and only the measures 0801A (integrated crop management) and 2100 (conversion to organic farming) can imply enforcement difficulties.

1 The change of practices: Out of the 10 main measures, 5 can be considered as implying

a real change in practices: 0202A, 0101A/0102A, 0301A, 0801A et 2100. The other 5 can indeed be considered as maintaining existing practices.

1 Their environmental effectiveness: On the basis of the ASCA classification (ranking the

(8)

that all of the 10 main measures can basically be considered as “strong” (in terms of environmental impact), except for the integrated crop management.

1 The incentive: Out of the main 10 measures, 4 have are paid more than 300€/ha (e.g.

conversion from arable land to extensive grasslands, conversion to organic farming, introduction of non-vegetable crops within vegetable farms, etc…). These subsidies have most probably a real effect on the uptake rate, but it is also important to notice that the change of practices linked to these measures, along with their enforcement, are not always easy to achieve. Moreover, the environmental effectiveness of these measure is considered as being strong. In addition, it should be pointed out that their uptake is closely linked to the existence of collective project bearers (i.e. GRAB, MLC, SILEBAN) that succeeded to convince the farmers that such measures are worth being implemented.

3.2 Relevance with regard to environmental stakes

3.2.1 Limits of available data

The data provided by the CNASEA and concerning the measures is related to the CTE programme.

It can therefore be foreseen that the demand differs from the contract, due to reshuffles (e.g. measure withdrawal, reduction of engaged areas, etc.) implied by CDOA decision.

Furthermore, because of the non-existence of data related to some of the environmental zonings, it has been quite difficult for ASCA to produce the 16 reference indicators.

Indeed, environmental raw-data was not covering the following themes: - Water quality (pesticides);

- Water quantitative management; - Landscape.

Regarding water quality (pesticides), ASCA had chosen, as stake zones, all agricultural

areas defined as “priority zones for pesticides” according to August 1st 2000 circular. Given that these zones were still not set up in Basse-Normandie at that time, it has been decided to work from a SRPV1 map related to potential phytosanitary pollution risks (1999). Due to the absence of municipal data, this method does not allow calculations of uptake rates.

Regarding water quantitative management, the stake zones were all regional irrigated

areas within Zones of Water Distribution, as defined in 1994 decree. Nonetheless, Basse-Normandie is not concerned by such a zoning and irrigation is not an important stake in the region, as around 4 000 ha only are irrigated. The environmental indicators will be drawn up for regional irrigated areas.

For the landscape issue, the main stake zone set up by ASCA is the regional territory.

Regarding “remarkable biodiversity”, and more specifically Br1 indicator, the contract inventory came up against the difficulty to get reliable, homogeneous and exhaustive data,

1

(9)

given the lack of related data base. It has therefore been impossible to draw up a list of contracts, prior to the calculation of this indicator.

In addition, data about non-surface elements (e.g. ponds, linear metres of hedgerows, etc.) can not be easily proceeded due to the lack of conversion rules. They were therefore analysed as such, but it was not possible to draw up a ratio given that denominator remains expressed in hectares (regional UAA or zoning area).

Specific maps were done as soon as AE measures were considered as having a strong potential impact on identified environmental stakes.

Given those difficulties, 12 of the 16 indicators were calculated (Table 2).

Table 2: Estimated indicators

Evaluation indicator Calculation

S1: Part of the area covered by measures related to the theme:

- for each level of risk (1, 2, 3)

- for measures having a strong impact and those having a weak impact

Yes

Qn1: Part of vulnerable zones where contracted measures aim at reducing the

inputs.

Yes

Qn2: Part of vulnerable zones where contracted measures aim at reducing the

transfers to aquifers

Yes

Qp1: Part of “pesticides areas” covered by measures aiming at reducing the

phytosanitary use

No – only the surfaces Qp2: Part of “pesticides areas” covered by measures aiming at reducing the

phytosanitary transfers to aquifers

No – only the surfaces Q1:Part of Zones of Water Distribution (ZWD) with measures aiming at

reducing the irrigated area

Q2: Part of Zones of Water Distribution (ZWD) with measures aiming at

reducing water quantities (used for irrigation)

Partial (no ZWD) - only the surfaces B1: Part of regional territory covered by input reduction measures favourable

to biodiversity

Yes

B2: Part of the regional territory where crop arrangement measures,

favourable to the biodiversity, have been contracted

Yes

B3: Part of regional territory covered by measures targeting the vegetation

management at certain periods of the year

Yes

B4: Part of regional territory covered by measures promoting ecological

infrastructures.

