{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 23Apr13. Tables taken from D141, D241, D341 and D711{/xtypo_alert}

This section provides an overview of the EU policies, strategies and initiatives directly or indirectly pertinent to land degradation and desertification These include all existing environmental policies as well as relevant sectoral polices and various strategies and initiatives at the EU level. The selection is based on policy or strategy influence on ecosystem services, taking into consideration the global as well as national pressures according to different land use themes explored in the LEDDRA project; namely cropland, grazing land, forests & shrubland. The relevant policies and strategies are listed in the table below.

Table. EU policies, strategies and initiatives relevant to LEDD issues

Table EU policies strategies, initiatives and programmes and their relevant measures, targets and plans according to land use theme

Status and aims

The European Landscape Convention (ELC) was opened for signature by the member states of the Council of Europe in Florence on 20 October 2000 and entered into force on 1 March 2004. Its adoption followed to the Mediterranean Landscape Charter, covering portions of Spain, France and Italy, and the proposals for European-level agreement by a group of experts under the aegis of the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Committee for the activities of the Council of Europe in the area of biological and landscape diversity.

To date, 35 Parties have ratified the convention, including Greece, Italy and Spain. Each Party is to adopt a number of national measures while keeping with the principle of subsidiarity and assigning responsibility to the most appropriate level of government.

The convention is the first to deal directly and comprehensively with European landscapes and is part of the Council of Europe's work on natural and cultural heritage, spatial planning, environment and local self-government, seeking to achieve sustainable development by balancing social, environmental and economic needs.

The Convention aims to address the observable landscape deterioration occurring throughout Europe and, as a response, promote landscape protection, management and planning and organise European co-operation on landscape issues. More specifically, the ELC strives to increase the adoption of policies and measures for protecting, managing and planning all landscapes. Inherent in the convention's aims is the need to integrate landscape activities into political discussions and increase participation in related decision-making processes by utilizing multi-disciplinary, cross-sectoral approaches.

A further objective is to enhance the recognition of the cultural significance and social value of landscapes through awareness raising and information exchange. The convention also aims to improve human material well-being, highlighting the link with agriculture, the main activity affecting rural European landscapes.

Structure

The convention consists of a preamble and four main sections: Chapter I (objectives and scope; key definitions), Chapter II (national level measures), Chapter III (basis for European cooperation, international level measures, role of Committees responsible for monitoring implementation aspects), and Chapter IV (procedures for adopting the convention; related matters). Parties retain to the right to decide on legal arrangements and other means order to fulfil their obligations.

Several instruments are proposed so as to implement landscape policies: landscape planning; inclusion of the landscape in sectoral policies and instruments; shared charters, contracts, strategic plans; impact and landscape studies; protected sites and landscapes; resources and financing; landscape awards; trans-frontier landscapes; landscape observatories, centres and institutes; and reports on the state of the landscape and related policies.

Human and financial resources should be designated by public authorities and can be specifically earmarked or come from other sectors given that landscape considerations are introduced into the policies of other sectors.

Implementation

Contracting Parties undertake the implementation of national level measures including:

• awareness raising
• training and education
• identification and evaluation
• setting landscape quality objectives; and
• implementation of landscape policies.

Regarding the last element, Parties are to introduce specific legal, administrative, fiscal or financial instruments to fulfil the objectives outlined by the convention. Moreover, Parties agreed to cooperate internationally by providing technical and scientific assistance and exchanging landscape specialists for training and information.

The Convention has contributed to a recognition of landscape issues by the wider public, the progressive inclusion of the landscape in the political agendas of governments as well as the emergence of new forms of cooperation between different governance levels.

However, beyond its contribution to increased awareness of landscape considerations, the European Landscape Convention has had relatively limited effects and is faced with significant institutional hurdles and resource limitations in order to concretely embed landscape considerations in spatial planning, sustainable development and LEDD mitigation processes.

Relevance to LEDD

The inclusion of all landscapes distinguishes this Convention from more focused policies, highlighting the potential negative effects that developments in agriculture, forestry and industrial production techniques could evoke, thereby indirectly referencing the potential to and importance of mitigating LEDD processes.

Despite its limitations, the Convention provides an opportunity for action and change within the area of LEDD and holds great potential for landscape management:

• the ELC prioritises cropland in terms of its implications for human well-being and its large spatial distribution across rural Europe. In this context, it covers both agri-environmental considerations and aesthetic requirements, which can also serve to halt land degradation processes.
• Although grazing land is not explicitly mentioned in the ELC, actions to preserve and maintain the ecological integrity of this type of landscape albeit for aesthetic or other reasons could positively contribute to halting LEDD.
• The ELC has significant potential to address LEDD in forests/shrublands through increased support of afforestation measures and the upholding of aesthetic requirements, which can serve to halt land degradation processes such as erosion. Furthermore, increased awareness of the multifunctionality of forests would help to unify economic, ecological and aesthetic objectives.

The ELC alone will not be sufficient to make significant progress in combating LEDD. However, increased awareness of the importance of landscape can also impact other sectoral policies and evoke further concrete actions.

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 21Mar13: Source D141 (common sections), D241, D341. {/xtypo_alert}

Status and aims

The development of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) was initiated by the Council of Europe in 1994 aiming to provide a single, coherent framework for promoting a consistent approach to European implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The PEBLDS has produced several notable achievements, including a raised level of biodiversity conservation awareness in Europe and EU biodiversity policy.

PEBLDS strives to stop the decline and ensure the sustainable use of biological and landscape diversity within Europe by 2016. As an international, cooperative framework, the Strategy is intended to support and extend existing conservation schemes and programmes.

