Special  Report Integration of EU water 
policy objectives with the 
CAP: a partial successEN 2014  NO 04
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN  COURT  OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide  De Gasperi  
1615  Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352  4398-1
E-mail:  eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet:  http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter:  @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube:  EUAuditorsECA
More  information  on the European  Union  is available  on the Internet  (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of the European  Union,  2014
ISBN  978-92-872-0028-0
doi: 10.2865/15216
© European  Union,  2014
Reproduction  is authorised  provided  the source  is acknowledged.
Printed  in Luxembourg
EN 2014  NO 04
Special  Report Integration of EU water 
policy objectives with the 
CAP: a partial success
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)
02
 Contents
Paragraph
 Terms and abbreviations
I–XI Executive summary
1–14  Introduction
1–6  The links between EU water policy and the common agricultural policy (CAP)
7–11  CAP instruments with the potential to help integrate the EU water policy objectives into the CAP
12–14  CAP funds with a potential impact on water
15–20  The audit
15–17  Audit scope and audit approach
18–20  Previous audits
21–79  Observations
21–32  Weaknesses in the implementation of EU water policy have hindered its integration into the CAP
33–48  The impact of cross‑compliance on water issues has so far been limited
34–39  The cross‑compliance mechanism has impact but is not fully exploited
40–48  Weaknesses in the application of cross‑compliance
49–61  The potential of rural development to address water concerns is not fully exploited
52–55  Member States’ plans for rural development spending do not always take account of the EU’s water policy 
objectives and the Member States’ needs in relation to water
56–61  Rural development funding has been underused as a response to water concerns
62–65  The polluter pays principle has not been integrated into the CAP
66–79  Monitoring and evaluation systems do not give the whole picture
03 Contents
80–87  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — Audit questions and criteria used for the audit
 Annex II  —  Survey results: Main changes reported by farm advisory bodies following the 
introduction of cross‑compliance
 Annex III — Examples of water‑related issues not covered by cross‑compliance
 Annex IV —  Additional Health Check and Recovery funds allocated and used by Member States 
for water management
 Reply of the Commission
04
 Terms  
and abbreviations
CAP : Common agricultural policy.
Cross‑compliance : A mechanism that ties direct payments to farmers and a number of rural development 
payments to compliance with a series of rules relating to the environment, food safety, animal and plant health 
and animal welfare and to maintaining agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition. 
Cross‑compliance rules relate to 18 statutory management requirements and 15 GAEC standards. Non‑compliance 
with these standards and requirements can lead to a reduction in CAP payments to the farmer.
Direct payments : Payments granted directly to farmers under an income support scheme. Examples are the Single 
Payment Scheme and the Single Area Payment Scheme.
EAFRD : European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Also referred to in this report as ‘rural development’.
Eutrophication : The process by which water bodies receive excess nutrients, especially phosphates and nitrates. 
These typically promote excessive growth of algae, depleting the water of available oxygen and thus causing the 
death of other organisms, such as fish.
GAEC standards : The obligation to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition refers to 
a range of standards related to soil protection, maintenance of soil organic matter and structure, avoiding the 
deterioration of habitats, and water management.
Health Check : In 2009, the various components of the CAP were examined and adjusted in order to direct the CAP 
towards balanced and environmentally friendly development. This adjustment is known as the ‘Health Check’.
Measure :
(1) Rural development measure : a set of operations which can be funded from the EAFRD. Each measure sets out 
specific rules to be complied with;
(2) Measure as referred to in the WFD (RBMPs and programmes of measures):  a set of operations, including legal, control 
and administrative initiatives, contained in the RBMP and contributing to the implementation of the WFD. In this 
context, an agricultural measure is a set of actions or initiatives that can be used to mitigate the effect of pressures 
caused by agricultural activities on water.
Plant protection products : Used to protect plants or crops from damaging influences such as weeds, diseases or 
insects.
RBMP : River basin management plan.
RDP : Rural development programme.
River basin : The area of land from which all surface run‑off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, 
possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.
05 Terms and abbreviations 
River basin district : The area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with 
their associated ground waters and coastal waters, which is identified in the WFD as the main unit for management 
of river basins.
SMR : Statutory Management Requirements. 18 EU legislative standards in the field of the environment, food safety, 
animal and plant health and animal welfare.
Water Directors : Directors of water policy of the various Member States and other participating countries.
WFD : The Water Framework Directive — Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 
p. 1) — is an overarching piece of legislation that was adopted in 2000 in order to make the patchwork of existing 
policies and legislation more coherent. Its approach for water management is based on river basins as a natural, 
environmental unit rather than on administrative or legal boundaries. It refers to several related directives, such as 
the directives on bathing water, drinking water, urban wastewater treatment, nitrates, sewage sludge, etc. The WFD 
regards implementation of these other directives as a minimum requirement. The measures to implement them 
must be integrated into river basin management planning. It should be noted that there are no dedicated funds 
made available through the WFD for implementing the EU’s water policy.
06
 Executive   
summary
I
Protecting the quality of Europe’s water resources has 
been a high priority for the EU since it started adopt ‑
ing specific legal instruments in the area of water 
protection in the late 1970s. The Water Framework 
Directive (WFD) was adopted in 2000 to establish 
a legal framework for protecting and restoring water 
bodies across Europe and ensuring long‑term sustain ‑
able water use. River basin management plans (RBMPs) 
and programmes of measures are the main instru ‑
ments used by the Member States to implement the 
EU’s water policy. Member States can implement the 
water policy partly using funds from other policies.
II
Agriculture is an important source of environmental 
pressures. In Europe, agriculture accounts for around 
33 % of total water use and is the main source of nutri ‑
ent pollution in water.
III
The common agricultural policy (CAP) represents just 
under 40 % of the EU budget. Through the CAP the 
EU seeks to influence agricultural practices affecting 
water. There are currently two instruments which are 
used to integrate the EU’s water policy objectives into 
the CAP . These are cross‑compliance, a mechanism 
linking certain CAP payments with specific environ ‑
mental requirements, and the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD, also referred to 
in this report as ‘rural development’) which provides 
for financial incentives for actions going beyond com ‑
pulsory legislation.IV
The European Commission and the Council have 
repeatedly stressed the need for better integration of 
water policy with other policies, such as agriculture. 
The EU’s water policy objectives require action in dif ‑
ferent policy areas and, consequently, intervention by 
a range of authorities, which may be pursuing differ ‑
ent and potentially contradictory interests. Against 
this background, the Court’s audit set out to answer 
the question: Have the EU’s water policy objectives 
been successfully integrated into the CAP? The Court 
sought to reply to this question by examining the 
degree to which implementation of the EU’s water 
policy has enabled it to be taken up in the CAP , and 
through an analysis of cross‑compliance and rural 
development.
V
The audit addressed the question as to whether the 
objectives of EU water policy had been successfully 
integrated into the CAP but found that to date they 
had only partially been so. This was due to a mismatch 
between the ambition of the policy objectives and the 
instruments used to effect change. The audit high ‑
lighted weaknesses in the two instruments currently 
used by the Commission to integrate water concerns 
into the CAP (namely cross‑compliance and rural 
development) and pointed out delays and weaknesses 
in the implementation of the WFD.
VI
The Court concludes that cross‑compliance and rural 
development funding have thus far had a positive 
impact in supporting the policy objectives to improve 
water quantity and quality, but these instruments are 
limited, relative to the policy ambitions set for the CAP 
and the even more ambitious goals set by the CAP 
regulations for the 2014–20 period.
Executive summary 07
VII
It further concludes that delays in the implementation 
of the WFD have, as a matter of fact, hindered the inte ‑
gration of water policy objectives into the CAP .
VIII
The Court also found that monitoring and evaluation 
systems both directly related to the CAP and those 
providing more general data did not provide the 
information necessary to fully inform policymaking as 
regards pressures on water coming from agricultural 
activities, though noting some useful initiatives.
IX
The Court recommends that the Commission should 
propose the necessary modifications to the current 
instruments (cross‑compliance and rural develop ‑
ment) or, where appropriate, new instruments capable 
of meeting the more ambitious goals with respect 
to the integration of water policy objectives into the 
CAP . The Member States should address the weak ‑
nesses highlighted in relation to cross‑compliance and 
improve their use of rural development funding to 
better meet the water policy objectives.
X
It further recommends that the Commission and Mem ‑
ber States must address the delays in implementation 
of the WFD  and improve the quality of their RBMPs by 
describing individual measures and making them suf ‑
ficiently clear and concrete at an operational level.
XI
As regards monitoring and evaluation the Commission 
should ensure it has information that, at the very least, 
is capable of measuring the evolution of the pres ‑
sures placed on water by agricultural practices and the 
Member States themselves are requested to provide 
data on water in a more timely, reliable and consistent 
manner.
08
 Introduction
The links between EU 
water policy and the com ‑
mon agricultural policy 
(CAP)
01 
Water protection (in terms of both 
quality and quantity) is a priority sub ‑
ject on most public agendas, not only 
in the EU but also worldwide and at 
national, regional and local levels. The 
main overall objective of the EU’s wa ‑
ter policy is ‘to ensure access to good 
quality water in sufficient quantity 
for all Europeans, and to ensure the 
good status of all water bodies across 
Europe’1. The main legal instruments 
used by the EU to achieve this objec ‑
tive are directives, adopted by the 
European Parliament and Council, in 
relation to water. A directive is a legis ‑
lative act of the European Union which 
requires Member States to achieve 
a particular result, but without dictat ‑
ing how they are to do so.
02 
The Nitrates Directive, adopted in 
1991, sought to reduce nitrate pol ‑
lution from agricultural sources in 
Europe’s waters2. It was followed up 
by the more comprehensive Water 
Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000. 