Yes

Br1: Part of regional territory concerned by measures in favour of remarkable

species protection

No, for the moment Br2: Part of Natura 2000 areas concerned by measures protecting those

habitats

Yes

Br3: Number of engaged animals compared with the total number of the

concerned breed.

Yes, but ineffective (no AE measure) P1: Part of regional territory covered by measures in favour of diversification

(surface or non-surface measures)

Yes

P2: Part of regional territory covered by measures in favour of heritage

preservation and territorial identity (surface or non-surface measures)

(10)

3.2.2 Results per indicator:

According to the Regional agroenvironmental synthesis, the four main stakes can be reminded here:

- Water quality; - Soil erosion; - Biodiversity; - Landscapes.

The results of the global analysis show that regional uptake rates are quite low, whatever the indicators concerned, although this cannot be taken as a relevant outcome.

However, measures assumed as having a strong impact on the concerned stake(s) are on the whole more contracted than other measures considered as “weak”2.

3.2.2.1 Soil erosion (S1)

The global uptake of measures having a potential effect on soil erosion is above 50 000 ha (38% in Calvados, 37% in Manche and 25% in Orne). This is mainly due to measure 0301A, winter covering of arable lands, covering about 40 000 ha.

Nevertheless, been subscribed on low erosion risk areas, the uptake within stake zones is more limited. Therefore, the geographical relevance of the measures is quite unequal.

Non-surface measures should also be added to this statement, although it is not feasible to calculate their uptake rate. 5 measures were contracted, all related to hedgerows, with a total of 399 000 linear metres.

Table 3: Uptake rate for indicator S1

S1 Level of risk Potential impact of the measures Relevant AE measure areas (ha)

UAA per concerned level of risk (ha) Ratio Medium Low 286,67 110 408,00 0,26% Medium Strong 2 887,75 110 408,00 2,62% High Low 147,62 87 939,00 0,17% High Strong 2 757,45 87 939,00 3,14%

Very high Low 7,72 67 700,00 0,01%

Very high Strong 4 968,66 67 700,00 7,34%

3.2.2.2 Water quality nitrates

♦ Reduction of nitrogen inputs (Qn1) Regarding the global uptake:

- 90 000 ha are concerned (50% in Calvados, 30% in Manche and 22% in Orne), with 12 measures;

- Strong impact measures represent 75% of the uptake.

2 Regarding indicators, “weak/low impact” measures and “strong impact” measures are defined as such in the mid-term evaluation guidelines drawn by ASCA.

(11)

Although limited (8,74%), a higher uptake rate of strong impact measures can be noticed within stake zones.

The main two strong impact measures are the measure 0901A (Reduce use (-20%) of nitrogen fertiliser) and the measure 2001 (Extensive management of grasslands through cutting). The measure 0903A (Fertilisation adapted to analysis results) is the most contracted low impact measure.

While measures 2001A, B et C have a potential impact on other environmental themes (biodiversity, landscape) this is not the case of the measures 0901A and 0903A, which leads to confirm the low geographical relevance of the measures, relating to the stake zones.

This is confirmed by the ratio between the contracted area within stake zones (51 000 ha) and the whole contracted area (91 000 ha).

♦ Reduction of nitrogen transfers (Qn2)

Global uptake is about 55 000 ha, mainly realised by the measure 0301A (40 000 ha). 8 measures have been contracted in total, most considered as strong impact measures.

Non-surface measures should also be added related to hedgerows plantation and maintenance (0501A et B, 0503A) and representing 293 000 linear metres.

From a geographical distribution point of view, Manche is over-represented (51% of the uptake) due to measure 0301A.

Uptake on stake zones for this indicator (Qn2) is the higher for strong impact measures (7,25%) given the weight of measure 0301A.

Table 4: Uptake rate for indicators Qn1 and Qn2

Water quality – nitrates Potential impact of the measures Contracted area (ha) Contracted length (linear metres) UAA within vulnerable zones (ha) Ratio Qn1 Low 16 331,42 - 410 198 3,98% Qn1 Strong 35 851,34 - 410 198 8,74% Qn2 Low 818,77 55 682 448 875 0,18% Qn2 Strong 32 546,8 - 448 875 7,25%

3.2.2.3 Water quality pesticides

It should be reminded that although the concerned stake zones defined by ASCA are priority pesticides zones such areas do not exist at present in Basse-Normandie. This leads to the inability to calculate uptake rates on these zones.