Further objectives include strengthening Europe's ecological coherence via the creation and management of the Pan-European Ecological Network extending beyong the EU's Natura 2000 network.

Finally, the Strategy aims to integrate the above objectives into all relevant social and economic sectors affecting or responsible for managing European diversity, recognising that to do so, public involvement, awareness and knowledge of conservation issues need to be increased, particularly in the agriculture sector.

Structure and components

The Strategy encompasses general principles, detailed provisions for the 1996-2016 period, an 'Action Plan on Biological and Landscape Diversity' and internal review and assessment.

Strategy actions are carried out in five year action plans, encompassing specific goals in line with CBD and national biodiversity strategies. The review process is coordinated by the Council of Europe and a pan-European Task Force

The PEBLDS does not have independent financial resources and relies on voluntary contributions from governments, UNEP, the Council of Europe and NGO's to cover select small-scale activities.

Implementation

All 56 UN/ECE (Economic Commission for Europe) countries, including Greece, Italy and Spain, have endorsed the PEBLDS.

Implementation is overseen by the Strategy bodies and council as well as its Bureau, national members, regional groups and the Joint Strategy Secretariat of Council of Europe, UNEP and other national and international organizations. To avoid duplicating the efforts of other relevant initiatives and policies, no official national reports are required to be submitted under the Strategy. Instead, national reports are based on the reporting requirements of the CBD.

The PEBLDS is a strategy with limited obligations and financial instruments for Parties involved. Nevertheless, its contribution to raising awareness and its influence upon EU biodiversity policy, including high-nature-value areas, restoration and green infrastructure, has been most significant and has prompted the adoption of EU biodiversity targets beyond those set by the CBD. Such awareness is essential in order to combat land degradation: the latter is not limited to small sites but needs to addressed on broader scales

However, it should be noted that land degradation and desertification is not a core issue of the PEBLDS. Emphasis is laid on the protection of biodiversity and the prevention of landscape degradation, the latter being regarded as an instrument for biodiversity protection.

In this context, the vital role played by agriculture in supporting biological diversity and managing landscapes and semi-natural habitats is highlighted. Specific goals include encouraging the sound management of agricultural land, supporting organic farming methods and reducing fertilizers and pesticide use.

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 21Mar13: Source D141 (common sections), D241, D341. {/xtypo_alert}

Status quo and objectives

The EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) was first launched at the 2001 Gothenburg Summit, following the inclusion of 'sustainable development' as a central EU objective in the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam and providing an environmental dimension to the Lisbon Strategy. The Strategy was renewed in 2006 is subject to regular review.

The overall aim of the 2006 Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy is to identify and develop ways for the EU to create "sustainable communities able to manage and use resources efficiently" to improve the quality of life now and for future generations. Seven key priority areas are identified, including conservation and management of natural resources which includes soil and forest protection. One of its main objectives is "improving management and avoiding overexploitation of renewable natural resources such as fisheries, biodiversity, water, air, soil and atmosphere, restoring degraded marine ecosystems by 2015 in line with the Johannesburg Plan (2002) including achievement of the Maximum Yield in Fisheries by 2015".

Although the EU SDS does not focus specifically on combating desertification, the above objective encompasses soil protection to some extent. The 2009 progress report highlights a number of achievements, but notes: "Soil quality continues to deteriorate with climate change."

Structure and components

The policy includes the EU's goals for sustainable development, followed by a set of key objectives and guiding principles, and ways to coordinate the Lisbon Strategy with the goals of the SDS. The policy also outlines seven key challenges, including an overall objective, set of operational objectives and targets, and a set of action items for the EU to implement progress toward each challenge. It concludes with a set of cross-cutting measures, financing mechanisms, and implementation, monitoring and follow-up activities.

Funding relies on existing mechanisms, such as Life +, Research and Technological Development (RTD), and market-based instruments, such as removal of subsides that are contrary to the sustainable development objectives.

Actors involved in the policy development process include the EU, its Member States, and a wide range of stakeholders.

Implementation

Member States are required to report bi-annually on their progress toward the EU SDS to ensure implementation of the overarching goals. Prior to this requirement, countries were already required to submit national sustainable development strategies (NSDS) to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). In many cases, these processes have been aligned. Development and implementation of these plans includes input from local authorities, civil society, industry and academia. The following is the status for the EU countries included in the LEDDRA project:

• Greece: The NSDS was adopted in 2002. The first report to the Commission on the EU SDS was provided in 2007. The NSDS focuses on 'Green Growth', and is linked to the goals of the EU 2020 strategy, with specific focus on development investments; economic activity; rural development and creating new jobs. The priority sectors include: agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, construction, infrastructure development and energy.
• Italy: The NSDS was adopted in 2002. The first report on the EU SDS was published in 2007. Plans to align the NSDS with the EU SDS reporting are still being developed. The NSDS focuses primarily on the environment, and decoupling economic growth and pressure on natural resources in the agriculture, energy and transport sectors and follows the themes outlined in the EU 6th Environmental Action Programme. The four main priority areas foreseen for 2012 include: implementation of the National Action Plan for Green Public Procurement; improvement of environmental quality of products of SMEs; involvement of big retailers following the Integrated Policy Product (IPP) approach; and sustainable tourism.
• Spain: The NSDS was adopted in 2007, and was developed within the framework of the renewed EU SDS. The first report on the EU SDS was published in 2007. There is strong regional participation in the national planning process, and four regional plans have been approved and will be aligned with the national strategy. A set of 74 indicators was developed to monitor Spain's progress toward implementing its sustainable development goals.

Among the main instruments of the SDS is the requirement for an impact assessment by Commission for all policy proposals.