The WFD requires Member States to 
achieve ‘good status for surface and 
groundwater’ by 20153. Member States 
must draw up river basin management 
plans (RBMPs) and associated pro ‑
grammes of measures, which are the 
main instruments used to implement 
the Directive — and consequently to 
implement the EU’s water policy. Mem ‑
ber States can implement the water 
policy partly using funds from other 
policies. For instance, RBMP measures 
can in some cases be financed through 
t h e  C A P.03 
According to the European Environ ‑
ment Agency’s (EEA) state of water 
report4 it is ‘not likely’ that Europe’s 
water will meet the goal set by the 
WFD for 2015 in terms of either water 
quality or water quantity, despite im ‑
provements in the past decades.
04 
Agriculture accounts for the largest 
share of land use in Europe (ca 50 % 
of overall land area). It has shaped the 
European landscape and has strongly 
increased its use of external inputs 
(fertilisers, pesticides and water) 
over the last 50 years. The sector is 
therefore an important source of 
environmental pressures5. Agriculture 
in Europe accounts ‘for around 33 % 
of total water use’ and is the ‘largest 
source of nutrient pollution in water’6. 
As the main user of water, agriculture 
therefore has a major role to play in 
the sustainable management of water 
quantity and quality.1 http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/water/index_
en.htm  and Article 4 WFD.
2 Council Directive 91/6 76/EE C of 
12 December  1991 concerning 
the protection of waters 
against pollution caused by 
nitrates from agricultural 
sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, 
p. 1). The nitrates directive 
requires Member States to 
monitor surface and ground 
waters and to designate 
nitrates vulnerable zones. 
Member States have to 
establish a code of good 
agricultural practice to 
be applied in the whole 
territory on a voluntary basis. 
Moreover Member States must 
adopt action programmes 
compulsory in nitrates 
vulnerable zones.
3 Article 4 WFD.
4 EEA Report No 9/2012 
‘European waters — current 
status and future challenges’.
5 ‘A Green CAP? Reform options 
from an environmental angle’. 
EEA Green CAP project, 
interim report first phase, 
23 June 2011.
6 EEA Report No 1/2012 
‘Towards efficient use of water 
resources in Europe’.
09 Introduction
05 
The Council of the European Union 
has stressed the need to protect water 
through the CAP on several occasions7:
 — In 2007 it stressed that ‘the in ‑
corporation of sustainable water 
use concerns into other sectoral 
policies (e.g. agriculture)’ was 
a requirement ‘for achieving water 
policy objectives’ and underlined 
‘the need to pay special attention 
to the further development and, 
if necessary, adaptation of current 
agriculture policies to contribute 
to sustainable water management’.
 — In 2009 it identified water manage ‑
ment as a crucial new challenge 
for agriculture, stating that ‘water 
management issues, including 
water quality, should be further 
addressed in the relevant CAP 
instruments’.
 — In 2010 the Council recognised the 
need for ‘more efficient and sus ‑
tainable water use in agriculture’.
06 
The need for the further integration 
of water management concerns into 
other policy areas, such as agriculture, 
has been clearly expressed by the 
European Commission, the EEA, the 
Council of the European Union and 
the Water Directors8. The integration 
of EU water policy objectives into the 
CAP is an important goal, not least 
with regard to Article 11 of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European 
Union, which states: ‘Environmental 
protection requirements must be inte ‑
grated into the definition and imple ‑
mentation of the Union policies and 
activities, in particular with a view to 
promoting sustainable development.’7 Council Conclusions on 
Water Scarcity and Drought 
of 30 October 2007. Council 
Conclusions on Water Scarcity, 
Drought and Adaptation 
to Climate Change of 
11 June 2010. Recitals 1 and 
4 to Council Regulation (EC) 
No 74/2009 of 19 January 2009 
amending Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005 on support 
for rural development by 
the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD) (OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, 
p. 100) following the Health 
Check.
8 • COM(2012) 673 of 
14 November 2012 ‘A Blueprint 
to Safeguard Europe’s Water 
Resources’: ‘there is a need 
for better implementation 
and increased integration of 
water policy objectives into 
other policy areas, such as the 
common agricultural policy’.  
• Recital 16 to the WFD: 
‘Further integration of 
protection and sustainable 
management of water into 
other Community policy areas 
such as energy, transport, 
agriculture, fisheries, 
regional policy and tourism is 
necessary.’  
• Recital 6 to Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 
of 20 September 2005 on 
support for rural development 
by the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, 
p. 1): ‘The activities of the 
European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development and 
the operations to which 
it contributes must be 
consistent and compatible 
with the other Community 
policies and comply with all 
Community legislation.’  
• EEA report No 9/2012: It 
‘requires much more effort to 
integrate water management 
concerns into different 
sectoral policies such as 
agriculture and transport.’  
• Water Directors’ Declaration 
on WFD and Agriculture of 
30 November 2006: ‘(…) the 
importance of water resources 
in social, economic and 
environmental terms needs 
to be acknowledged and 
integrated into all the sectoral 
policies.’
10 Introduction
CAP instruments with the 
potential to help inte ‑
grate the EU water policy 
objectives into the CAP
07  
There are currently two CAP instru ‑
ments which are being used to inte ‑
grate the EU’s water policy objectives 
into the CAP: cross‑compliance and the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development (see Figure 1 ). These instruments have the potential 
to contribute to sustainable agriculture 
by encouraging good farming prac ‑ 
tices, promoting compliance of farm ‑
ing activities with environmental leg ‑
islation, such as the Nitrates Directive, 
and providing incentives for environ ‑
mentally beneficial public goods and 
services.Figure 1Linkage between the CAP and EU water policy
Note:  This figure shows, on one side how CAP funds can be spent through direct payments and rural development funds. For farmers receiving 
direct payments and/or certain rural development funds, cross‑compliance ties those payments to the compliance of certain environmental 
obligations. The activities financed by the CAP may have a positive or a negative impact on water. On the other side the figure shows the main 
milestones set up by the WFD, the main instrument to implement water policy at EU level.
WFD entered
into
establishmentof 
monitoring dra
measures
-CAP
legisla tion & fundsCOHERENCE?
legisla tion but
no fundsWater P olic y
direct paymen ts rural dev elopmen t (EAFRD )
Member S tates RDP s (2007-2013)(farming) ac tivities impac tsWFD (1st c ycle)
WFD en tered in to
force 2000
establishmen t of
monit oring
network 2006
presen t draf t
RBMP s2008
ﬁnalise RBMP s and
programmes of
measur es2009
mak e pr ogrammes
opera tional 2012
meet 
environmen tal
objec tives2015
good sta tus of w ater
 bodiesMember Sta tes’ obliga tions
+/- impac t on w ater 
  
cross- compliance
11 Introduction
08  
 Cross‑compliance is a mechanism that 
ties direct payments to farmers (and 
a number of rural development pay ‑
ments9) to compliance with a series 
of rules relating to the environment, 
food safety, animal and plant health 
and animal welfare and to maintaining 
agricultural land in good agricultural 
and environmental condition (GAEC)10. 
These rules are set out in 18 statutory 
management requirements (SMRs) and 
15 GAEC standards. Non‑compliance 
with these standards and require ‑
ments can lead to a reduction in CAP 
payments to the farmer.09 
Six cross‑compliance requirements 
have a direct impact on water quality 
and water quantity. They are listed in 
Table 1 . Several other cross‑compli ‑
ance requirements have an indirect im ‑
pact on water protection (for instance 
the SMRs on the conservation of wild 
birds and natural habitats and the 
GAEC standards on minimum soil cover 
or protection of landscape features).9 Cross‑compliance applies 
to seven rural development 
measures which represent 
approximately 40 % of 
planned EAFRD expenditure 
for the 2007–13 period.
10 Cross‑compliance was 
introduced in 2003 by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 
of 29 September 2003 
establishing common 
rules for direct support 
schemes under the common 
agricultural policy and 
establishing certain support 
schemes for farmers and 
amending Regulations (EEC) 
No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, 
(EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) 
No 1454/2001, (EC) 
1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, 
(EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) 
No 1673/2000, (EEC) 
No 2358/71 and (EC) 
No 2529/2001 (OJ L 270, 
21.10.2003, p. 1). Since 
2005, all farmers receiving 
direct payments have been 
subject to compulsory 
cross‑compliance provisions. 
For the 2007–13 programming 
period, cross‑compliance also 
applies to a number of EAFRD 
payments (for measures 211, 
212, 213, 214, 221, 224 and 225), 
and since 2008 it has applied to 
certain wine payments.Table 1Overview of water‑related cross‑compliance requirements
Standard Subject
SMR2 Protection of groundwater against pollution1 
SMR3 Use of sewage sludge in agriculture2
SMR4Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from 
agricultural sources3
SMR9 Placing of plant protection products on the market4
GAEC authorisation procedures 
for irrigationWhere use of water for irrigation is subject to authorisation, com ‑
pliance with authorisation procedures
GAEC buffer strips Establishment of buffer strips along water courses
1  Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain 
dangerous substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43).
2  Article 3 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage 
sludge is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6).
3  Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates 
from agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1).
4  Article 3 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, 
p. 1).
12 Introduction
10 
Through rural development funding, 
the EU contributes to Member States’ 
investments to enhance the com ‑
petitiveness of farming and forestry, 
protect the environment and the coun ‑
tryside, improve the quality of life and 
diversification of the rural economy 
and promote locally based approaches 
to rural development. The EU supports 
the rural development programmes 
(RDPs) of Member States. In key rural 
development texts, such as the Com ‑
munity strategic guidelines for rural 
development11 and Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/200512, the protection and 
sustainable management of water are 
considered one of the key environ ‑
mental issues to be addressed.
11 
Through rural development measures, 
farmers can engage voluntarily in ac ‑
tions going beyond compulsory legis ‑
lation in return for financial incentives 
or compensation (see  Box 1 ).
CAP funds with a poten ‑
tial impact on water
12 
The level of EU spending on agricul ‑
tural activities through the CAP is 
significant (58,1 billion euro for 2012, 
or just under 40 % of the EU budget). 