♦ Reduction of phytosanitary inputs (Qp1)

At the regional level, 26 000 ha were contracted mainly under 2 measures (out of 11 measures contracted):

- The low impact measure 0801A (integrated crop management) represents more than 60% of the contracted area;

- Measures related to the conversion to organic farming represent 25% contracted areas (6 500 ha);

(12)

♦ Reduction of phytosanitary transfers (Qp2) 43 000 ha are contracted through 7 measures.

Measure 0301A, with a strong potential impact represents almost all the contracted area (94%). The uptake share between the 3 different NUTS 3 levels of the region is quite balanced. Nonetheless, measures are mainly located out of the targeted and sensitive zones.

Table 5: Indicators Qp1 and Qp2

Water quality – Pesticides Potential impact of the measures Contracted area (ha) Qp1 Low 17 088,68 Qp1 Strong 8 953,69 Qp2 Low 301,73 Qp2 Strong 42 859,56

3.2.2.4 Water quantitative management

None of the concerned measure was contracted in Basse-Normandie.

Table 6: Uptake rate for indicator Q1 and Q2

Water quantity Potential impact of the measures Contracted area (ha) Irrigated agricultural areas (ha) Ratio Q1 Low 0 3 999,52 0% Q1 Strong 0 3 999,52 0% Q2 Low 0 3 999,52 0% Q2 Strong 0 3 999,52 0% 3.2.2.5 General biodiversity

♦ Input reduction favourable to the biodiversity (B1)

Although the whole agricultural area was identified by ASCA as stake zones, methodological instructions provided by the Ministry of Environment and related to environmental data proposed to narrow the zoning as follows:

National Park;

Regional Nature Parks; ZNIEFF 2 zones;

National ecological network (informative non-official zoning aiming at a better integration of environmental stakes within public policies).

At the regional level, 8 measures were contracted over a total area of 54 000 ha.

Extensive management of grasslands (measure 2001) is, with more than 92% of the area, the main concerned measure.

The NUTS 3 level share is quite balanced (40% in Manche, 35% in Calvados and 25% in Orne).

(13)

Uptake rates of low impact and strong impact measures are quite low (respectively 5% and 2%).

The geographical relevance is quite good (especially in Manche due to the NRP area), confirmed by the ratio between concerned areas within stake zones (45 000 ha) and out of stake zones (54 000 ha).

♦ Promoting a cultural arrangement, favourable to the biodiversity (B2) Stake zones remain the same.

Nearly 47 000 ha were contracted (11 measures), mostly linked (87%) to measure 0301A. Only one non-surface measure was contracted (7 240 units); measure 1801A, rehabilitation of abandoned orchards.

Uptake rate of strong impact measures within stake zones is slightly higher than for other general biodiversity indicators, reaching 7% of the stake areas.

Geographical relevance of the measures is not really clear (mainly due to the “multi-impact measure” 0301A). Nevertheless, the ratio between contracted areas within stake zones (93 000 ha out of 106 000 ha in total) and out of stake zones points out a high geographical relevance.

♦ Vegetation setting up favourable to the biodiversity during certain periods of the year (B3) Only two measures were contracted: measure 1806B (reedy marsh) and measure 1806F (extensive management of remarkable areas with late cutting).

The concerned area is therefore very low (48 ha), equally distributed within Calvados and Manche, and the analysis of the uptake relevance does not make so much sense.

♦ Promotion of ecological infrastructures (or unexploited plots) potentially considered as habitats (B4)

4 measures related to this indicator were contracted (0401A, 0505A, 1806B and 1806F), representing a total area of 160 ha.

But several non-surface measure were also contracted, with a large predominance of the strong impact measure 0602A (cf. Table 7).