The Renewed EU SDS strategy provides an overarching framework for conservation and protection of natural resources and includes overall sustainability goals that are congruent with soil protection, in cropland, ranging land and forests.

However, priorities outlined by Greece, Italy and Spain focus largely on green growth, rather than on soil protection measures. Horizontal references to land uses are missing, although they are implicitly included in sectoral strategies (e.g. agriculture).

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 23Apr13: Source D341.{/xtypo_alert}

Status quo and objectives

Although forest policy competence in the EU remains with Member States, concerns about the lack of coherence and coordination between various EU forest-related policies gave rise to the EU Forestry Strategy (1998). The Strategy is complemented by a Forest Action Plan (FAP) for the 2007-2011 period, providing a framework for active coordination of forest-related policies, such as the Habitats Directive, the Rural Development Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Biomass Action Plan. The FAP has been submitted to a mid-term review in 2009 and was further evaluated in 2011. In 2010, the Commission issued a Green paper on "Forest protection and information in the EU: Preparing forests for climate change" launching a debate on an EU approach to forest protection, potentially leading to amendments to the Forestry Strategy or new legislative measures. The Green Paper addresses the question of how policies and forest management should evolve to address challenges posed by climate change.

The EU Forestry Strategy stresses the multifunctional role of forests, offering a framework for the coordination of Member States on issues such as sustainable forest management, the implementation of international commitments, and cooperation and communication on policy areas relevant to the forest sector in the EU.

The FAP is organised around four general objectives and 18 concrete actions:

• improving long-term competitiveness
• improving and protecting the environment
• contributing to the quality of life; and
• fostering coordination and communication.

Key actions directly or indirectly related to forest degradation and deterioration are the following:

• facilitate EU compliance with the obligations on climate change mitigation and encourage climate adaptation;
• contribute towards achieving the Community biodiversity objectives;
• enhance the protection of EU forests;
• maintain and enhance the protective functions of forests;
• encourage the use of wood and other forest products from sustainably managed forests.

The Standing Forestry Committee (SFC), the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork (AGFC) and the Commission Inter-Service Group on Forestry play a major role in organising and undertaking those tasks.

Structure and components

As the treaties establishing the European Union do not explicitly provide the basis for a common EU forest policy, the formulation and implementation of forest policy is first and foremost a competence of the Member States under the subsidiarity principle. Coordination, between Member States and the Commission but also between forest sectors on the national, subnational and EU scales, is therefore at the core of the Forestry Strategy. Voluntary National Forest Programmes, a country-specific process providing a framework for sustainable forest management, constitute the main tool supported by the Forestry Strategy as a means to insure the participation and integration of all relevant sectors in the formulation and application of forest policy.

The 2005 report on the implementation of the Forestry Strategy concludes that changes in the policy context have generated the need for a more coherent and pro-active Community approach to the management of forest resources.

The 2006 Forest Action Plan adheres to this process by proposing more concrete, although still voluntary, measures of coordination and research leading to:

• MS reporting on their activities to raise awareness on the impacts of climate change on forestry, address the impacts of climate change on forestry and promote climate change mitigation and adaptation,
• Consideration of monitoring the fragmentation of forests and of the effects of forest expansion on biodiversity,
• Further development of the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS),
• Carrying out a study analysing the main factors influencing the evolution of forest condition in Europe (including forest fires) abd the efficiency of current Community instruments and measures for forest protection,
• Forming groupings of MS to study particular regional problems with the condition of forests,
• Supporting research on the protection of forests and phytosanitary issues,
• Carrying out studies on: flood prevention, combating desertification, avalanche control, aoil erosion prevention and control, water resources preservation.

The 2010 Green paper provides insights into potential future policy development for the protection of EU forests from overexploitation and degradation in the context of increased vulnerability related to climate change.

Implementation

The EU Forestry Strategy is based on a non-legally binding Council Resolution. No additional guidelines, budget or resources are foreseen for the implementation besides means available in other policies. The same applies to the FAP.

Table. Examples of activities at the national level for implementation of the Forest Action Plan in Italy, Greece and Spain (FAP Midterm evaluation, 2009)

The EU Forestry Strategy and the Forest Action Plan directly address core issues for preventing further LEDD in forests (e.g. forest fragmentation, fires, flood prevention, desertification and soil erosion). However, they only do this through voluntary actions, including primarily coordination and research activities.

Despite its voluntary nature, the FAP can be regarded as a means for streamlining forest policies of Member States to the highest degree possible, given the persisting opposition against further policy integration by various Member States (e.g. Finland and Sweden). The Green Paper depicts another attempt to achieve stronger commitment from Member States to achieve EU wide objectives of forest protection, and to concretise the concept of sustainable forest management. In theory, one of the most promising approaches to tackling LEDD in EU forests would be EU wide standards in the form of measures incorporated into the concept of sustainable forest management that have to be applied in all EU forests.

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 21Mar13: Source D141 (common sections), D241, D341. {/xtypo_alert}

History and current status

The 2006 EU Soil Thematic Strategy is the last of seven thematic strategies developed under the 6th Environmental Action Programme, following the 2002 Commission Communication "Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" and an extensive consultation process. This process resulted in reports on erosion, organic matter, contamination and land management, monitoring, research, sealing and other cross-cutting issues and three associated policy documents were put forward: 1) Communication on the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection; 2) Impact Assessment supporting a soil framework directive; and 3) proposed EU Soil Framework Directive.

Despite successive attempts since 2007 political agreement on a soil framework directive has not been reached. Several member states have argued that they have robust domestic policies to protect soils and that the proposed EU directive would be too complex and costly too implement.