Farming and other activities financed 
by the CAP potentially have a posi ‑
tive or a negative impact on water 
(see  Figure 1 ).13 
In some cases, CAP funds explicitly 
target positive effects on water; this 
includes the funding of rural devel ‑
opment measures that specifically 
mention water protection. A detailed 
assessment of RDPs from the point of 
view of water management shows that 
Member States have allocated 51 % of 
their RDP budgets13 to measures that, 
to a greater or lesser extent, relate to 
water (75 billion euro for the 2007–13 
period)14. In addition, 27 % of the extra 
funds agreed after the ‘Health Check’ 
(approved in 2009 and providing 
4,8 extra billion euro) were allocated to 
the ‘water management’ priority area 
(1,3 billion  euro)15.
14 
The CAP regulations for the 2014–20 
period give greater prominence to 
water quality as a CAP objective. The 
legal provisions for ‘greening’ the 
direct payments of the CAP include 
practices some of which potentially 
have a beneficial effect on water qual ‑
ity. A declaration by the Council and 
the European Parliament also pro ‑
vides that certain obligations deriving 
from the WFD be integrated into the 
cross‑compliance requirements. The 
more efficient use of water in agricul ‑
ture is an explicit element (‘focus area’) 
of one of the rural development priori ‑
ties established for the reformed CAP . 
In addition, from 2014, through the 
Farm Advisory System, Member States 
shall provide advice to beneficiaries 
in relation to the requirements of the 
WFD.11 Sections 2.5 and 3.2 of Council 
Decision 2 006/144/E C of 
20 February 2006 on Community 
strategic guidelines for rural 
development (programming 
period 2007 to 2013) (OJ L 55, 
25.2.2006, p. 20).
12 Recital 31 to Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.
13 Total public expenditure, 
which thus includes national 
funding.
14 Summary report on an in‑depth 
assessment of RDPs 2007–13 as 
regards water management , 
Ecologic Institute and Vito, 
April 2009 ( http://www.
ecologic.eu/download/
projekte/1900 ‑1949/1937/
final_report.pdf ).
15 According to COM press 
releases IP 09/1568, IP 09/1813, 
IP 09/1945 and IP/10/102.
13 Introduction
Examples of rural development measures
Support for farmers that commit themselves, for a 5 ‑year minimum period, to adopt environmentally friendly 
farming techniques which go beyond good farming practice ( agri ‑environment measures ), such as exten ‑
sive management of pastures (i.e. extensive grazing, no use of fertilisers or of sewage sludge, strict limitations 
on pesticide use, etc.).
Source:  European Court of Auditors 
Support for ‘non ‑productive’ investments , such as the 
creation and restoration of wetlands. Wetlands preserve 
water quality by removing nitrogen, phosphorus and pes ‑
ticides from agricultural run ‑off. 
Support for investments on agricul ‑
tural holdings , such as drip irrigation 
equipment. Drip irrigation, versus 
sprinkler irrigation can help in reduc ‑
ing the volume of water abstracted 
for irrigation.Box 1
Source:  European Court of Auditors
Source:  European Court of Auditors
14 Introduction Box 1Support for infrastructure  related to the development and adaptation of agriculture, such as the replace ‑
ment of old and damaged irrigation channels.
Support for ‘non ‑productive’  investments , 
such as the refurbishment of ditch banks. The 
less steep vegetated slope of the ditch serves 
as a manure ‑ and pesticide ‑free buffer strip 
and plays a positive role in flood prevention.
Source:  European Court of Auditors
Source:  European Court of Auditors
15
 The audit
Audit scope and audit 
approach
15 
The purpose of the audit was to exam ‑
ine the link between the CAP and EU 
water policy. The overall audit ques ‑
tion addressed was:
Have the EU’s water policy objec ‑
tives been successfully integrated 
into the CAP?
16 
The audit examined whether the EU’s 
water policy objectives are properly 
and effectively reflected in the CAP , 
both at strategy and implementation 
levels (see  Annex I ). This was done 
through an analysis of the two instru ‑
ments which are being used to inte ‑
grate the EU’s water policy objectives 
into the CAP: cross‑compliance and 
the rural development fund (see para ‑
graphs 7 to 11). For all aspects related 
to cross‑compliance, the audit covered 
the period since 2005, when this mech ‑
anism was introduced (or 2009/2012 
for the Member States that joined the 
EU in 2004 and 2007). For all aspects 
related to rural development, the audit 
covered the 2007–13 programming 
period. Six cross‑compliance require ‑
ments with a direct impact on water 
quality and quantity were considered 
during the audit (see  Table 1 ).17 
The audit was carried out from Oct ‑ 
ober 2012 to July 2013. Audit evidence 
was collected through:
 — documentary reviews and inter ‑
views with Commission depart ‑
ments, as well as the European 
Environment Agency (EEA);
 — audit visits to seven Member 
States: Denmark, Greece, Spain 
(Andalusia), France, Italy (Lom ‑
bardy), the Netherlands and Slova ‑
kia. These Member States experi ‑
ence severe problems in terms of 
water quality (e.g. high concentra ‑
tions of nutrients such as nitrates) 
and/or quantity (e.g. high water 
stress or irrigation intensity). For 
each Member State visited a river 
basin district was chosen in order 
to focus the audit on an area with 
a specific RBMP (see  Figure 2 );
 — an online survey of 140 farm 
advisory bodies in the same seven 
Member States, and consultation 
meetings with agricultural umbrel ‑
la organisations at EU level.
16 The audit Figure 2Selection of Member States for audit visits
Slovaquia
RBMP : Slo vakia (Danube)
Italy
RBMP : Po
Greece
RBMP : Thessaly (P inios)
Denmark
RBMP : Ringk obing Fjor d
Netherlands
RBMP : Maas
Franc e
RBMP : Loire-Brittan y
Spain
RBMP : Guadalquivir
Member Sta te visit ed
Water qualit y issue
Water quantity issue

17 The audit
Previous audits
18 
Over the last 20 years the Court has 
published reports that are directly or 
indirectly concerned with water policy 
and which also make some reference 
to the CAP but none of them has fo ‑
cused exclusively on the links between 
EU water policy and the CAP .
19 
In its Special Report No 8/2008 on 
cross‑compliance, the Court raised 
the complex problem of the co‑ex ‑
istence of mandatory requirements 
(cross‑compliance) and economic 
incentives (agri‑environment pay ‑
ments) in relation to, for example, 
buffer strips, and criticised the limited 
scope of cross‑compliance as regards 
water. The report also pointed out 
weaknesses in the definition of re ‑
quirements and standards by Member 
States. Special Report No 7/2011 on 
agri‑environment support concluded 
that the objectives of that scheme 
were too vague, that there were prob ‑
lems in establishing aid amounts and 
that there was insufficient targeting. 
Special Report No 5/2011 on the Single 
Payment Scheme noted that there 
was no direct link between SPS aid 
and the costs incurred by farmers for 
complying with their obligations, that 
it was not possible to establish a direct 
link between SPS aid and the positive 
public externalities that agricultural 
activities generate, and that pay ‑
ment reductions for failure to respect 
cross‑compliance obligations were not 
sufficiently dissuasive.20 
In the context of its annual statements 
of assurance (DAS), the Court audits 
the fulfilment of cross‑compliance 
requirements and of the specific rules 
governing rural development pay ‑
ments, which is checked for a sample 
of transactions. The observations 
resulting from these audits have been 
taken into account in this report.
18
 Observations
Weaknesses in the imple ‑
mentation of EU water 
policy have hindered its 
integration into the CAP
21 
The WFD is a key element of EU water 
policy as, together with its related 
directives16, it addresses the main pres ‑
sures on inland waters, including pol ‑
lutants, hydromorphology and quan ‑
tity issues. An important element of 
integrating the water policy objectives 
into the CAP is that Member States 
should draw up their RBMPs and asso ‑
ciated programmes of measures at the 
appropriate time (see Figure 1 ) and 
that these programming documents 
should set out clearly what actions are 
to be taken to address significant pres ‑
sures to allow WFD objectives to be 
met. However, so far implementation 
of the WFD itself has been affected 
by serious delays. The Court found 
that the quality of the programming 
documents developed by the Member 
States in relation to EU water policy 
is poor and that the Commission, as 
a matter of law, has limited influence 
over the quality of those programming 
documents.Delayed implementation of the 
Water Framework Directive
22 
The WFD requires Member States to 
draft RBMPs in order to specify, among 
other details and for each river basin 
district concerned, significant pres ‑
sures, objectives and concrete meas ‑
ures to be taken17 in respect of water, 
as well as details about how measures 
will be funded. Where CAP funding is 
envisaged this should be clear.
23 
RBMPs were to be published no later 
than 22 December 2009 and reported 
to the Commission no later than 
22 March  201018. However, not even 
half of the Member States managed 
to comply with the set timeframe19. 
As of September 2013, four countries 
(Denmark, Greece, Portugal and Spain) 
had still not adopted some of the 
RBMPs for which they are responsible. 
Figure 3 gives an overview of RBMP 
adoption dates.16 Bathing water directive 
(76/160/EEC); birds 
directive (79/409/EEC); 
drinking water directive 
(80/778/EE C), as amended by 
Directive (98/83/EC); major 
accidents (Seveso) directive 
(96/82/E C); environmental 
impact assessment directive 
(85/337/EEC); sewage sludge 
directive (86/278/EEC); urban 
waste‑water treatment 
directive (91/271/EEC); plant 
protection products directive 
(91/414/EEC); nitrates directive 
(91/676/E EC); habitats directive 
(92/43/E EC); integrated 
pollution prevention control 
directive (96/61/EC).
17 Full details of the mandatory 
content of RBMPs are given in 
Annex VII to the WFD.
18 Articles 13(6) and 15(1) WFD.
19 The Commission reported 
that, by November 2012, ‘25 
Member States plus Norway 
had adopted and reported 
121 RBMPs for their national 
parts of the river basin 
districts out of a total of 174’. 
