POLITIKA OCHRANY PŮDY A VODY: PŘÍPAD ZNEČIŠTĚNÍ ZEMĚDĚLSTVÍM

European Soil and Water Conservation Policies:

The Case of Agricultural Pollution

Politika ochrany půdy a vody: případ znečištění zemědělstvím

Ted L. Napier

Address:

Department of Community and Human Resources Development, and the School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Telephone 614-292-2706. E-mail: napier.2@osu.edu.

Abstract:

Soil and water conservation policies and programs in selected societies in Europe are examined in the context of their effectiveness for addressing environmental degradation associated with technology-intensive agricultural systems. Research findings generated in each country are examined. It is concluded that a combination of regulatory and voluntary incentive systems will be required to motivate land owner-operators to adopt and to continue use of conservation production systems at the farm level. However, it is suggested that primary emphasis will continue to be placed on regulatory approaches. It is argued that use of economic incentives can increase the rate of adoption of soil and water conservation production systems at the farm level, however, this method of motivating farmers to use conservation production systems may not be feasible in many countries, given the high cost associated with such approaches.

Abstrakt:

Programy ochrany půdy a vody ve vybraných oblastech Evropy jsou zkoumány v kontextu jejich účinnosti na adresování zhoršené životní prostředí spolu se systémem itenzivního zemědělství. Výsledky bádání v jednotlivých zemích jsou zkoumány a porovnávány. Kombinace dobrovolného a řízeného systému si vyžádá motivaci vlastníků půdy k přijetí a dalšímu používání konzervačního produkčního systému na úrovni farem.

Nicméně je rozhodnuto, že základní důraz bude kladen na pravidelný přístup. Diskutuje se o tom, zda použitím ekonomických stimulů může vzrůst míra přijetí půdních a vodohospodářských ochraných programů na úrovni farem.

Tato metoda motivace farmářů k využití systému udržení produkce nemusí být, s ohledem na vysoké náklady spojené s takovými přístupy, vhodná ve všech zemích.

Introduction

Soil and water resources in all European countries have been and continue to be degraded by farmers using technology-intensive production systems. While the nature and magnitude of the degradation varies from country to country, tillage of land resources to produce agricultural products contributes to soil displacement and water pollution.

Some of the costs associated with soil erosion of agricultural land in V.urope are as follows: loss of purchased nutrients, decline in future productivity of land resources, loss of resale value outland resources, contamination of drinking water, loss of recreational use of land and ivater resources, disruption of water transportation systems by sedimentation of streams and lakes, disruption of land transportation systems by deposition of displaced soil on highways and railway systems, and loss of wildlife habitat.

While the costs of agricultural pollution have been recognized for decades in Europe, concerted eA'orts to reduce the environmental damages associated with agricultural pollution have only recently received attention. The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the attempts by European countries to address nonpoint pollution problems. European policy instruments are evaluated in the context of future environmental policies and programs.

Evolution of Existing European Agricultural Environmental Policy

Soil and water conservation policies and programs are relatively new to Europe. European LJnion (EU) conservation policy came into being in 1972 via the Environmental Action Program (EAP). EU countries began to address a number of environmental issues in a loosely federated manner.

The basic underpinnings of early EU environmental policy was the belief that the polluter should pay for any environmental damage created by his/her actions. This belief is one reason ~vhy several EU countries continue to use taxes to leverage the price of agricultural chemical inputs to higher levels. The argument for increasing taxes on agricultural inputs is that farmers wishing to apply high levels of chemical inputs to increase farm income should be willing to pay higher prices to do so (Kroeze-Gil and Folmer, 1997; Whitby, 1996).

In 1985, EU countries signed a binding agreement to address environmental issues and the Single European Act (SEA) took eAect in 19S7. This agreement established EU conservation policy goals which are as follows: prevent pollution at the source, polluters should pay the cost of environmental protection, decision making should remain at the individual country level unless the well-being of the EU is threatened, and EU environmental policy should be consistent and integrated with other EU policies. These guidelines have been instrumental in the formation of more recent environmental policies among EU members.

While SEA was somewhat eQective for addressing point pollution problems, it was not very useful for dealing with nonpoint pollution problems. Nonpoint pollution was not significantly affected by EU environmental policy until 1992 when the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) came into being. The CAP basically asserts that agriculturalists should be stewards of the environment and that they should be comgensated for qconomic losses associated with farming in a stewardship manner. Farmers using low-technologies that protect soil and water resources receive government compensation of economic losses associated with use of such production systems.