Implementation

The EU Soil Thematic Strategy aimed to provide a comprehensive strategy to achieve two overarching goals:

1. prevention of soil degradation and
2. restoration of degraded soils.

The Communication on the Thematic Strategy outlines four overarching 'pillars' to achieve these goals:

1. framework legislation;
2. integration of soil protection in national and EU polices;
3. increased research related to soil protection;
4. focus on increasing public awareness about the need to protect soil.

The European Commission also argued an EU legal framework would provide added value in the following areas:

1. Impacts covered by other EU legislation: Soil degradation that impacts other environmental areas, such as air and water.
2. Convergence of national soil protection policies to prevent economic imbalances.
3. Transboundary impacts: Impacts from one Member State on the soil of another Member State (e.g. groundwater contamination).
4. Food safety: preventing and reducing soil contamination at the source would positively impact feed and food safety, where the EU has clear competence.
5. International soil protection through the UNCCD, UNFCCC and CBD).

In the absence of legally binding instruments, the implementation of the EU strategy has largely been focused on the set of non-binding principles. Member States are participating in international conventions and develop their own soil protection policies and measures. This heightens the importance of Member State participation in the UNCCD, as well as the integration of soil issues in other policies such as the Water Framework Directive, the CAP and regional policy.

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 21Mar13: Source D141 (common sections), D241, D341.{/xtypo_alert}

In the European Union, the Environmental Impact Assessment was established by the European EIA Directive (97/11/EC) and followed by the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) four years later. Both Directives are closely linked to spatial and land use planning and are considered the most important legal instruments of horizontal European environmental policy, unifying the provisions of other environmental legislation, with the potential to address LEDD processes in a holistic manner.

The common aim of both Directives is to ensure that projects, policies, plans and programmes minimise their environmental impacts. EIA and SEA are related as in most cases a SEA is conducted before a corresponding EIA. This means that information on the environmental impact of a plan can cascade down through the tiers of decision making and can be used in an EIA at a later stage.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is typically a cross-sectoral decision-making process that identifies, describes and evaluates the objectives and the geographical scope of policies, plans and programmes (PPPs). It explores the linkages between a programme element and the environment, as early as possible in the planning process. In the case that an environmental assessment is required an environmental report shall be prepared in which the likely significant effects on the environment have to be considered, covering "biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors." Consequently, the SEA is focused on foreseeable negative impacts of land-use change that can be reduced or even prevented by considering reasonable alternatives.

Generally speaking, the SEA is a process-oriented approach and a supporting action that encourages sustainable management and land protection applied to plans and programmes on national, regional as well as on local level. The process covers amonst others overarching strategies and programmes, regional plans, transport infrastructure plans, land use plans, landscape plans, urban development plans, river basin management plans, management plans for agriculture and forestry and plans affecting areas under the Habitat and Birds Directive.

Since the introduction of the SEA, PPPs are more likely to confirm with ideas of sustainable development. If properly applied, the SEA has a strong influence on spatial development and the allocation of different land-uses, as it not only gives information about significant effects on the environment, but also considers their cumulative impacts and the secondary effects of plans and programmes. While, the types of plans and programmes to be considered within the SEA process may differ from each Member State, the SEA process allows for the consideration of drivers of land degradation and desertification.

While, the SEA can help prevent land degradation and desertification, it must be recognised that this instrument is not specifically designed to stop and reverse LEDD-processes. Instead, it promotes sustainable land use practices and environmental protection, through its preventive and preparatory character.

SEA's may be applied to agricultural programmes covering, inter alia, support of diversification of the rural economy, planning for ecological resilience, promotion of diverse and largely intact landscapes, introduction of water saving technologies, introduction to integrated agricultural practices, establishment of green corridors in urban fringe zones and in areas with agricultural monocultures and pastures and establishment of ecological networks. With regard to LEDD, a SEA may also be helpful in highlighting its negative impacts upon natural hazards risk, such as droughts, for the wider public.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is always linked to projects, using quantitative data, scenarios and prognoses. Consequently, it can be very specific with regard to significant environmental impacts. It provides both, private and public projects a systematic review of environmental issues based on the precautionary principle. It is aimed at improving planning by clarifying potentially significant environmental impacts. It examines direct and indirect effects of a project on human health, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage. In practice, the EIA often addresses the direct, on-site effects alone.

Much of the implementation of EIA is left to the Member State. Criteria for projects, where EIA reports are required are set at the national level. It is important to point out, however, that in agricultural projects, application of EIA is generally not required or has a narrow spatial and temporal scope. Hence, agricultural aspects are addressed rather incidentally.

The EIA, due to its extremely localised focus and limited sectoral application, has limited potential to directly combat land degradation. On the other hand, it does contribute to the transparency of planning decisions and the consideration of likely negative impacts. In this manner, the EIA may contribute to reducing the impacts of additional land consumption and inappropriate land-use.

Proposed prevention and mitigation measures for cropland and grazing land can cover a wide range of environmental factors, including, inter alia: efficient water use, maintaining groundwater levels needed for agriculture and fauna, soil reclamation, control of salinity and pollution by agrochemicals and pesticides. Mitigating measures for forests & shrubland may include reforestation or creation of new habitats.

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 23Apr13: Source D141 (common sections), D241, D341.{/xtypo_alert}

History and status quo

The European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was first introduced in the 1950s with the aim then of ensuring stable supplies of affordable food. The initial CAP offered payments guaranteeing high commodity prices, thus providing incentives to intensify production and maximize outputs. By the 1980's the CAP had not only eliminated post-war food shortages but also resulted in surpluses of the major agricultural commodities.