Table 7: Concerned non-surface measures

Impact Measure Description Number of units Type of unit Strong 0602A Maintenance of hedgerows 46 026 832 Linear metres Strong 0602C Maintenance of hedgerows 17 171 Linear metres Strong 0615A Maintenance of isolated trees 7 880,65 Trees

Strong 0616A Maintenance of coppices 99,21 Coppices Low 0502A Plantation and maintenance of lined up or

isolated trees 3 263,10 Trees

Low 0503A Tree plantation on embankments 2 945 Trees Low 0504A Creation and maintenance of ponds 26,20 Mares Low 0601A Restoration of hedgerows 104 576,18 Linear metres Low 0601B Restoration of hedgerows 10 457,50 Linear metres Low 0603A Restoration of ditches 1 550 636,69 Linear metres Low 0604A Rehabilitation of river banks 398 949,50 Linear metres Low 0604B Rehabilitation of river banks 19 799 Linear metres Low 0605A Rehabilitation / maintenance of low walls 1 100 Linear metres

(14)

63% of the regional uptake (surface and non-surface measures) is observed in Manche.

Uptake rates regarding surface measures are quite low: 2% for strong impact measures, 0,6% for low impact measures. Such rates cannot be calculated for non-surface measures.

At last, cartographic representation does not allow to evaluate the geographical relevance of measures within stake zones given that only few measures were implemented.

Table 8: Uptake rate for indicators B1, B2, B3 and B4

General biodiversity Potential impact of the measures Contracted area (ha) Contracted length (linear) Potential area

of uptake (ha) Ratio

B1 Low 30 812,39 568 372 5,42% B1 Strong 14 790,99 568 372 2,60% B2 Low 4 971,61 5 182 461 472 1,08% B2 Strong 29 219,20 461 472 6,33% B3 Low 0 2 896 0% B3 Strong 48,76 2 896 1,68% B4 Low 445,79 1 921 016 69 167 0,64% B4 Strong 1 410,77 34 094 413 69 167 2,04% 3.2.2.6 Remarkable biodiversity

Methodological and data collection difficulties prevented from proceeding with any uptake analysis of the concerned measures.

It was impossible to calculate indicator Br1 given the absence of homogeneous and exhaustive data about measures specifically targeting the protection of remarkable breeds/species.

It has also been impossible to calculate the indicator Br2, and two additional difficulties were met:

- The documents of objectives related to Natura 2000 zoning were not validated, which limits the relevance of the analysis;

- The stake zone corresponds to shared parts concerned by Natura 2000.

At last, none of the measures corresponding to indicator Br3 were contracted in Basse-Normandie.

Table 9: Indicators Br1, Br2 and Br3

Remarkable biodiversity

Potential impact

of the measures Contracted area (ha)

Length relevant of specie preservation (ha)

Br1 -

Potential impact of

the measures Contracted area (ha)

Estimated regional UAA within Natura 2000 sites

Br2 - 62 895 242 50 048,11

Potential impact of

the measures Number of engaged animal

Total stock of the concerned breed

(15)

3.2.2.7 Landscape

Given the theme specificity there is no specific stake zone. Therefore the regional territory was used as a basis. In addition there is no distinction between strong impact measures and low impact measures.

Finally, a map of remarkable regional landscapes was used to assess the geographical relevance of the measures.

♦ Landscape diversification (P1)

14 measures, covering 85 000 ha, are concerned. The main ones are the measure 0301A (40 000 ha) and the measure 2001A and C (36 000 ha).

4 linear measures have nonetheless to be added, covering 46 000 linear kilometres, among which the measure 0602A represents more than 98%.

These measures, both surface and linear ones, are mainly undertaken in Calvados (around 40%), followed by Manche (~1/3) and Orne (~1/4).

Given the large area of the considered stake zone, the uptake rate does not appear as being relevant. It is nonetheless around 7%.

♦ Heritage preservation and territorial identity (P2)

6 surface measures as well as 3 non-surface ones are targeting this indicator, and 27 000 ha along with 46 000 linear kilometres are concerned.

The main contracted area measures are the measure 2001A (24 000 ha) and the measure 0102A (1 457 ha). Regarding linear actions, the measure 0602A represents 98% of the total contracted length.

Geographical share is different depending on measures concerned, but quite balanced for surfaces measures and dominated by Manche NUTS 3 level in the case of linear measures. The uptake rate is low (~2%), but precautions has to be taken into account, as for indicator P1.

Geographical relevance is not clearly demonstrated but the zonings of remarkable landscape seem not to be well adapted.