Government payments were perceived to be an essential element for effective EU agricultural conservation policy, because farmers were not willing to participate in any program that would result in a decline in net farm income. EU agricultural production policies provide indirect economic incentives to maximize food and fiber production which encourages farmers to adopt production systems that degrade soil and water resources. Conservation policy formulators recognized that land owner-operators who participated in the CAP would be harmed financially if land was operated in a stewardship manner, because farm production would decline. To operate farms in an environmentally friendly manner would necessitate retirement of marginal lands from production and would require a significant reduction in chemical inputs (Frohberg and Weingarten, 1998; Kroeze-Gil and Folmer, 1997; Weigarten and Frohberg, 1997; Whitby, 1996). Both of these production changes could reduce farm output.

While the CAP did not mandate priorities for environmental action for EU members quality of drinking water v as perceived to be one of the most important issues in all EU countries. Thus, management of farm chemicals became a priority issue, because water quality has been shown to be closely associated with chemical inputs. Water quality standards were established, however, each member state was permitted to determine the means it would use to achieve water quality goals. The decision to permit each EU country to manage farm chemicals using its preferred approach is the major reason for high levels of diversity among European countries relative to environmental policies and programs. Some EU countries have elected to provide as many farmers with economic support as possible, while others have elected to target limidted economic resources on specific areas and specific resource problems. It is generally agreed, however, that the primary goals of the CAP are to reduce agricultural pollution, improve water quality, increase biodiversity, and to decrease the technology-intensive nature of production agriculture.

Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs in North West Europe

While EU agricultural conservation policy established general goals and action options for member countries, considerable flexibility was provided to individual nation states to address environmental problems. The major environmental problem associated with agricultural pollution in North West Europe is contamination of water resources (Dubgaard, 1998; Fullen, 1998; Primdahl, 1996; Rundqvist, 1996; Schou, 1998; Vedeld and Krough, 1998). As agriculture has become more technology-intensive within North West Europe the use of farm chemicals has concomitantly increased. The environmental consequences of increased use of farm chemicals has been the contamination of surface and ground water rcsources.

The most pervasive problem in North West Europe is nitrate contamination. Nitrate contamination of drinking water poses a threat to the health and well-being of a large proportion of the population in North West European countries. Pesticide contamination is a problem that is becoming more serious over time. Eutrophication of coastal waters is a serious environmental problem that has been demonstrated to be closely associated with the use of agricultural chemicals.

Rather than use the traditional voluntary approach employed in North America to resolve agricultural pollution problems, several countries in North West Europe have developed and implemented conservation policy instruments to encourage land owner-operators to reduce application rates of farm chemicals. Conservation policy instruments range from taxes on nutrients and other chemicals to the arbitrary reduction of government farm subsidies to reduce economic incentives to maximize farm production.

Taxes on farm chemicals is a popular approach and has been extensively applied as a means of reducing nutrient and pesticide application rates. While such approaches have been partially successful, they have only partially achieved their policy objectives because farmers purchase farm chemicals even when input prices are increased by use of public policies.

Another approach that has been growing in popularity is the use of "green tickets" to bring about adoption o f conservation production systems at the farm level. Farmers are paid to adopt and to continue using conservation production systems that decrease use of farm chemicals. This is similar to economic incentive programs in the US to "bribe*' land owners to use conservation production systems. Green tickets are used to compensate farmers for economic losses when conservation production systems are adopted and farm income is adversely affected.

Another command and control approach that has been employed throughout Europe is the banning of farm chemicals in certain environmentally sensitive areas. Application of farm chemicals is often banned on farm land located close to wells used for household water supplies.

Conservation policies and programs that rely heavily on education and information to convince farmers to adopt and use conservation production systems have not been used extensively in North West Europe. It has been widely recognized that such approaches work only when potential adopters of conservation production systems are ignorant of the causes and solutions of agricultural pollution problems. It has been demonstrated that land owner-operators in North West Europe are not ignorant of the environmental consequences associated with technology-intensive agricultural production systems. Farmers are also aware of how to control agricultural pollution. These findings are similar to those produced in the US.

Policy makers have recognized that chemical pollution problems are caused by farmers who do not wish to internalize the production costs associated with technology-intensive production systems. It is also recognized that farmers will not voluntarily internalize the costs of controlling agricultural pollution unless incentives are provided.

The use of policy instruments to motivate land owner-operators to adopt soil and water conservation production systems has been partially successful in North West Europe. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have effectively employed these approaches to significantly reduce farm chemical application rates. Use of taxes on farm chemicals have not achieved stated environmental goals of chemical reduction, because the cost of inputs would have to be elevated to very high levels to reduce chemical application rates to the level deemed desirable by society.

Use of policy instruments in North West European countries is not a politically popular approach when land owners are forced to internalize externalities. However, goverment policies that make subsidies available to agriculturalists are perceived favorably. Policy makers have elected to pursue conservation goals using unpopular methods because they have decided that protection of the environment should take precedence over individual profit maximization at the farm level.

Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs in Central Europe

Soil and water conservation policies and programs in Central Europe vary from well- defined policy instruments in Germany and Austria to emerging conservation initiatives in France and Italy. The policy instruments used to protect soil and water resources vary from a mixture of command-control and economic incentives in Germany and Austria to economic incentives combined with education in France and Italy (Boisson and Buller, 1996; Frohberg and Weingarten, 1998; Holl and von Meyer, 1996; Klik and Baumer, 1998; Povellato, 1996; Weingarten and Frohberg, 1997).

Soil and water conservation policy is more highly advanced in Germany and Austria than in other countries in Central Europe. Both countries have elected to use a combination of voluntary and command-control approaches and to use the power of state and federal goverments to ensure compliance. Both countries control chemical application in certain sensitive environmental areas.

The most significant environmental problem associated with production agriculture in Germany and Austria is water pollution. A significant portion of government-sponsored conservation efforts in both countries is focused on improving water quality by reducing nonpoint pollution. Surface and groundwater are controlled by the federal goverment in Germany. To protect drinking water from contamination, Germany established the Federal Water Act in 1956 and amended the act in 1986. This act effectively bans the use of farm chemicals within water protection areas surrounding drinking water plants. A number of other farm practices are also restricted including certain tillage systems. Application of manure, pesticides, and other forms of tertilizers are controlled within these areas. Some of the more toxic farm chemicals are totally banned. Production agriculture is totally prohibited in certain portions of the water protection areas. Farmers throughout the country are encouraged to use low-scale production systems and receive compensation for loss of farm income resulting from use of conservation production systems.

While German conservation policy approach appears to be well-organized and to function well there are abuses. Many program participants become involved in conservation efforts only to receive government compensation rather than to improve environmental quality. Often farm income is increased with no improvement in environmental quality (Weingarten and Frohberg, 1997).

Austria also controls farming around drinking water supplies. The federal government determines whether or not farming is permitted and the type of farming that is acceptable in areas surrounding groundwater aquifers used for drinking purposes. Austria also bans toxic farm chemicals (Klik and Baumer, 1998).

Protection of soil resources is a responsibility of states in Austria. This fragmentation of authority poses a problem for national soil conservation initiatives, because there is considerable variability in terms of policy among the states. Another problem is that soil loss tolerances have not been established which makes it difficult to establish goals to be achieved Klick and Baumer, 1998).

Soil and water conservation programs in Germany and Austria have an education- information component. Such efforts are perceived to be somewhat useful in Germany and Austria because farmers are not aware of environmental issues associated with use of farm chemicals. While education programs have been used frequently to address soil and water conservation problems, such approaches have been shown not to be very successful without use of economic incentives or coercive policy instruments. The failure of conservation programs to motivate farmers in these countries is the lack of economic resources. Farmers do not have financial resources to adopt soil and water conservation production systems at the farm level.

Soil and water conservation efforts in France were very slow evolving because French farmers have resisted interference into farm-level decision making, especially government actions that could result in loss of net farm income. French farmers compose one of the most powerful political forces in France and have been successful blocking government action to impose constraints on agricultural production decisions at the farm level.

Early EU conservation initiatives were basically ignored by French farmers. The first conservation measure in France was focused on protecting bird habitat (Wild Bird Directive 79/409). Cost sharing was provided by the EC to help farmers manage land in such a manner that bird habitat would be protected.

France did not participate actively in Article 19 of Community Regulation 797/85 because the Ministry of Agriculture was hesitant to give support the Article 19 for fear that farmers would resent intrusion into farm-level production decisions. The Ministry was also fearful that support would suggest that farmers were polluters rather than stewards of land and water resources. The major reason that France became involved with emerging European environmental policy was the economic inducements offered by the EC.

French participation in environmental efforts was significantly influenced by the recognition that many acres of farm land were being abandoned and that the trend would continue unless some mechanism was devised to provide financial support to marginal farmers. Regulation 2078/92 of CAP provided that support base. France became an active partner in environmental action when Regulation 2078/92 was implemented. Marginalised French farmers embraced the approach advanced by the policy because they could remain in production agriculture. Farmers received payments to protect future land productivity by shining to low-scale production systems. Regulation 2078/92 spawned several conservation programs in France that emphasized reduction of chemical inputs and restoration of grasslands. Financial compensation for program participation is included in all of the national conservation initiatives in. France. Adoption of soil and v, water conservation production systems has been primarily confined to marginal farmers and by farm operators in sensitive environmental regions in France (Boisson and Buller. 1996)

The history of soil and water conservation policies and programs in Italy is similar to the evolution of conservation policies and programs in France. The major exception is that conservation efforts in Italy have been constrained by lack of public economic resources to adequately finance cost-sharing of conservation programs (Povellato, 1996).