Through a series of reforms since 1992, market support has been reduced and replaced by direct payments to farmers. The Agenda 2000 reform established the two pillars of CAP: the first pillar provides direct farm payments and limited market intervention measures; the second pillar supports rural development more broadly, including several compulsory agri-environment schemes. Since 2003, and with the exception of areas threatened by abandonment, payments to farmers are no longer determined in relation to the area or volume of production (decoupling). Instead, "single farm payments" are linked to environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards, the compulsory "cross-compliance". Further changes under the 2009 Pillar I Health Check, included the abolishment of arable set-aside, increased modulation rate (in favour of the Rural Development Fund) and added new requirements to the GAEC-standards to retain the environmental benefits of set-aside and improve water management. They also strengthened the CAP's contribution towards environmental challenges such as climate change, bioenergy, water management and biodiversity.

Aims and objectives

The objectives of the CAP set in the Treaty of Rome (Art. 33) are to :

• increase productivity, by promoting technical progress and ensuring the optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
• ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural Community;
• stabilise markets;
• secure availability of supplies;
• provide consumers with food at reasonable prices.

These objectives are now complemented by environmental and sustainability objectives including:

• be a living policy reflecting the needs and expectations of European society;
• promote a sustainable agriculture offering safe, quality products while protecting the environment and animal welfare;
• support the multifunctional role of farmers as suppliers of public goods;
• promote the growth and creation of jobs in rural areas;
• reinforce a competitive and innovative agricultural sector that can respond to the challenges of the world market
• be managed by simple and transparent rules

Structure and components

The CAP instruments which are the most relevant to soil conservation are cross compliance requirements and rural development programmes

Cross Compliance covers (a) compliance with statutory management requirements (SMR) related to 19 environmental EU Directives and Regulations covering public, animal and plant health; animal welfare and the protection of environment (Nitrates, Sewage Sludge, Groundwater, Birds and Habitats); and (b) compliance with standards for Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC). GAEC standards first introduced in 2003 are particularly relevant to LEDD as they cover soil erosion, maintenance of soil organic matter, soil structure and minimum levels of maintenance. Member States are also required to maintain permanent pasture at historic levels (i.e. no reduction in the area coverage is allowed).

Table. GAEC framework (source: Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009)

Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector

• Advisory services, training and advice: Measures promoting the diffusion of knowledge, information and expertise with regard to sustainable farming/ forestry practices in general and to LEDD in particular and.
• Modernisation of agricultural holdings measures may be used to introduce technologies that improve environmental performance, including soil protection.
• Measures to restore agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introduce appropriate prevention actions

Axis 2: improving the environment and the countryside

• Natural handicap payments for mountain areas and payments in other areas with handicaps. The Less Favoured Areas (LFA) Scheme aims to ensure sustainable and extensive land use. LFA measures are relevant to soil protection through the avoidance of land abandonment that often has negative impacts on soil, such as increased erosion and reduction of soil organic matter quality.
• Agri-environment measures supporting the provision of environmental services beyond the baseline regulatory level set by GAEC standards and SMRs. Farmers are compensated for income foregone or additional costs incurred in providing such services. AEM represent the only compulsory measure for Member States within their Rural Development Programmes.
• Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive area management.
• Support for non-productive investment aiming to enhance achievements of the commitments undertaken under agri-environment schemes and Natura2000 through support for non-remunerative investments.
• First afforestation of agricultural land and establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land which may contribute to soil erosion protection
• Forest Environment Payments and Non-productive investments in forests

Axis 3: Quality of life in rural areas and diversification of rural economy

Axis 4: Build local capacity for employment and diversification (LEADER approach)

Measures of these axes may contribute indirectly to soil protection, for example through the drawing up of protection and management plans for high nature value areas, environmental awareness actions and investments associated with maintenance, restoration and upgrading of the natural heritage, as well as support for food quality schemes where environmental dimension of food production is important. Support for local action groups (LAGs) to implement local development strategies may be used to promote soil-friendly practices, or generally raise institutional capacity.

Implementation process

The CAP is implemented in the context of the EU's seven-year budget cycle or programming periods. The main EC regulations outline the content of each Pillar while Member States retain a degree of autonomy at the national and regional level in order to respond flexibly to different regional and local conditions. Implementation at Member State level shapes the impact of CAP on LEDD. The implementation process for the key instruments in 2007 – 2013 period is briefly outlined below.

Single Farm Payment Scheme in the form of three possible models: 1) the historical model with entitlements calculated on the basis of historical individual reference amounts; 2) the regional model where reference amounts are calculated per region; 3) a hybrid model combining a mix of the two approaches. The regional model normally results in some redistribution between more intensive and less intensive producers, potentially providing more support for more environmentally friendly production.

Cross Compliance: Member States must translate GAEC standards into obligation at farm level, taking into account the specific regional characteristics. This enables Member States to address soil degradation processes flexibly according to national priorities and local needs. Some Member States used GAEC to compensate for gaps in their existing national legislation on soil protection, while others adopted and existing legislative base for cross compliance. In order to control the compliance with SMR and GAEC standards Member States are required to carry out (administrative) checks on cross-compliance at farm level and on-the-spot checks on at least 1% of all farmers receiving direct payments.

Rural Development Programmes: The "Community strategic guidelines for rural development" were first incorporated into Member States' national strategy plans and rural development programmes. Resources were allocated to the various axes taking account of the specific situation, strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of each programme area. Therefore, only the programme level provides an indication of how far farming practices and specific soil degradation processes are linked. Rural development programmes were revised to include Health Check provisions, allocated additional funds for environmental challenges. Agri-environment measures are a particularity as the actual measures are agreed between the implementation authority and a farmer through a contract for a minimum of five years.