Table 10: Uptake rate for indicators P1 and P2

Landscape Potential impact of the measures Contracted area (ha) Contracted length (metres) Regional

UAA (ha) Ratio P1 - 86 415,34 46 432 359,72 1 260 454 6,85% P2 - 28 537,77 46 432 260,51 1 260 454 2,26%

3.3 Comparison of the achievements with actions undertaken under the

previous regulation (EC 2078/92)

The objective is to compare and to differentiate uptakes achieved during 1993-99 period and those finalised since 2000.

(16)

Nonetheless, this analysis come up against the absence of correspondence and equivalence between measures of the two different regulation. This problem has been solved through the identification of actions addressing the same AE issue(s).

3.3.1 Conversion to organic farming

Concerned uptakes are quite homogenous among the 3 NUTS 3 levels.

With a total area of 12 995 ha (562 contracts), this results are much higher than the ones undertaken under the CTE scheme (5 518 ha, 1 330 contracts), in terms of both number of contracts and contracted area.

3.3.2 Reduction of stocking rate

The total contracted are is 6 867 ha for 327 contracts. The regional share is homogeneous especially between Calvados and Manche, while the contracted area in Orne is twice lower than in Calvados.

No similar measure is concerned by 1257/99 regulation.

3.3.3 Protection of special/endangered breeds

Are concerned by such a measure, draught horses, donkeys, and sheep breeds. Within 427 contracts, the number of livestock units concerned is 7 747. This measure has no similar action within 1257/99 regulation.

3.3.4 Conversion of arable lands

The total contracted area is 6 031 ha through 289 contracts. The Manche concerned area is approximately double the amount of Calvados area.

Within 1257/99, the measure “extensive management of grasslands” has been widely contracted: 32 951 ha and 900 contracts. Orne NUTS 3 level, that had not any uptake of such a measure within 2078/92 regulation, presents more than 7 179 ha under contract (172 contracts) under 1257/99 regulation Manche and Calvados NUTS 3 levels are quite homogeneous in terms of contracted area (respectively 14 771 and 11 001 ha).

3.3.5 Reduction of inputs

The total area contracted is 1 585 ha within 63 contracts.

For this analysis, measures aiming at reducing nitrates and pesticides were grouped together. Thus, 28 368 ha are concerned (653 contracts).

Manche NUTS 3 level that had not contracted any similar measure under the previous regulation is now leading the region in terms of area covered (11 271 hectares, 330 contracts). Within this NUTS 3 level, the area concerned by the nitrate reduction measure is 10 times higher that the one aiming at reducing phytosanitary products (10 223 ha Vs. 1 048 ha).

From a general point of view, this measure seems to correctly meet the farmers’ demand.

3.3.6 Local programmes (OLAE).

Under 2078/92 regulation, 21 591 hectares (13 programmes, 817 contracts) are concerned by such programmes.

(17)

Farmers and main actors interested by the implementation of the first regulation had properly identified the main themes with strong stakes.

The continuity of actions is a major element of relevance for the farmers, while their choices are strongly linked to a good knowledge of practices to be implemented.

It finally came out that farmers implement high restricting actions if and only if they are able to properly control the risks for their production.

4 Analysis of the CTE set-up and implementation

To set up the CTE process has been a long and sensitive issue.

The fact that the CTE can be combined with other programmes, associated to the fact that 2 different parts (environmental and economical) must be led together within the same tool, made the CTE a heavy disposal to implement.

The stake definition took place at the NUTS 2 and 3 levels, as well as at the territorial level. This has not always been done very clearly, especially in terms of ranking. This has been explained by a lack of time, a low involvement of non-agricultural actors as well as a governmental pressure to quickly get a big uptake rate.

It is indeed surprising to notice that the biodiversity does not appear at priority in the Regional Agroenvironmental Synthesis.

It is moreover acknowledge that the high number of measures and standard-contracts make the process scarcely understandable and complex to implement.

The predominance of agricultural actors with the design phase of the CTE disposal can explain the low territorialisation of the CTEs as well as the fact that the standard-contracts are not properly addressing the environmental issues of the territories.

Environmental stakes were highlighted at the regional level by the Regional Synthesis (Nov. 2001), at the NUTS 3 levels by specific diagnosis (Manche: Dec. 1999; Calvados: March 2000; Orne: Jan. 2000) and at the territorial levels by territorial diagnosis. Nonetheless only few environmental stakes were clearly identified.