Italian conservation policies and programs came into being with the introduction of CAP Regulation 2078/92. While there were earlier attempts to introduce conservation legislation, such efforts were basically ineffective. Farmers did not wish to comply with environmental laws and agencies responsible for enforcing policies were reluctant to force farmers to comply. Even with EC financial support, Italy has not been effective to date in implementing conservation programs. Unless public economic incentives can be provided to farmers wishing to participate, it is highly unlikely that Italy will be able to meet FU environmental expectations in the near term.

Conclusions

Evidence generated within several European countries strongly suggests that voluntary approaches that emphasize the provision of information and education to motivate land owner- operators to adopt and to continue using soil and water conservation production systems are not adequate to resolve agricultural pollution problems. Effective conservation policies and programs must make it more profitable for land owner-operators to adopt and use conservation production systems than to continue use of technology-intensive production systems that contribute to environmental degradation. This can be achieved either by subsidizing adoption of conservation production systems or by penalizing farmers who employ production systems that degrade soil and water resources. The first option is an incentive system and the second is a disincentive system. If a disincentive system is adopted, it must be enforced.

Evidence examined in this paper strongly suggests that future soil and water conservation policies and programs in the EU will continue to rely heavily on command and control approaches v with economic subsidies. The most important political implication of this conclusion is that countries not presently members of the EU will probably find that it will become progressively more difficult to join the EU unless they implement comparable agricultural pollution policies and programs to those of existing EV members. The economic costs of implementing such policies and programs to qualify for admittance to the EU will be extremely expensive for many countries in Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe.

Bibliography

Boisson, Jean-Marie and Henry Buller. 1996. "France." In The Europenn Environment and CAP Reform Policies and Prospects for Conservation M. Whitby (ed.). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB, International. pp 105-130.

Dubgaard, Alex. 1998. "Water Conservation Policies in Denmark." In Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs Successes and Failures Ted L. Napier, Silvana M. Napier and Jiri Tvrdon (eds.). Ancien lowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.

Frohherg, Klaus and Peter Weingarten. 1998. "Soil and Water Conservation Policies in Germany.' In Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs Successes and Faihires Ted L. Napier, Silvana M. Napicr and Jiri Tvrdon (eds.). Ankeny, lowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.

Fullen. Michael A. 1998. "Perspectives, Policies, and Recommendations on Soil Erosion in the United Kingdom." In Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Prog rams Successes and Failures Ted I.. Napier, Silvana M. Napier and Jiri Tvrdon (eds.). Ankeny, lowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.

Holl. Andreas and Heino von Meyer. 1996. "Germany." " In The European Environment and CAP Reform: Policies and Prospects for Conservation M. Whitby (ed.). Wallingford, Vnited Kingdom: CAB Intemational. pp. 70-85.

Klik. A. and O.W. Baumer. 1998. "Soil and Water Conservation Policies Within Austria." In Soil and Watcr Conservation Policies and Programs: Successes and Failures Ted L. Napier, Silvana M. Napier and Jiri Tvrdon (eds.). Ankeny, lowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.

Kroeze-Gil. Jardena and Henk Folmer. 1997. Environmental Policy in Europe Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 12 (4): 108-110.

Povellato. Andrea. 1996. "Italy." In The European Environment and CAP Reform: Policies and Prospects for Conservation M. Whitby (ed.). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB, International. pp 131-154.

Primdahl, Jorgen. 1996. "Denmark." In The European Environment and CAP Reform: Policies and Prospects for Conservation M. Whity (ed.). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International. pp. 45-69.

Rundqvist, Bengt. 1996. "Sweden." In The European Environment and CAP Reform: Policies and Prospects tor Conservation M. Whitby (ed.). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International. pp. 173-185.

Schou, Jesper. 1998. "The CAP Reform and Danish Agriculture: An Integrated Environmental and Economic Analysis." In Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs Successes and Failures Ted L. Napier, Silvana M. Napier and Jiri Tvrdon (eds.). Ankeny, lowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.

Vedeld, Paul and Erling Krogh. 1998. "Rationality Is in the Eye of the Actor." In Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs: Successes and Failures Ted L. Napier, Silvana M. Napier and Jiri Tvrdon (eds.). Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society Press.

Weingarten, Peter and Klaus Frohberg. 1997. "Tending Soil and Water on German Farm Fields." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 12 (4): 111-114.

Whitby, M. 1996. The European Environment and CAP Reform: Policies and Prospects for Conservation. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International.