CAP relevance to LEDD

Historically, CAP has contributed greatly to farmers; incomes but has also contributed to LEDD through the intensification of production and the marginalisation of less competitive/intensive production methods. These processes have occurred at different scales and intensities: farming has intensified in fertile and accessible areas and production in less accessible or naturally handicapped areas has diminished.

Intensification of production (increasing inputs of fertilisers and pesticides, reduction in crop diversity, intensity of mechanisation), has a strong impact on soil degradation. Soil erosion, soil compaction, decline in soil organic matter and potentially soil and water contamination are associated with poor management of cropland. Actions by farmers to address these impacts and to improve soil protection include:

• reducing the intensity of management;
• applying diversified cropping techniques;
• ensuring appropriate machinery use.

Budget distribution between the Pillars

The CAP has relatively recently begun to address environmental issues in agriculture, including soil degradation through environmental safeguards linked to farm payments and support through rural development and agri-environment measures. However, the lion's share of CAP funding goes to the Pillar 1 (85%), largely based on historic entitlements and with minimal links between support payments and specific management requirements

Thus, while the environmental objectives are much more visible in the structure of the CAP, the achievement of these objectives is limited. Moreover, increasing demand for food and biomass is expected to lead to further agricultural intensification and increased risk for soil degradation in both cropland and grazing land. To counter these drivers, CAP has to provide much stronger support for environmental objectives not only in the design of its instruments but also in terms of budget allocation.

In addition, while forestry activities are supported under the RD policy, the funding allocation to forestry actions is relatively limited. This relatively limited support for the forestry sector is understandable since forest management has remained primarily within the domain of national policies. Nonetheless, within the context of climate change, it may be necessary to increase EU level coordination and spending activities for forestry actions.

Cross compliance

The scope of cross-compliance makes it an important tool for addressing LEDD processes in both cropland and grazing land (grasslands). Cross-compliance is a potentially very effective tool to ensure a minimum level of compliance with environmental protection since it can be enforced through annual inspections. The implementation so far, however, has had limited effect as the objectives and the scope of cross compliance are not well defined and national GAEC standards are highly variable in scope and are often not detailed enough. The different implementation of the Member States was one reason to adapt GAEC within the CAP Health Check and introduce a differentiation between compulsory and optional standards.

A further shortcoming of cross-compliance is that so far there are no requirements set for the measurement and evaluation of its results. Since cross-compliance provides the regulatory baseline for the setting of requirements within Pillar 2 (in particular for the agri-environment measures), the definition of relevant standards is of particular importance to the delivery of environmental objectives, including soil protection. The more ambitious the cross-compliance standards are the more demanding are also the requirements that need to be fulfilled under agri-environment measures.

The CAP Health Check expanded GAEC standards to include landscape features (hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins) in order to protect existing landscape features and biodiversity as well as to contribute to the retention of environmental benefits from set-aside. Moreover, the introduction of the requirement for the establishment of buffer strips along water courses has the potential to protect against soil erosion both on cropland and on grasslands. Inclusions of provisions of the Water Framework Directive as part of cross-compliance are also being discussed.

With regard to grazing land, cross-compliance requirements for permanent pasture stipulates that Member States have to maintain the proportion of permanent grassland in relation to the total agricultural land as set in 2003 reference year. This does not, however, prevent the ploughing up of grassland and subsequent reseeding; nor does cross-compliance prevent the intensification of grassland use. This has important implications for the biodiversity value of grassland, as well as for the maintenance of soil quality as permanent grasslands are an invaluable carbon sink and crucial for maintenance of water quality (particularly groundwater recharge). A definition of permanent pasture that differentiates between semi-natural permanent pastures and intensively managed grassland would provide better protection against LEDD.

Rural Development Programmes

The impact of rural development programmes on LEDD depends on the priority given to specific objectives (for example, competitiveness versus environment), the funding allocation among the axes and individual measures, the specific design and implementation of the measures and their uptake by farmers. RD policy is important both for both cropland and grazing land management within the EU.

Axis 2 measures can also contribute to soil protection by supporting specific farming practices and farming systems such as organic farming and conservation agriculture (that both have positive effects on soil organic carbon content and soil biodiversity). In most cases, it is impossible to conclude at the EU level to what extent the measures focus on soil quality, since the required level of detailed information, in particular the link between farming practices and specific soil degradation processes, is only available at the programme level. Moreover, the complementarity between agri-environment measures and the (reference level) requirements under GAEC is critical to ensure that incentive payments are not used to compensate for compulsory good practice.

By design, agri-environment measures (AEM's) directly address soil protection issues. and therefore have a direct relevance to LEDD-problems. AEMs can help protect, maintain or improve soil quality through reductions in farming intensity with potentially beneficial impacts for soil conservation. e.g. via reduction of input (e.g. fertilisers, plant protection products), crop rotation, cover crops, buffer strips, conversion of arable land to grassland, extensification of livestock and in specific cases voluntary set-aside. Although quantified information on the impact of AEM measures on soil quality is lacking, initial evaluations for the 2000-2006 programming period suggest that soil quality has improved and soil erosion has been reduced.

With regard to forests/shrubland, the RD measures directly targeting forest ecosystems include measures for afforestation of agricultural land, first establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land, forest environment payments and non-productive investments which can all substantially contribute to prevent and reverse LEDD in forest ecosystems. It is estimated that within the programming period 2007-2013, RD funding will allow the establishment of 890,000 ha of new forests, and support 400,000 ha of forests in Natura 2000 areas, as well as provide forest-environment payments for 2,000,000ha of forests.