Commission staff working 
document SWD(2012) 379 
final 1/30, Brussels, 14.11.2012: 
European Overview (1/2) 
accompanying the Report 
from the Commission to 
the European Parliament 
and the Council on the 
Implementation of the 
Water Framework Directive 
(2000/60/EC) — River Basin 
Management Plans. Norway 
has adopted 11 pilot RBMPs. 
Norway is implementing the 
water framework directive 
as part of the European 
Economic Area Agreement, 
with the specific timetable 
agreed therein.
19 Observations
Mar ch 2010
October 2010
Mar ch 2011
October 2011
Mar ch 2013
Plans still not fully
complian t as of
September 2013Plans adopt ed and
repor ted b y: Figure 3Overview map of RBMP adoption dates as of September 2013
Note:  Denmark — all RBMPs adopted in December 2011 have been withdrawn and new plans are subject to consultation;  
Greece — 8 RBMPs adopted (out of 14); Spain — 10 RBMPs adopted (out of 25); Portugal — 8 RBMPs adopted (out of 9).
20 Observations
24 
According to the WFD, each RBMP 
should contain a programme of meas ‑
ures addressing the various pressures 
identified locally at river basin district 
level, including measures related to 
agriculture (see  Box 2 ). The measures 
were to have been operational no later than 22 December 201220. Dur ‑
ing the Court’s audit visits to Member 
States the audit teams analysed this 
aspect, with a particular emphasis on 
measures related to agriculture, and 
observed that most of these measures 
were not yet operational (see  Box  3).
Types of measures included in the RBMPs
Annex VI to the WFD lists the types of measures to be included in programmes of measures, some of which 
have a direct link with agriculture. Examples are:
 οmeasures addressed at managing water demand, including the promotion of adaptations to agricultural 
production such as low‑water crops in areas susceptible to drought;
 οmeasures aimed at controlling emissions, such as the soil injection of manure rather than surface 
application;
 οefficiency and reuse measures, including water‑saving irrigation techniques or the reuse of treated waste ‑
water for irrigation.
Delayed implementation of agricultural measures in RBMPs
In Italy (Po RBMP), of the five agricultural measures to be implemented in the short term, only three measures 
are operational in all regions. A fourth measure is only implemented in one part of the river basin district, and 
the final measure is only applied in some areas owing to conflict with local legislation;
In France (Loire‑Brittany RBMP), the measures are too general to be operational as they need to be further de ‑
veloped by local water management plans (SAGEs). By September 2013 less than half of the river basin district 
was covered by a SAGE; and
In Greece (Thessaly RBMP), five of the six measures examined during the Court’s audit visit were not opera ‑
tional on 22 December 2012.Box 2 Box 320 Article 11(7) of WFD.
21 Observations
25 
In the absence of an RBMP defining 
the objectives at river basin district 
level, Member States are lacking an 
important benchmark with which to 
align the water‑related objectives of 
their RDPs. This prevents the rural 
development funds from being spent 
with due regard to the criteria of EU 
water policy.
The quality of programmes of 
measures is poor
26 
The Commission, through one of its 
expert groups, has provided guidance 
as regards the agricultural measures 
programmed in the RBMPs, which 
need to be clear, transparent and op ‑
erational at farm level21.27 
The Court used the criteria set in the 
Commission’s guidance document to 
make a detailed analysis of six agricul ‑
tural measures for each of the seven 
RBMPs selected for this audit (see  Ta-
ble 2 ). The results of this work show 
that most of the measures analysed 
are not properly conceived in terms 
of scope, targets, timeframe, monitor ‑
ing systems and/or communication of 
results.
28 
The Commission has also drawn con ‑
clusions from its own WFD monitoring 
exercise regarding the quality of pro ‑
grammes of measures. After reviewing 
the RBMPs submitted by mid ‑2012, the 
Commission concluded that ‘what is by 
and large lacking in many of the river 
basins RBMPs, is information on how 
these measures will be implemented 
in terms of timing, financing as well as 
monitoring’22.21 ‘Guidance for administrations 
on making WFD 
agricultural measures 
clear and transparent at 
farm level’. This guidance 
was developed through 
a collaborative programme 
involving the WFD Common 
Implementation Strategy (CIS) 
partners, and was endorsed 
by the Water Directors in 
May 2011.
22 Commission staff working 
document: European 
Overview (2/2) accompanying 
the Report from the 
Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council 
on the Implementation of the 
Water Framework Directive 
(2000/60/EC) — River Basin 
Management Plans.Table 2Detailed analysis of six agricultural measures included in the programmes of  
measures of seven RBMPs1
DK EL ES FR IT NL SK
The measures indicate the level of uptake needed.
The measures are identified as basic (i.e. mandatory) or supplementary
The measures are defined at sub-  basin or regional/local level. Where this is not the 
case, convincing reasons are given for establishing measures for the entire river basin.
The programme of measures sets clear targets for these measures.
The programme of measures sets a clear system for monitoring progress on these 
measures.
 all six measures analysed complied with the criterion
 some of the measures analysed complied with the criterion
 none of the measures analysed complied with the criterion
1  The assessment of the Danish RBMPs was carried out on the basis of the RBMPs adopted in December 2011. These RMBPs were 
however withdrawn and new plans are subject to consultation.
22 Observations
In practice the Commission 
has limited influence over the 
quality of WFD programming 
documents
29 
RBMPs should ensure that the objec ‑
tive of good status of water bodies is 
reached by 2015. Although the Com ‑
mission, in its role as ‘guardian of the 
Treaty’23, needs to see that this is done, 
it is not responsible for approving 
RBMPs. If the Commission assesses the 
quality of RBMPs to be insufficient, it is 
limited to legal action.
30 
In this regard, ‘the Court of Justice of 
the European Union (ECJ) has issued 
several rulings on the basis of the WFD. 
However, these cases dealt with provi ‑
sions of the WFD which may be seen 
as straightforward (such as non‑com ‑
munication of the transposing meas ‑
ures, late reporting, late adoption of 
monitoring programmes and RBMPs), 
rather than with less straightforward 
cases concerning the interpretation of 
key notions such as water services or 
the application of exemptions under 
Article 4 WFD24’. Legal proceedings 
often last many years and rulings are 
made a long time after the deadline to 
meet the obligation. Even though the 
Commission has organised working 
groups and seminars with representa ‑
tives of Member States with a view to 
improving the quality of RBMPs, the 
Commission’s capacity to influence the 
degree of ambition shown by Member 
States is limited.31 
The audit showed that the ambition 
demonstrated by the Member States‘ 
programmes of measures varies in 
degree. Article 4 WFD establishes the 
objective of achieving good water 
status in all Member States by 2015. 
The same article allows for exemp ‑
tions when justified by the Member 
States. Different Member States assess 
the circumstances used to justify an 
exemption in very different ways. The 
Commission has recognised in its as ‑
sessment of RBMPs22 that:
 — ‘there is generally a lack of appro ‑
priate and transparent justification 
of the criteria applied for the use 
of exemptions under Articles 4(4) 
to 4(7)’,
 — ‘the interpretation of the differ ‑
ent reasons for the application 
of exemptions has varied signifi ‑
cantly across the different Member 
States’, and
 — ‘the extensive use of exemp ‑
tions may reflect the low level of 
ambition in many of the plans as 
regards achieving the environmen ‑
tal objectives’.23 According to Article 258 of the 
Lisbon Treaty, the Commission 
is to ensure that the provisions 
of the Treaty and the measures 
taken by the institutions 
pursuant thereto are applied.
24 Commission staff working 
document SWD(2012) 379 
final 1/30, Brussels, 14.11.2012: 
European Overview (1/2) 
accompanying the Report 
from the Commission to 
the European Parliament 
and the Council on the 
Implementation of the 
Water Framework Directive 
(2000/60/EC) — River Basin 
Management Plans.
23 Observations
32 
Similarly, when implementing the 
Nitrates Directive, which is an inte ‑
gral part of the WFD that addresses 
a recognised and persistent pollution 
problem in water bodies (see Box 4 ), 
Member States present nitrates action 
programmes with varying degrees of 
ambition. These programmes do not require ap ‑
proval by the Commission. As a result, 
there are for example significant dif ‑
ferences between the criteria used by 
Member States when defining vulner ‑
able zones or the actions to be taken. 
In the cases examined in relation 
to nitrates action programmes, the 
length of legal proceedings shows the 
limits to the Commission’s ability to 
influence the quality of Member State 
programmes (see  Box 5 ). Figure 4 Box 4Importance of nitrate pollution
Recent EEA reports show that the current trend in nitrate levels is not sufficient to reach good status even by 
2027 (see  Figure 4 ). EEA report No 8/2012 recognises that the positive evolution of nitrate concentrations is 
partly due to measures to reduce agricultural inputs of nitrates at European and Member State level, but that 
‘additional measures are needed to reduce diffuse pollution if the majority of water bodies are to have nitrate 
levels comparable to high or good ecological status in 2027’.
Trends in nitrates show that a gap will still exist between good status and expected 
status by 2027
Source:  Adapted from EEA Report No 9/2012. 1.01.52.02.53.0
1992 1996 20000.5
03.5
2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028Expec ted
status
Good sta tusGAPRivers with bad ec ologic al sta tus
Rivers with poor ec ologic al sta tus 
Rivers with modera te ec ologic al sta tus 
Rivers with good ec ologic al sta tus
Rivers with high ec ologic al sta tusMedian t otal nitr ate concentration in riv ers (mg N/l)
Data for bad and poor riv ers r epresen ts 29 % of the t otal
Data for moder ate riv ers r epresen ts 48 % of the t otal
24 Observations
Twenty years after it came into force, there are still problems with implementation 
of the Nitrates Directive in some Member States
The Nitrates Directive came into force in 1991. However, infringement cases relating to its correct and com ‑
plete application as well as the appropriateness of nitrates action programmes were still open in 2013 against 
eight Member States (Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Greece, France, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia).