It seems that in Orne, the CTEs do not address the environmental and territorial stakes at all. On the other hand, CTEs are well addressing these issues in Manche and Calvados, given that in Manche all standard-contracts had to include measures targeting water, soil and landscape stakes.

Territorial diagnosis has been done at refined levels within the three NUTS 3 levels of the region before setting up the territorial standard-contracts. Nonetheless the environmental and territorial stakes definition has been difficult and failed sometimes, for several reasons:

- The point of view of agricultural and non-agricultural actors were differing. The firsts were favouring stakes linked to soil and water, while the seconds were favouring biodiversity and water;

- There was a lack of synthetic tools regarding environmental knowledge, at NUTS 3 and local level;

(18)

- Animation and consciousness-raising regarding environmental issues were not properly and satisfactory conducted, due to a lack of time and means;

- The stakes definition has been done in the haste;

- There was a lack of participation of non-agricultural actors who were either not involved in the reflection phase or had a low power in the decision-making process; - The will to get the CTEs accessible to any farmer restrained the prioritisation of stakes

and zonings;

- Delimitation of the territories has been done according to already existing agricultural areas that are relevant from an agricultural point of view, but less relevant from an environmental one.

Regarding the actors involved and the environmental stakes, was there an evolution between the current programming (2000-2006) and the previous period?

The set up of 2078/92 AESs had more involved the local authorities and communities. The Calvados NUTS 3 level council was for example not really involved within the CTE process while it was engaged within the previous disposal. The agricultural profession was more involved in the CTEs than it was for 2078/92 AESs.

Regarding environmental stakes, it seems that they were more globally taken into account within the CTE process that under the regulation 2078/92 (local programmes)

Some stakes changed between 1992/99 period and 2000/2002 period. For example, on Cotentin and Bessin Marshlands territory, biodiversity conservation was highly targeted by 2078/92 programmes. Nowadays, in order to reduce flood risks the measures undertaken aim at clearing any area liable to become fallow.

5 Estimation of potential effects

Given that the present evaluation is a mid-term one only partial and exploratory conclusions regarding potential effects can be done.

The implementation of AESs through the CTEs implied changes in agricultural practices in some case, and the strengthening of the practices in some other cases.

The upholding of already-existing practices corresponds most of the time to measures that were not (or fewly) paid. It is the case of the areas with high environmental constraints: agricultural abandonment areas, Natura 200 areas, marshland areas, etc…

Supporting those practices is a guarantee for the sustainability and viability of the concerned farms.

It is nonetheless premature to proceed with an estimation of the environmental effect. However, assumptions can be drawn as soon as “maintenance measures” and “improvement measures” are distinguished.

Maintenance measures: Measures aiming at maintaining the state of the environment in order to prevent/avoid its deterioration.

Improvement measures: Measures aiming at improving the environmental situation by reducing the level of pollution. It mainly concerns water, soils, and areas rehabilitation.

(19)

Assumptions that would be worth being further developed are the followings:

It is so far acknowledged that impacts cannot be important due to low uptake rates, the scattering of the contracts and the level of environmental commitments.

The geographical relevance of the measures is unsatisfactory to imply strong effects on stake zones, given the low territorialisation of the measures.

The production effects is strongly linked to the sustainability of practice changes.

The change of practices seems to have a big influence of environmental effects, but to shift from a farming system to another is difficult and risky to be properly achieved. Level of Pillar I CAP incentives strongly governs the production of such effects. These

incentives keep on governing the farmers’ strategic choices.

The provision of environmental effects is also controlled by the CTEs principle: this disposal does not ensure a regular level of results and outcomes.

Nevertheless, integration of AE measures within the CTE process had probably led to a consciousness-raising of the farmers towards environmental stakes and issues.