In summary, the CAP will continue to remain one of the most important EU policies and a key influence over land management and soil quality due to its scope, levels of funding and EU-wide coverage. It contains a range of policy instruments which substantially influence the socio-economic environment for farms and their choices of farming practices. It is a key EU policy which, directly and indirectly, affects LEDD processes in croplands, but also in grazing lands as well as forest ecosystems.

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 23Apr13: Source D141 (common sections), D241, D341. {/xtypo_alert}

History and status quo

Originally adopted in 1979, the Birds Directive is the European Union's oldest piece of nature legislation, adopted as a response to growing threats to Europe's wild bird populations from pollution, habitat loss and unsustainable farming practices. The Birds Directive is complemented by the Habitats Directive, adopted in 1992, addressing the continuing deterioration of European natural habitats and the growing threats to wild species. At the heart of the Habitats Directive is the Natura2000 ecological network of protected areas, the biggest network of its kind in the world. In 2010, the network consisted of over 26,000 sites covering over 17% of the EU's land surface.

Implementation of both Directives is progressing more slowly than expected, partially due to decision-making complicated by conflicting economic and conservation objectives.

Aims and objectives

The Birds Directive aims to create a comprehensive scheme of protection for all wild bird species that naturally occur within the EU and to regulate the exploitation of these species. Recognizing that habitat loss and land degradation pose serious dangers to wild bird conservation objectives, the Directive also aims to provide sufficiently diverse habitats to maintain these populations and includes the designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for migratory birds and other species.

The Habitats Directive complements the Birds Directive and promotes the maintenance of biodiversity while addressing economic, cultural, social and regional parameters. The preservation of wild flora and fauna "of community interest" is sought via the maintenance or improvement of habitats and ecosystems designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

Together, SPAs and SACs (which partially overlap in their territories) form a network of protected sites across the European Union referred to as Natura 2000. By protecting Europe's species and habitats, both Directives help to address land degradation and desertification risks. Specifically, the Directives aim to protect designated areas from agricultural intensification and the resultant negative effects for soil biodiversity, fertility and organic matter content, contamination, erosion, compaction and sealing.

Structure and components

The Birds Directive consists of three main elements:

• designation of SPAs for migratory and other vulnerable wild bird species;
• a ban on activities directly threatening birds or associated activities (trading in live/dead birds);
• establishment of rules limiting the number of species that can be hunted, of periods during which hunting can take place and of hunting methods permitted.

Measures to preserve, maintain and re-establish biotopes and habitats under the Directive include: creating protected areas; re-establishing destroyed biotopes; creating biotopes; and keeping up with and managing in accordance with the ecological needs of habitats inside and outside the protected zones.

The Habitats Directive requires the designation and maintenance of SACs in accordance with outlined safeguards (prior assessment of potentially damaging plans and project; approval of such projects only if they represent an overriding interest and no alternative solution exists; provision of compensatory habitats). It also prohibits reducing the size or number of breeding and resting places for certain animal species. If a Member-State or the Commission hold that a particular habitat or species is endangered, MS are required to establish a plan or project to restore the SPA to a favourable conservation status.

Implementation process

All European Member States have to fully implement the provisions of both the Habitats and Birds Directives. A report on implementation progress is required every six years for the Habitats Directive and every three years for the Birds Directive.

Member States are required to register their SACs, incorporate species protection provisions in their national legislation, provide protection for the area concerned, deploy suitable management measures and monitor the quality of the SAC . The sites are designated over three stages, namely: (1) MS must draw up a list of sites hosting natural habitats and wild fauna and flora; (2) on the basis of the national lists and by agreement with the MS, the Commission will adopt a list of sites of Community importance; (3) no later than 6 years after the selection of a site, the relevant MS must designate it as a SAC. Almost 30% of the current designated terrestrial SCIs comprise forest habitats and another 30% contain partly woodland elements and related species.

MS are required to implement the law, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Habitats Directive within two years of its notification. MS are then required to establish management plans and further actions following discussions with landowners and managers, as well as arrangements for site management. The Habitats Directive also requires active restoration of selected habitats, which also has to be outlined in the management plans.

During the ongoing 2007-2013 budgetary period, the implementation of Natura 2000 is supported by a total of seven EU funding instruments including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), European Fisheries Fund (EFF), Structural and Cohesion funds, EU Fund for Environment (LIFE+) and the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7).

Relevance to LEDD in cropland, grazing land, and forests/shrubland

As the centrepieces of EU legislation on nature protection, the Habitats and the Birds Directive, which include the Natura 2000 network, have strong relevance for LEDD. Once included in the network, a particular piece of land will, via the strict requirements that landowners have to fulfil, be protected from substantial land degradation. In areas protected by the Birds and Habitats Directive, clear limitations are set on the intensification of land use associated with exhaustion of fertile soils and high erosion risks. Moreover, by connecting different kinds of habitats (e.g. forest, grassland, lakes and rivers) through smaller elements (so called step-stone biotopes), the Natura 2000 network ensures, at least in principle, that land degradation is prevented through interconnecting sites at the landscape level.

From the governance perspective, the Birds and Habitats Directive have a strong, binding character compared to many other policies studied by the LEDDRA project. Member States are obliged to assign areas for SPAs and SACs and are often faced with legal proceedings for failing to deliver on time. Nevertheless, the Natura 2000 network is still far from its completion.

One major obstacle to faster and more effective implementation of Natura 2000 is the insufficient uptake of funding instruments by some Member States. For example, agri-environment measures and dedicated payments for Natura 2000 in the context of European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development continue to be of low priority in several Member States. In addition, the use of European Regional Development Fund for biodiversity has also been rather limited. There are also clear indications that the possibility of providing financing for Natura 2000 in the context of the European Fisheries Fund has not been pursued at the national level. In general, this reveals that there are still significant difficulties in ensuring that the management of Natura 2000 be considered a high priority in the Member States.