For example, on 13 June 2013 the European Court of Justice ruled (in Case C ‑193/12) that France had failed to 
designate several areas as nitrate‑vulnerable zones. In some of those areas, nitrate concentrations in ground 
water were above 50 mg/l (which is the maximum allowable concentration in drinking water) and in others 
the surface water risked eutrophication if no action plans were implemented.Box 5
The impact of cross‑com ‑
pliance on water issues 
has so far been limited
33 
The Court’s survey results (see para ‑
graph 17)25 demonstrate that 
cross‑compliance has increased 
awareness among farmers and has 
triggered some changes in farming 
practices in relation to water. However, 
the impact of cross‑compliance has so 
far been limited, both because several 
important water‑related issues are 
not included in cross‑compliance, and 
because the sanctions applied under 
cross‑compliance are not calculated 
on the basis of the cost of the dam ‑
age caused and thus, may represent 
only a portion of this cost. Moreover, 
weaknesses found in the application 
of cross‑compliance in the Member 
States further reduce its potential 
impact. These matters are discussed 
more extensively below.The cross‑compliance mech ‑ 
anism has impact but is not 
fully exploited
Survey results demonstrate 
increased awareness among 
farmers and some changes in 
farming practices in relation to 
water
34 
In the absence of studies at EU level 
on the impact of cross‑compliance and 
rural development on farmers’ aware ‑
ness and farming practices in relation 
to water, the Court carried out a survey 
of 140 farm advisory bodies in seven 
Member States. The survey shows that, 
in the Member States/regions sam ‑
pled, the introduction of cross‑compli ‑
ance has increased farmers’ awareness 
(see  Figure 5 ) and triggered changes 
in farming practices in relation to 
water, especially as regards nitrates 
and pesticides (see  Annex II  for further 
details).25 Detailed survey results can 
be consulted on the Court’s 
internet site ( www.eca.europa.
eu).
25 Observations Figure 5Increased awareness of farmers following the introduction of cross‑compliance
On a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot), how much do you consider that the introduction of cross ‑ compliance 
increased farmers' awareness regarding the impact of agriculture on water?
Percentage of r espondents
SMR2 (gr ound wat er)
SMR3 (se wage sludge)
SMR4 (nitr ates)
SMR9 (pesticides)
GAEC on buﬀer strips
GAEC on irriga tion
Average
O % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
1 - not a t all
2 - par tially3 - r easonably
4 - a lotnot r elev ant
no answ er
26 Observations
The impact of cross‑compliance 
requirements is limited 
as a number of important 
water‑related issues are not 
covered by cross‑compliance
35 
At the present time, requirements for 
farmers to limit the use of phosphorus 
on their land or the application of pes ‑
ticides26 in the immediate vicinity of 
water bodies are not included within 
cross‑compliance27, even when there 
is agreement that these issues need to 
be addressed. Phosphorus is contained 
in fertilisers and used in animal feed. It 
can cause water quality problems such 
as eutrophication. As for pesticides, 
while they protect crops from dam ‑
age caused by weeds, diseases and 
insects, they can harm people, wildlife 
and the environment. Only a tiny part 
of applied pesticides reach the target 
pests, leaving the bulk of the pesti ‑
cides to impact the environment, such 
as water bodies. Some Member States 
have nonetheless taken the initiative 
to address these issues, even where 
not obliged to do so (e.g. by including 
restrictions on the use of pesticides 
in the GAEC on buffer strips) (see  An-
nex III  for more details).26 Pesticides can be used to 
protect plants or crops from 
damage caused by weeds, 
diseases or insects. In that 
sense, they are also called 
plant protection products.
27 Some Member States, 
such as the Netherlands, 
have included phosphorus 
requirements in their 
nitrates action programmes, 
but non‑compliance of 
these requirements is 
not sanctioned under 
cross compliance. As for 
pesticides, only for certain 
very dangerous pesticides, 
Member States can, when 
authorising their use, establish 
buffer zones along water 
courses in which spraying is 
prohibited.
27 Observations
36 
Sustainable use of pesticides, par ‑
ticularly in the form of compliance 
with the principles of integrated pest 
management, was originally going 
to be included in cross‑compliance 
from 2014 onwards. However, accord ‑
ing to Regulation (EU) No 1306/201328, 
the timeframe of this inclusion is now 
uncertain (see  Box 6 ).
37 
The expected inclusion in cross‑com ‑
pliance of certain requirements 
deriving from the WFD and from the 
directive on the sustainable use of 
pesticides ought to address the issues 
raised in paragraph 35. Discussions on the Commission’s 
proposal for the CAP reform after 2014 
have resulted in the following state ‑
ment: ‘The Council and the European 
Parliament invite the Commission to 
monitor the transposition and the im ‑
plementation by the Member States of 
the [...]’ WFD and the directive on the 
sustainable use of pesticides and, ‘[...]
where appropriate, to come forward, 
once these directives have been imple ‑
mented in all Member States and the 
obligations directly applicable to farm ‑
ers have been identified, with a legisla ‑
tive proposal amending this regulation 
with a view to including the relevant 
parts of these directives in the system 
of cross‑compliance’29. The timing of 
this inclusion is therefore dependent 
on the progress made by Member 
States in implementing the directives. 
This implies that the implementation 
of a very important policy decision 
could be very slow.Box 6Sustainable use of pesticides: two steps forward, one step back
In 2009 the European Parliament and the Council adopted a regulation on the placing of plant protection 
products on the market30. One intention of the regulation was to include the sustainable use of pesticides 
(and in particular integrated pest management) in cross‑compliance (through SMR9) from 2014 onwards.
However, in its proposal for a regulation on financing the CAP during 2014–2031 (that resulted in Regulation 
(EU) No 1306/2013), the Commission explicitly excluded the sustainable use of pesticides and integrated pest 
management from the scope of cross‑compliance by omitting the sentence that specifically referred to it32.
As a result, although the sustainable use of pesticides was to be included in cross‑compliance from 2014, the 
current regulation now makes that timeframe uncertain.
30 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection 
products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1).
31 COM(2011) 628 final/2.
32 Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, third sentence: ‘It shall also comply with the provisions of Directive 2009/128/EC and, in particular, 
with general principles of integrated pest management, as referred to in Article 14 of and Annex III to that directive, which shall apply at the latest 
by 1 January 2014.’28 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 on the 
financing, management 
and monitoring of the 
common agricultural policy 
and repealing Council 
Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, 
(EC) No 165/94, (EC) 
No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, 
(EC) No 1290/2005 and 
(EC) No 485/2008 (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 549).
29 Joint statement by the 
European Parliament and the 
Council on cross compliance 
attached to Regulation (EU) 
No 1306/2013.
28 Observations
The GAEC on authorisation 
procedures for irrigation has 
little impact as the Commission 
does not request Member 
States to develop specific 
requirements
38 
In contrast with SMRs, GAEC standards 
are used to promote good farming 
practices for which environmental 
legislation at EU level does not (yet) 
exist by introducing new obligations 
for farmers. However, the Commission 
has not proposed to define the GAEC 
on authorisation procedures for irriga ‑
tion33 in such a way that it promotes 
good farming practices. The GAEC on 
irrigation refers to existing national 
or regional legislation but does not 
introduce new obligations. It does not 
introduce an obligation to establish 
the elements of authorisation proce ‑
dures — such as water abstraction 
permits, water meters and reporting 
on water use — where these do not 
already exist.39 
In a country with very weak or 
non‑existing authorisation procedures, 
therefore, this GAEC will not have any 
impact (see  Box 7 ) and this may be of 
particular importance in areas suffer ‑
ing from water scarcity (see  Box 8 ).
An example of weak authorisation procedures
In Greece, a Ministerial Decision of June 2011 required farmers to apply for a water licence by 16 Decem ‑
ber 2011 (even those who already had a valid licence). However the obligation to apply for a licence was 
repeatedly extended to 16 June 2012, 17 December 2012, 15 May 2013 and, most recently, 15 January 2014. In 
the Pinios river basin (Thessaly), the total number of boreholes exceeds 30 000 and may be as high as 33 000, 
most of which are not licensed34.
The Court also found weaknesses in the checks made of those licences (see Box 9 ).
34 Thessaly RBMP, Study conducted by the Joint Venture for Thessaly, Epirus and Western Sterea Ellada’s River Basin Management Plans , p. 103.Box 733 ‘Where use of water for 
irrigation is subject to 
authorisation, compliance 
with authorisation 
procedures’.
29 Observations
Irrigated agriculture is expanding in areas with water scarcity problems
Overabstraction of water by irrigation is a recognised problem, especially in southern Europe, where irrigated 
agriculture has increased over the past decades35. Although water abstraction for irrigation decreased slightly 
between the early 1990s and the decade from 1998 to 2007 (see  Figure 6 ), and despite increased irrigation ef ‑
ficiency through the more widespread use of drip irrigation, water resources remain under severe pressure in 
some areas resulting in falling aquifer levels, salt‑water intrusion and the desiccation of wetlands36.
35 EEA Report No 2/2009 ‘Water resources across Europe — confronting water scarcity and drought’.
36 Water resources: quantity and flows — SOER 2010 thematic assessment , EEA State of the Environment report 2010, European Environment Agency 
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/water‑resources‑quantity‑and‑flows ) accessed 5 October 2012.
Water abstraction for irrigation
Note:  Eastern: Bulgaria (1990;2007), Czech Republic (1990;2007), Hungary (1992;2006), Latvia (1991;2007), Poland (1990;2007), Romania 
(1990;2006), Slovakia (1990;2007), Slovenia (1990;2007), Western: Austria (1990;2002), Belgium (1994;2007), Denmark (1990;2004), England and 
Wales (1990;2006), Finland (1994;2005), Germany (1995;2002), Netherlands (1995;2006), Norway (1995;2006), Sweden (1990;2007), Southern: 
France (1991;2006), Greece (1990;2007), Portugal (1990;1998), Spain (1991;2006).