(20)

6 Appendix 1: Main contracted area measures

Measure Designation Nb of ha concerned % of the total contracted area 0301A Winter covering of arable land (intercropping) 40 661 23,03% 2001A Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or

grazing) 24 961 14,14%

0901A Reduced use (-20%) of nitrogen fertiliser 18 321 10,38%

0801A Integrated crop management 16 332 9,25%

2001B Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or

grazing), Option: Withdrawal of the organic fertilisation 13 802 7,82% 0903A Fertilisation adapted to analysis results 13 455 7,62% 2001C Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or

grazing), Option: Mineral fertilisation limited to 30-20-20 11 593 6,57% 0303A Stubble crushing and incorporation without tillage 11 169 6,33%

7 Appendix 2: Main contracted non-area measures

Measure Designation Unit Number of units

0502A Plantation and maintenance of lined up or isolated trees Tree 3 263

0503A Tree plantation on embankments Tree 2 945

0504A Creation and maintenance of ponds Pond 26

0601A Restoration of hedgerows Metre 104 576,18

0601B Restoration of hedgerows Metre 10 457,50

0602A Maintenance of hedgerows Metre 4 602 683

0603A Restoration of ditches Metre 1 550 636,69

0604A Rehabilitation of river banks Metre 398 949,50

0604B Rehabilitation of river banks Metre 19 799

0605A Rehabilitation and maintenance of low walls Metre 1 100

0610A Restoration of ponds Pond 554

0615A Maintenance of isolated trees Tree 7 880

0616A Maintenance of coppices Coppice 99

8 Appendix 3: Cross tables measures/stakes (EC 1257/99)

In the following tables, shaded cells concern measures acknowledged as having a potential strong environmental effect on the concerned stake, while “normal” cells concern low impact measures, as given in the ASCA environmental assessment guide.

Note: Only measures applied in Basse-Normandie has been kept from ASCA tables and are presented in the following cross-tables.

(21)

S1 - Part of the area covered by measures acknowledged as having an effect on soil erosion

N° Actions

101A Conversion from arable lands to extensive grasslands: permanent pastures for at least 5 years

102A Conversion from arable lands to temporary pastures

104A Conversion of the farming system to a forage system based on grasslands 201A Introduction of an additional crop within the initial cropping plan

202A For vegetable farms, introduction of non-vegetable crops 301 A Winter covering of arable land (intercropping)

401A Setting up of sowing to grass systems

402A Relevant sowing to grass systems in accordance with CAP set aside lands 501A

and B Plantation and maintenance of hedgerows 503A Tree plantation on embankments

601A Restoration of hedgerows

605A Rehabilitation and maintenance of low-walls

803A Setting up or enlargement of herbaceous cover under perennial woody plants 1303A Reduced tillage (no ploughing)

Qn1 - Part of vulnerable zones where contracted measures aim at reducing the nitrogen inputs.

N° Actions

102A Conversion from arable lands to temporary pastures 202A For vegetable farms, introduction of non-vegetable crops 901A Reduce use (-20%) of nitrogen fertiliser

903A Fertilisation adapted to analysis results 20.1 to

20.3 Extensive management of grasslands 21 Organic farming

Qn2 - Part of vulnerable zones where contracted measures aim at reducing the nitrogen transfer to aquifers.

N° Actions

301A to 304A

Reduction of bare soils during winter and substitution of spring crops by winter crops

401A Setting up of sowing to grass systems 501 A and Plantation and maintenance of hedgerows

(22)

501B

503 Tree plantation on embankments

803A Setting up or enlargement of herbaceous cover under perennial woody plants

Qp1 - Part of “pesticides areas” covered by measures aiming at reducing the phytosanitary use

N° Actions

101A to

103A Conversion from arable lands to grasslands

202A For vegetable farms, introduction of non-vegetable crops 801A Integrated crop management

802A Implementation of organic pest management

804A Replacement of a chemical treatment by a mechanical treatment 805A Replacement of a chemical weeding by a mixed weeding

1602A and 1605A

No phytosanitary treatment harmful to flora or avifauna; in rice-fields, reduced use of herbicides

21 Organic farming

Qp2 - Part of “pesticides areas” covered by measures aiming at reducing the phytosanitary transfer to aquifers

N° Actions

301A to

304A Reduction of bare soils during winter 401A Setting up of sowing to grass systems

402A Relevant sowing to grass systems in accordance with CAP set aside lands 501A and

501B Plantation and maintenance of hedgerows 503A Tree plantation on embankments

601A Restoration of hedgerows

803A Setting up or enlargement of herbaceous cover under perennial woody plants

Q1 - Part of Zones of Water Distribution (ZWD) with measures aiming at reducing the irrigated area

No measure in the region

Q2 - Part of Zones of Water Distribution (ZWD) with measures aiming at reducing water quantities (used for irrigation)

(23)

No measure in the region

B1 - Part of regional territory covered by input reduction measures favourable to biodiversity

