CCAT approach to assessing CC impacts

1. Roel Jongeneel CCAT approach to assessing CC impacts

2. Approach • Inventory of interesting modelling tools and indicator frameworks available (includes knowledge from previous projects such as the CC-project, the CIFAS project, the IRENA project, the SEAMLESS and NEU project). • From the inventory a large set of indicators resulted. In a scrutinize analysis these indicators were linked to various fields of impact. A similar exercise was done for all the SMRs and GAECs, where the regulations were decomposed into several requirements (classification). • The degree of compliance with standards, as well as the costs of compliance are crucial information for project. A separate analysis was done (using MS estimates and regional information) to come to best-estimates at NUTS2 level. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

3. Approach • For a selected number of standards (Nitrate, I&R (quantitative), Birds and Habitat, GAECs (qualitative)) the first prototype of the CCAT-tool was used to assess impacts on farm economics, land-use, environment (air, soil, and water), biodiversity and landscape associated given different scenarios of compliance. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

4. Non com-pliance Non com-pliance Non com-pliance Not comply Not comply Not comply • Enforcement • Enforcement • Enforcement Adjustment needed Adjustment needed Adjustment needed Com-pliance Com-pliance Com-pliance Comply Comply Comply Affected Farmer Affected Farmer Affected Farmer No adjustment needed No adjustment needed No adjustment needed Requirement Requirement Requirement Non-affected farmer Non-affected farmer Non-affected farmer Estimating compliance: approach Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

5. Example Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

6. Degree of compliance: 5 steps • Estimate degree of compliance and member state level (data from IEEP and Cross Compliance project) • Estimate #farms, #livestock, #hectares at no, medium and high risk of non-compliance • Spatial distribution of groups of farms (hectares, animals) at no, medium and high risk over NVZ (relative land use in-/outside) • Calculate regional compliance rates based on 1), 2), and 3). • Cross-check • Aggregation of regions should lead to plausible country level estimates • Use where possible case study information for validation and fine tuning of approach Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

7. Costs of compliance N-directive • Costs of compliance with N-directive depend on: • the manure output per LU (animal specific excretion levels); • the transport and handling unit costs per unit of distance (€/ton.km); • the transportation distance (km); • additional manure application costs (10% cost mark-up) • additional manure storage costs (annuity reflecting investment costs); • buffer zone costs (area loss + yield loss) • green cover crop costs (tillage, seed, soil improvement benefits) • Current costs: Current costs of compliance represent the costs a complying farmer has to make in order to each year satisfy the standard (this will mainly reflect operational costs). These costs are already integrated in base year data on current costs. • Additional costs: Irrespective whether they are classified as medium or high-risk, non-compliant farms will face additional costs associated with an improvement of the general compliance level. Since then it are these farms with have to make costly adjustments. Cross Compliance Assessment Tool

8. Costs of compliance I&R • The additional costs associated with achieving full compliance with I&R are a function of: • the rate of non compliance at farm level; • the total number of farms; • the average number of animals per farm (herdsize); • the estimated loss-rate per animal; • direct and indirect costs per animal for I&R (see Table); Cross Compliance Assessment Tool