Source:  http://www.eea.europa.eu/data‑and‑maps/figures/water‑abstraction‑for‑irrigation‑million‑m3 ‑year‑in‑the‑early ‑1990s‑and ‑1997 . Figure 6 Box 8 
mio . m3 / year45 000
40 000
35 00030 00025 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
0
Eastern Western SouthernEarly 1990s
1998-2007
30 Observations
Weaknesses in the applica ‑
tion of cross‑compliance
There are weaknesses at farm 
level in the implementation of 
water‑related cross‑compliance 
requirements in Member States
40 
During its DAS audits in the various EU 
Member States, the Court frequently 
observes breaches of water‑related 
cross‑compliance requirements at farm 
level, most of them being infringe ‑
ments by beneficiaries of SMR4 (pro ‑
tection of water in nitrate‑vulnerable 
zones): inadequate storage facilities 
or insufficient storage capacity for 
manure, incomplete or erroneous 
fertiliser records, absence of a nitrogen 
analysis, nitrate output higher than 
170 kg/ha, storage of manure on land 
during a prohibited period, etc. Other 
observations relate to SMR2 (protec ‑
tion of groundwater), SMR9 (plant 
protection products) and the GAEC on 
buffer strips.The system of cross‑compliance 
checks has weaknesses at 
Member State level
41 
Member States are responsible for the 
implementation of cross‑compliance. 
For SMRs this includes introducing the 
relevant elements of the specific leg ‑
islation into the scope of cross compli ‑
ance. For GAECs this includes enacting 
the relevant standards in national or 
regional legislation and defining the 
practical obligations which farmers 
are expected to observe. Member 
States are also obliged to inform 
farmers about these requirements 
and establish an administration and 
control system that allows a sample 
of beneficiaries to be checked on the 
spot and sanctioned in the event of 
non‑compliance.
42 
One intrinsic limitation of the sys ‑
tem of cross‑compliance checks is 
that some requirements are, by their 
nature, very difficult to check. As an 
example, one of the requirements 
refers to the timing and method of 
use of pesticides. The difficulty here 
lies in the fact that cross‑compliance 
checks are usually notified in advance, 
and therefore it is most unlikely that 
an inspector will come across a farmer 
spraying a forbidden product or in an 
unlawful manner. Other requirements 
can only be checked during a certain 
period of the year or in the absence 
of certain meteorological conditions 
(e.g. strong wind, frost), which may not 
necessarily coincide with the timing of 
the on‑the‑spot visit.
31 Observations
43 
In the Member States visited, short ‑
comings were found in the system 
of water‑related cross‑compliance 
checks at the level of the managing 
authorities:
 — detailed working instructions 
exist only for a limited number of 
checks, and some instructions are 
so general that they cannot ensure 
that inspectors know exactly what 
and how to check and that differ ‑
ent inspectors perform the checks 
in the same way;
 — mandatory checks were intro ‑
duced at a late stage or are still 
missing;
 — on‑the‑spot checks are heavily 
concentrated in autumn. As well as 
being contrary to certain regula ‑
tory requirements37, this means 
that a number of water‑related 
requirements (such as the ban on 
spreading manure on cultivated 
buffer strips) cannot be verified 
visually in the field;
 — checks in relation to the GAEC 
on irrigation were not complete 
(see  Box 9 ).The Commission does not 
ensure that GAEC standards are 
appropriate at Member State 
level
44 
The purpose of the GAECs established 
under the cross‑compliance mecha ‑
nism is to enforce basic good prac ‑
tice38. Member States are expected to 
set minimum requirements that take 
account of domestic agronomic, envi ‑
ronmental and climate conditions.
45 
At present the Commission receives 
only limited information, through an 
online database, about the implemen ‑
tation of GAECs in Member States. This 
information consists of references to 
the applicable domestic legislation, as 
well as summaries provided by each 
Member State. Notification is given at 
the geographical level which Member 
States themselves deem appropriate. 
For instance, in the case of the Mem ‑
ber States visited during the audit, 
information about implementation of 
the GAECs at regional level (as in Italy 
and Spain) is not included.Box 9Actual volume of water abstracted not checked against the quantity authorised
The audit found weaknesses when checking the requirements of the GAEC on irrigation. This standard is 
worded as follows: ‘Where use of water for irrigation is subject to authorisation, compliance with authorisa ‑
tion procedures’. The audit found several examples where, although a Member State’s procedures provided 
for authorisation permits specifying a maximum water abstraction volume, the amount of water actually 
abstracted was not checked against the ceiling given in the authorisation. Such failings considerably reduce 
the effectiveness of checks.
According to the checklists used by cross‑compliance inspectors in Greece and Spain, the actual volume 
of water abstracted is currently not checked against permits. In Slovakia, the Court found that the volume 
abstracted is not even measured. Checks can therefore only ascertain whether a permit has been granted but 
not whether a beneficiary is within the limits set in the permit.37 Article 53(1) of Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 
of 30 November 2009 laying 
down detailed rules for the 
implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 
as regards cross‑compliance, 
modulation and the 
integrated administration 
and control system, under 
the direct support schemes 
for farmers provided for that 
regulation, as well as for the 
implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 
as regards cross‑compliance 
under the support scheme 
provided for the wine sector 
(OJ L 316, 2.12.2009, p. 65) and 
Article 14(1) of Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 
of 27 January 2011 laying 
down detailed rules for the 
implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, 
as regards the implementation 
of control procedures as well 
as cross‑compliance in respect 
of rural development support 
measures (OJ L 25, 28.1.2011, 
p. 8).
38 European Parliament, 
Sustainable management of 
natural resources with a focus 
on water and agriculture , Study 
— Final Report, May 2013 
http://www.europarl.europa.
eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/
join/2013/488826/IPOL‑JOIN_
ET(2013)488826_EN.pdf
32 Observations
46 
The Commission assesses the imple ‑
mentation of the GAECs from a legal 
point of view through a desk review 
based on the information notified 
by the Member States and comple ‑
mented by on‑the‑spot audits. The 
Commission does not assess whether 
the requirements established by the 
Member States in respect of the two 
water‑related GAECs are adequate 
from the environmental point of view 
of the water protection objectives. In 
practice, the GAEC requirements vary 
significantly between Member States. 
For example, under the GAEC on buffer 
strips39 (see  Figure 7 ), the minimum 
width of strips ranges from 25 cm to 
10 m (see  Table 3 ).
47 
In some Member States/regions, buffer 
strips may be cultivated, while in 
others they should be grassed or left 
for scrub. Some Member States make 
exceptions for a significant number of 
water bodies that may be located on 
agricultural land (see  Box 10 ).48 
Requirements also vary enormously 
between Member States — even those 
where there is particular pressure on 
water — in the case of the GAEC on 
irrigation. This GAEC refers to existing 
legislation in Member States but does 
not introduce new obligations. In some 
Member States/regions the obligation 
to have a water abstraction permit de ‑
pends on the volume abstracted, the 
geographic location and the type of 
water abstracted (surface or ground ‑
water). Some Member States prohibit 
irrigation locally during dry periods. 
In other countries farmers must report 
annually on the volume of water used 
for irrigation. The audit found cases 
where the authorisation requirements 
for irrigation do not encourage farmers 
to use less water. For example, in some 
countries farmers are charged accord ‑
ing to the surface area of their hold ‑
ings rather than actual water use.Figure 7Buffer strip
water body buﬀ er striparable cr op
  39 This GAEC must respect at 
least the requirements relating 
to the conditions for land 
application of fertiliser near 
water courses as defined in 
the nitrates directive.
33 Observations
Water bodies exempted from the GAEC on buffer strips
Member States have exempted certain categories of water body from the GAEC on buffer strips. In Italy 
(Lombardy), water courses shorter than 5 km or belonging to a catchment area measuring less than 10 km² do 
not require buffer strips. Spain (Andalusia) exempts ‘ponds, irrigation channels and ditches’, though without 
properly defining these water bodies and justifies these exemptions with non‑environmental arguments. This 
raises the risk that an excessive number of water courses will be excluded from the obligation to respect the 
buffer strip requirement, thus minimising the GAEC’s impact on water quality.Table 3 Box 10Wide variation in GAEC buffer strip requirements
Country Buffer strip width Obligations and restrictions
Denmark minimum 2  m no cultivation, soil treatment or planting
Greecebetween 1 m and 6 m
depending on slope and type of restrictionno cultivation (1 m) or nitrogen fertilisers (2 or 6 m)
Spain (Andalusia) 2 m to 10 mcompulsory scrub
no fertilisers or pesticides 
France 5 mcompulsory grass cover, shrubs, bushes or trees
no mineral or organic fertilisers or pesticides 
Italy (Lombardy)between 5 m and 3 m
depending on the state of the water bodycompulsory grass cover
no tillage, no inorganic fertilisers, manure or slurry
Netherlandsbetween 25 cm and 9 m
depending on the crop and certain technical 
specificationsno fertilisers
Slovakia 10 m no industrial or organic fertilisers 
34 Observations
The potential of rural 
development to address 
water concerns is not fully 
exploited
49 
Rural development funding amounts 
to almost 100 billion euro for the 
2007–13 period. Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005 on rural development 
identifies the protection of water 
as one of the key issues to be ad ‑
dressed40. The regulation also stresses 
that ‘the activities of the EAFRD and 
the operations to which it contributes 
must be consistent and compatible 
with the other Community policies’41, 
such as water policy. Rural develop ‑
ment therefore has considerable 
potential, by making funds available 
and setting clear objectives in relation 
to water, to contribute to the integra ‑
tion of the EU’s water policy objectives 
into the CAP .
50 
Member States mobilise rural devel ‑
opment funds through their RDPs 
(see paragraphs 10 and 11), which 
contain sets of measures to which the 
target populations (e.g. farmers) can 
voluntarily commit. Beneficiaries of ru ‑
ral development measures undertake 
to comply with specific conditions set 
by their Member State.51 
At present, the potential of rural 
development is not fully exploited. 