N° Actions

101 Conversion from arable lands to extensive grasslands

104 Conversion of the farming system to a forage system based on grasslands 1602 No phytosanitary treatment harmful to flora or avifauna

1806 Restricting management of remarkable area

2001A Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or grazing)

2001B Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or grazing), Option: Withdrawal of the organic fertilisation

2001C Extensive management of grasslands through cutting (or grazing), Option: Mineral fertilisation limited to 30-20-20

B2 - Part of the regional territory where crop arrangement measures, favourable to the biodiversity, have been contracted

N° Action

101 Conversion from arable lands to extensive grasslands

104 Conversion of the farming system to a forage system based on grasslands 201 Introduction of an additional crop within the initial cropping plan

202 For vegetable farms, introduction of non-vegetable crops 301 Winter covering of arable land (intercropping)

1401 CAP fallow improvement

1801 Rehabilitation of abandoned orchards

1901

Opening of highly scrubby plots Options :

(B) Regeneration of the plot by sowing grass after clearing (C) Setting up of pastoral facilities (fences)

(D) Extra for plots with reduced accessibility

1902

Opening and maintenance of highly scrubby plots (recent abandonment) Options :

(B) Regeneration of the plot by sowing grass after clearing (C) Setting up of pastoral facilities (fences)

(D) Extra for plots with reduced accessibility

B3- Part of regional territory covered by measures targeting the vegetation management at certain periods of the year

N° Actions

1601 Late use of the parcel

1604 No spring crushing of CAP fallow lands 1806 Restricting management of remarkable area Options

of 1806

(B) Reedy marshes

(C) Peat bogs and peaty grasslands

(24)

(F) Extensive management of remarkable areas, with late cutting (I) Management of nesting areas for marsh avifauna

B4 - Part of regional territory covered by measures promoting ecological infrastructures (or unexploited plots) potentially considered as habitats

N° Actions

4.1 Setting up of sowing to grass systems 5.1 to

5.5 Setting up of fixed landscape elements 6.1 Rehabilitation of hedgerows

6.2 Management of hedgerows 6.3 Rehabilitation of ditches 6.4 Restoration of embankments 6.5 Maintenance of low-walls

6.10 Ponds and water bodies rehabilitation 6.15 Maintenance of isolated trees

6.16 Maintenance of coppices

18.6 Restricting management of remarkable area

Options of 1806

(B) Reedy marshes

(C) Peat bogs and peaty grasslands

(D) Extensive grasslands on wetlands/marshes (E) Management of marsh dry-lands

(F) Extensive management of remarkable areas, with late cutting (G) Use of heather moors

(I) Management of nesting areas for marsh avifauna

Br1 - Part of regional territory concerned by measures in favour of remarkable species protection

No possible cross table

Br2 - Part of Natura 2000 areas concerned by measures protecting those habitats

Br3 - Number of engaged animals compared with the total number of the concerned breed

P1 - Part of regional territory covered by measures in favour of diversification (surface or non-surface measures)

N° Actions

101A to 104A Conversion from arable lands to grasslands

201, 202 Introduction of an additional crop within the initial cropping plan; for vegetable farms, introduction of non-vegetable crops

(25)

301, 302 and 305

Introduction of intercropping on bare soil during winter; substitution of spring crops by winter crops; promoting rotational practices including sunflower and reducing bare surface during winter

401 to 403 Setting up of sowing to grass systems; relevant distribution of CAP set-aside during at least 5 years (along waterways, etc…)

501 to 505 Setting up of fixed landscape elements

601 to 617 Rehabilitation and maintenance of fixed landscape elements

803 Setting up or enlargement of herbaceous cover under perennial woody plants 1604 No spring crushing of CAP fallow lands

1801 to 1810 Conservation of land-use systems with landscape and heritage interest 1901 to 1906 Reuse of areas in abandonment situation

2001 to 2003 Extensive management of grasslands

P2 - Part of regional territory covered by measures in favour of heritage preservation and territorial identity (surface or non-surface measures)

N° Actions

101 to 104 Conversion from arable lands to grasslands 501 to 505 Setting up of fixed landscape elements 601 to 616 except

604, 608 Rehabilitation and maintenance of fixed landscape elements 1801 to 1810

except 1804 Conservation of land-use systems with landscape and heritage interest 1901 to 1906 Reuse of areas in abandonment situation