Upon recognising in 2009 that the 2010 target of halting the loss of biodiversity would not be met, the European Commission took note that activities related to maintaining and enhancing ecosystems cannot be limited to protected areas only. Biodiversity loss can only be stopped if (basic) protection efforts are applied to general land use outside Natura 2000 sites as well.

As a result, the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy of the Commission includes a specific target for establishing green infrastructure throughout the EU territory and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems. This shift towards a more integrated approach potentially benefits efforts to combat LEDD. Green infrastructure concepts link measures addressing only species and habitat protection to water, soil and landscape protection, resulting in the enhancement of biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems. Among the measures potentially foreseen for restoration of habitats, some may explicitly address forest degradation, such as afforestation and reforestation with native deciduous tree species, measures of particular relevance for forest/shrubland.

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 23Apr13: Source D141 (common sections), D241, D341.{/xtypo_alert}

The heart of Europe's climate and energy policy is the EU Renewable Energy Directive of 2009 (RED; 2009/28/EC), which sets binding targets for the use of renewable energy and bioenergy. First, it states that the EU as a whole must ensure that 20% of total energy consumption comes from renewable sources by 2020. Second, it specifically requires that 10% of all transport fuels is to be derived from renewable sources by 2020 in every Member State.

Renewable energies (wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy and water power) can have a direct impact on land use through the installation of their facilities and the necessary power distribution infrastructure. Furthermore, bioenergy's elevated status within the RED has particular relevance to LEDD as

1. only biofuels have a specific goal (10% transport fuels) which leading to a politically driven increase in biofuel production on an international level and
2. the expansion of biofuels results in an increase in biomass demand from arable land and forests, leading either to intensification of land use or to additional demand for land.

Both causes can have severe impacts on LEDD, as intensification of agricultural practices often exhausts fertile soils and can lead to further erosion. One problem often associated with the cultivation of energy crops in the EU (especially with rapeseed and maize) is the reduction of crop rotations and the use of monoculture, which increase the risk of soil loss and declining biodiversity. The increasing pressure on land caused by an accelerated demand for biomass even has an international dimension, and can cause deforestation in developing countries where environmental legislation is lacking or poorly enforced. Moreover, if food production is substantially replaced by the cultivation of energy crops, it leads to competition for land, which can result in local food shortages and increasing food prices.

While preventing the negative impacts on soils of renewable installations and power distribution infrastructure is not the subject of the RED, environmental impacts of biofuel production play a particular role via the formulation of sustainability requirements: the directive requires that all biofuel products counting towards the target must reduce GHG emissions of at least 35% compared to fossil fuel, which will increase to 50% in 2017 and to 60% in 2018. Moreover, biomass cannot be derived from land of high biodiversity value, such as natural forests, protected areas and special kinds of grassland, and may not be produced on land with high carbon stocks, such as water-rich areas (e.g. peatlands) and permanently forested areas.

The European Commission is also currently working on an improved assessment of indirect land use change (ILUC). ILUC occurs, when biomass production replaces other land usages to other areas, which can lead to deforestation and conversion of grass- and cropland. Recent studies conclude that going beyond a 5.6% share of biofuels in transport fuel in the EU could cause significant environmental harm globally though direct and indirect land use change.

In addition to the sustainability requirements mentioned above, the 10% target is also bound to the precondition that 2nd generation biofuels (derived from lignocellulosic crops, e.g from short rotation coppice) become commercially available. This may serve as leverage for more sustainable biofuels from a soil conservation perspective: Second generation technologies hardly play a role on the biofuel market yet, but potentially offer environmental benefits over first generation biofuels (made from sugar, starch, and vegetable oil), such as higher yield per acre from a diverse array of feedstocks - this requires less intensive management than annuals, and can have a reduced impact on soil erosion.

However, while the RED imposes sustainability requirements for biofuels, the use of solid and gaseous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling does not have to fulfil these requirements. This is why a parallel European renewable policy debate outside the RED is currently discussing the extension of sustainability criteria for these sources.

Relevance for Cropland, Grazing land and Forests/shrubland

The most relevant aspects of the RED with regard to LEDD are binding sustainability requirements, affecting all types of land examined under the LEDDRA project.

GHG emission requirements can impact the extent of cropland used in the EU: the potential inclusion of ILUC (factors) in the RED may lead to some EU biofuels and respective crops (for examples rapeseed for biodiesel) failing to achieve the minimum GHG savings, hence not counting towards the 10% target. Apart from this, the desired shift to 2nd generation biofuels can be beneficial for the soil quality of cropland. Furthermore, some extensively used grazing lands might be defined as highly biodiverse grasslands, which would prohibit biomass extraction for biofuels in these areas. Enforcing respective sustainability criteria could potentially alleviate the additional pressure on grazing lands, which would also impact LEDD, at least in the context of biofuels. However, it should be noted that RED sustainability criteria do not apply to any other land use practise aside from the extraction of biomass for biofuels. As a result, the RED linkage to grazing systems is a rather indirect one. The requirement that forested land not be converted for the production of biofuels is central, as well as the future requirements to prevent indirect land use change (which often causes deforestation).

In general, it can be said that future decisions and regulations in international biofuel policies will have strong implications for LEDD. This is because the biofuels sector is a central driving force for increasing demands for wood and agricultural commodities, which can only be met by further increasing yields associated with intensification of land use and/or by additional land for growing biomass. The latter can result in substantial land use changes from natural land to highly intensified cultivation practices with severe impacts on soil structures, water retention and biodiversity.