The way RDPs are currently imple ‑
mented has a limited impact on water 
because water‑related pressures are 
not comprehensively identified, RDPs 
and RBMPs are not yet aligned and 
negative side‑effects are not always 
avoided. In addition considerable 
amounts of funding targeting water 
have not been spent.40 Recital 31 to Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005: ‘Support 
for specific methods of 
land management should 
contribute to sustainable 
development by encouraging 
farmers and forest holders in 
particular to employ methods 
of land use compatible with 
the need to preserve the 
natural environment and 
landscape and protect and 
improve natural resources. 
It should contribute to the 
implementation of the 6th 
Community Environment 
Action Programme and 
the Presidency conclusions 
regarding the Sustainable 
Development Strategy. Key 
issues to be addressed include 
biodiversity, Natura 2000 site 
management, the protection 
of water and soil, [...]’.
41 Recital 6 to Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005.
35 Observations
Member States’ plans for 
rural development spending 
do not always take account 
of the EU’s water policy 
objectives and the Member 
States’ needs in relation to 
water
Member States’ RDPs 
sometimes do not 
comprehensively identify 
water‑related problems and are 
not yet aligned with RBMPs
52 
For each Member State/region visited 
during the audit, the Court examined 
whether the environmental assess ‑
ment42 carried out in the context of the 
ex ante  evaluation for the RDP , and the 
environmental analyses carried out in 
the context of RBMP , were complete 
and coherent. While acknowledging that the geo ‑
graphical area covered by the two 
evaluations, as well as their timing43, 
nature and purpose, may be differ ‑
ent, the Court considers that the 
assessment of water‑related problems 
should be consistent in both analyses. 
It found, however, that the identifica ‑
tion of water‑related problems in the 
environmental analyses of the RDPs is 
sometimes incomplete, nor is it always 
consistent with the information avail ‑
able in the context of the RBMPs. The 
audit revealed cases of water‑related 
problems not identified in the RDPs 
and therefore not addressed by any ru ‑
ral development measure (see  Box 11 ).
53 
The poor quality of programmes of 
measures in the RBMPs (see para ‑
graphs 27 and 28) is currently an 
obstacle to their alignment with RDPs. 
Where alignment exists, it takes the 
form of rural development measures 
integrated into an RBMP.
Water‑related problems not comprehensively identified
‑  In Denmark, the issue of water abstraction is not covered by the environmental assessment for the RDP , 
although it is relevant in the west of the country according to the RBMP . No measures in the Danish RDP ad ‑
dress the problem of water abstraction.
‑  In Spain (Andalusia), the programme of measures in the Guadalquivir RBMP includes measures aimed at com ‑
pleting the water register and combating illegal abstraction. However, the environmental sustainability re ‑
port for the RDP and the environmental analysis carried out for the Guadalquivir RBMP overlook the problem 
of illegal groundwater abstraction. Apart from the rural development measures subject to cross‑compliance 
(see paragraph 8), the RDP does not contain any mechanism for encouraging beneficiaries to comply with 
water authorisation procedures.
‑  In Slovakia, the RDP contains no measures to tackle weaknesses in relation to water quantity or address the 
issues of pesticide pollution, loss of wetlands or excessive local groundwater abstraction, all of which are 
identified in the RBMP but are not mentioned in the environmental assessment for the RDP .
‑  In Greece, the Thessaly RBMP mentions problems regarding hydromorphological changes and non‑reg ‑
istered boreholes, but these are not raised in the environmental assessment for the RDP . The Greek RDP 
contains no measures addressing hydromorphological pressures.Box 1142 http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/rurdev/eval/
guidance/note_c_en.pdf  
(p. 14).
43 Whereas the environmental 
assessments for RDPs 
were drafted in 2006, the 
environmental analyses 
carried out in the context of 
RBMPs (comprising ‘an analysis 
of [the] caracteristics [of the 
river basin district], a review of 
the impact of human activity 
on the status of surface waters 
and on groundwater, and an 
economic analysis of water 
use’ (see Article 5 WFD)) were 
to be completed no later than 
22 December 2004.
36 Observations
The implementation of RDPs 
sometimes has negative 
side‑effects on water
54 
Agricultural and environmental 
policies can have competing aims. 
Yet rural development funds should 
be used in a manner that is sustain ‑
able as regards water management, 
and RDPs should therefore contain 
safeguard clauses to avoid potential 
negative side‑effects (see  Box 12 ). 
Before approving an RDP , the Com ‑
mission makes checks to identify the 
negative potential effects of the rural 
development measures. Despite this, 
the design of some, duly‑approved, 
rural development measures does not 
prevent them from having substantial 
negative side‑effects on water. Certain 
RDPs were approved although they 
did not contain adequate safeguard 
clauses (see  Box 12 ).55 
In some cases, even if the RDP includes 
safeguard clauses to avoid negative 
side‑effects on water, in practice the 
implementation of measures allows 
such side‑effects to occur (see  Box 13 ).
Examples of RDPs with and without safeguard clauses
The RDP for Italy (Lombardy) examined during the audit includes safeguard clauses in relation to the measure 
targeting investments for the modernisation of agricultural holdings. The RDP allows for the construction of 
new greenhouses for horticulture only if there are energy and water savings. Investments to expand the exist ‑
ing irrigation network or increase the irrigated surface area are considered to be ineligible.
However, the design of the same measure in the RDP for Spain (Andalusia) leaves room for substantial nega ‑
tive side‑effects such as extension of the area under irrigation or the approval of projects that mean an 
increase in overall water consumption.
Example of negative side‑effects due to weaknesses in the implementation of 
a rural development measure
A DAS audit by the Court in Spain found that a project under measure 125 (infrastructure related to the devel ‑
opment and adaptation of agriculture and forestry) had been approved even though the water rights granted 
to the beneficiary were not sufficient to render the project economically viable and the beneficiary consumed 
significantly more water than his entitlement, thus breaching two eligibility criteria for this type of projects. 
This shows that the checks carried out in order to approve a project application were not effective, and that 
basic requirements that should in principle have prevented negative side‑effects (such as no increase in the 
amount of water used) were not guaranteed.Box 12 Box 13
37 Observations
Rural development fund ‑
ing has been underused as 
a response to water concerns
The implementation rate of 
water‑related measures is not 
always on track
56 
Rural development measures that may 
have a direct effect on the protection 
of water include those that require 
farmers to change their farming prac ‑
tices by reducing the use of pesticides 
or fertilisers or adapting their crops to 
the local hydrological situation. The 
way these measures are actually used 
is an important factor when assess ‑
ing whether the EAFRD’s potential as 
regards water protection has been 
fully exploited. The Court examined 
this aspect, firstly, through an analysis 
of the measures activated by Member 
States in their RDPs and, secondly, 
through an analysis of the use made 
by Member States of the possibilities 
offered by Article 38 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005 as regards costs related 
to implementation of the WFD.
57 
The Court has analysed the implemen ‑
tation rate of active rural development 
measures identified by the Member 
States themselves as having a direct 
effect on water protection. Although 
this analysis has certain limitations44, 
the results show that in around half of 
all cases the implementation rates are 
on track.44 As measures often have 
sub‑measures that are not 
addressing water, not all 
projects financed under these 
measures in fact relate to 
water protection.
38 Observations
58 
However, Member States have failed 
to take advantage of the possibilities 
offered by Article 38 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1698/2005, which specifically 
provides that measure 21345 can be 
used ‘to compensate for costs incurred 
and income foregone resulting from 
disadvantages in the areas related 
to the implementation of [the WFD]’ 
(see  Table 4 ).59 
At the time of the audit visits, none of 
the Member States except Denmark46 
had activated measure 213 in respect 
of the WFD as provided in Article 38. 
According to the Commission22, only 
4 % of the RBMPs submitted to it 
indicate that they will use Article 38 to 
compensate farmers for the require ‑
ments of the WFD. This limited use of 
measure 213 was caused by, among 
other things, delays in the Member 
States’ finalising their RBMPs. An ‑
other factor unfavourable to the use 
of measure 213 is that, for payments 
linked to the WFD, implementation 
rules were not published until Febru ‑
ary 201047 — 3 years and 2 months 
after the start of the rural develop ‑
ment programming period48 and more 
than 1 year after the RBMPs were to be 
completed under Article 13 WFD.Table 4Implementation rates for rural development measures1 identified by Member States 
as having a direct effect on water protection (in %)
Country Measure115 121 125 213 214 216 226 321
Denmark 84,1 24,2
France (mainland)  69,7 39,8 85,8 16,9
Greece 17, 0 35,7 71,7 21,5
Italy (Lombardy) 75,8 42,4 69,0 51,9
Slovakia 85,8 88,2 91,8
Netherlands 51,0 30,4 95,7 9,7
Spain (Andalusia) 9,4 70,0 27, 6 73,1
 Implementation rates on track (> 60 %)
 Measure 213 not activated in any of the Member States visited during the audit
 Measure not identified by the Member State visited as having a direct effect on water Protection
1  Measure 115: ‘setting up of management, relief and advisory services’; measure 121: ‘modernisation of agricultural holdings’; measure 125: 
‘infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry’; measure 214: ‘agri‑environment payments’; meas ‑
ure 216: ‘non‑productive investments’; measure 226: ‘restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention actions’; and measure 321: 
‘basic services for the economy and rural population’.
Source:  European Commission, data as of 31 March 2013.45 Measure 213: ‘Natura 2000 
payments and payments 
linked to Directive 2000/60/EC 
(WFD)’.
46 Denmark had activated 
measure 213 to compensate 
for the costs related to the 
implementation of 10m‑wide 
buffer strips, but due to the 
suspension of the Danish 
RBMPs in December 2012 
implementation of the 
measure is on hold.
47 Commission Regulation (EU) 
No 108/2010 of 
8 February 2010 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 
laying down detailed rules 
for the application of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 
on support for rural 
development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development (EAFRD) 
(OJ L 36, 9.2.2010, p. 4).
48 EAFRD 2007–13.
39 Observations
Financial instruments especially 
conceived to address water 
issues have barely been used
60 
Council Decision 2009/61/EC49 indi ‑
cated the need to strengthen the 
response to a number of‘crucial new 
challenges’ identified in 200350, one of 
which was ‘water management’. In line 
with the Decision, the Health Check 
made available additional funds tar ‑
geting these new challenges. The total 
additional budget was 3,8 billion euro. 
At the same time, as a response to the 
2008 economic crisis, the Commis ‑
sion drew up the European Economic 
Recovery Plan51 (EERP). The EERP pro ‑
vided an extra one billion euro to be 
spent on broadband in rural areas and 
any of the new challenges.61 
In 2010, under the first amendments 
to RDPs following the Health Check, 
Member States allocated 26,9 % of the 
additional CAP funds (1,3 billion euro) 
to the ‘new challenge’ of water man ‑
agement52 (see  Figure 8 ). The average 
implementation rate of these funds 
at the end of 2012 was 17,5 % for the 
EU‑27, although this figure varies wide ‑
ly among Member States53 (see  An-
nex IV for more details). Although the 
Health Check provided an opportunity 
to further integrate water manage ‑
ment issues into RDPs, in practice most 
Member States have made very little 
use of the extra funds.Figure 8Planned distribution of Health Check and Recovery funds  
among ‘new challenges’ as at 2010
 Source:  European Commission.0,3 %Biodi versit y
31,2 %
Water managemen t
26,9 %Rene wable ener gy
5,6 %Clima te change
14,2 %Broadband
7,3 %Inno vation link ed t o ne w challengesDair y restruc turing
14,5 %49 Council Decision 2009/ 61/E C 
of 19  January  2009 amending 
Decision 2006/144/EC on 
the Community strategic 
guidelines for rural 
development (programming 
period 2007 to 2013) (OJ L 30, 
31.1.2009, p. 112).
50 Recital 3 to 
Decision 2 009/61/E C: ‘In 
the assessment of the 
implementation of the Common 
Agricultural Policy reform 
of 2003, climate change, 
renewable energies, water 
management, biodiversity 
and dairy restructuring were 
identified as crucial new 
challenges for European 
agriculture.’
51 COM(2008) 800 final of 
26 November  2008.
52 The Court acknowledges that 
some of the funds accounted 
for as addressing the ‘new 
challenge’ of biodiversity can 
have also a positive effect on 
water.
53 The Commission does not 
have validated figures for 
these implementation 
rates. However the figures 
presented by the Court 
are based on information 
supplied by the Commission.
40 Observations
The polluter pays princi ‑
ple has not been inte ‑
grated into the CAP
62 
The polluter pays principle requires 
the polluter to bear the expense of 
preventing, controlling, and cleaning 
up pollution54. Nowadays the princi ‑
ple is a legal obligation endorsed by 
the EU in its Treaty55 and in the Envi ‑
ronmental Liability Directive56, and 
referred to explicitly in Article 9 WFD.
63 
Agricultural practices result in both 
benefits to and burdens on the envi ‑
ronment. The negative environmental 
effects of agriculture often include 
the introduction of unwanted chemi ‑
cals (pollutants) into the environ ‑
ment. ‘The diffuse nature of pollution 
from agriculture and the difficulty of 
identifying the polluter hamper en ‑
forcement of environmental laws and 
allocation of responsibility for dam ‑
ages’54. Nevertheless, ‘the polluter pays 
principle should apply when agricul ‑
tural activities impose environmental 
harm that affects private and public 
property’54. Mechanisms to enforce 
the polluter pays principle may exist 
(such as fines imposed at Member 
State level), but they do not influence 
the payments that CAP beneficiaries 
receive.64 
The penalties currently applied 
to farmers for not meeting the 
cross‑compliance requirements (i.e. ex ‑
ceeding an acceptable regulatory 
level of pollution) are not calculated 
on the basis of the cost of the dam ‑
age caused and thus, may represent 
only a portion of this cost. In many 
cases they are not proportionate to the 
seriousness of the farmer’s breach of 
cross‑compliance obligations. This was 
already observed by the Court in Spe ‑
cial Report No 8/2008. In this respect 
the Court again draws attention to the 
weaknesses noted in paragraphs 40 
to 43 regarding the application of 
cross‑compliance. Therefore, at the 
moment, as it is currently applied, 
cross‑compliance can provide a useful 
but only partial response to the pol ‑
luter pays principle.
65 
A significant number of payments 
under rural development are not 
tied to cross‑compliance9. As a result, 
a farmer who pollutes will continue to 
receive these payments without any 
reduction. At present, no mechanism 
exists which proportionately takes 
into account the costs of preventing or 
cleaning up the pollution that a farmer 
causes and which reduces the rural 
development payments accordingly.54 Margaret Rosso Grossman, 
Agriculture and the Polluter 
Pays Principle, vol. 11.3 
Electronic Journal of 
Comparative Law , December 
20 07, http://www.ejcl.org/113/
article113 ‑15.pdf .
55 Article 191(2) of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the 
European Union.
56 Directive 2004/35/EC of the 
European Parliament and 
of the Council (OJ L 143, 
30.4.2004, p. 56), amended 
by Directive 2006/21/EC 
(OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15) and 
Directive 2009/31/EC (OJ L 140, 
5.6.2009, p. 114).
41 Observations
Monitoring and evalua ‑
tion systems do not give 
the whole picture
66 
A number of years have passed since 
the EU’s water policy was strength ‑
ened and CAP instruments with the 
potential to address water concerns 
were put in place: 
(i) cross‑compliance was introduced 
in 2003 and has been compulsory 
for all farmers receiving direct pay ‑
ments since 2005; 
(ii) rural development was included in 
the CAP in 2000; and 
(iii) the Water Framework Directive 
entered into force in 2000, with the 
requirement for Member States 
to have monitoring programmes 
operational by the end of 2006.
67 
In their present form, monitoring 
systems do not deliver a compre ‑
hensive overview of the pressures of 
agriculture on water. Information in 
this regard is partial, fragmented and 
sometimes arrives late. Reasons for this 
are that: 
(i) CAP monitoring and evaluation 
systems are of limited use as re ‑
gards water‑related information; 
(ii) water policy monitoring arrange ‑
ments were set up late and are 
incomplete; and 
(iii) no other existing information 
system is capable of providing the 
data needed to link water qual ‑
ity and quantity with agricultural 
practices.CAP monitoring and evaluation 
systems are of limited value in 
measuring progress towards 
the water objectives set out in 
the CAP regulations
68 
EU law57 requires Member States to 
submit an annual report to the Com ‑
mission containing ‘the results of the 
controls relating to cross‑compliance’. 
Those results relate to the number 
of checks carried out and infringe ‑
ments of the various cross‑compliance 
requirements. They do not include 
information about the impact of 
cross‑compliance on water quality 
or water quantity, and were never 
intended to do so.
69 
The Commission monitors and evalu ‑
ates all rural development actions 
for the 2007–13 programming period 
through the Common Monitoring and 
Evaluation Framework (CMEF). The 
CMEF uses indicators to measure pro ‑
gress towards the rural development 
objectives, as well as evaluations by 
independent evaluators.57 Article 84(1)(e) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.
42 Observations
70 
Where water is concerned, the CMEF 
lays down five baseline indicators58, 
one result indicator (‘area under suc ‑
cessful land management contributing 
to water quality’) and one impact indi ‑
cator (‘improvement in water quality’). 
The audit found that the result indica ‑
tor is not sufficiently precise as it does 
not specify what is meant by ‘success ‑
ful land management’, the impact in ‑
dicator on water quality refers only to 
nitrates and phosphorus, and there is 
no water quantity indicator. Moreover, 
reporting by Member States for all of 
the CMEF indicators is often outdated 
or incomplete. In many cases, Member 
States have not set targets.71 
A CMEF guidance document59 sets 
out five evaluation questions related 
to water. Some good examples were 
found of mid‑term evaluations in 
which the evaluators were able to 
quantify the impact of certain (sub)
measures on water quality using mod ‑
els, beneficiary surveys and qualitative 
research (see  Box 14 ). However, this is 
not a generalised approach and there 
are clear deficits as regards the sys ‑
tematic quantification of results and 
impacts, data completeness, reliability 
and consistency. Several mid‑term 
evaluations draw attention to the lack 
of targets in RDPs, which makes it dif ‑
ficult to assess progress towards the 
water objectives.
A good example of quantifying impact in a mid‑term evaluation
Italy (Lombardy) — For measure 214 (agri‑environment payments), the evaluator used models to calculate, 
at parcel level, the nitrogen surplus and exposure toxicity ratio measured in groundwater as a consequence 
of the use of pesticides. At regional level, the overall reduction in nitrogen surplus due to measure 214 was 
2,6 kg/ha, and there was a 3,9 % reduction in the exposure toxicity ratio. The effect was more pronounced in 
areas where uptake of the measure had been more successful.Box 14
Water policy monitoring 
arrangements are incomplete
72 
Article 8 WFD requires Member States 
to establish ‘programmes for the moni ‑
toring of water status in order to es ‑
tablish a coherent and comprehensive 
overview of water status within each 
river basin district’. Monitoring programmes were sup ‑
posed to be operational by 2006 and 
to consist of a surveillance monitor ‑
ing programme (covering the entire 
district) and an operational monitor ‑
ing programme (more frequent and 
denser monitoring geared to identify 
problem areas). Member States may 
also choose to establish programmes 
of investigative monitoring (e.g. for 
specific substances).58 Water quality (gross nutrient 
balances), water quality 
(pollution by nitrates and 
pesticides), water quality 
(% territory designated as 
nitrate‑vulnerable zone), 
water use (% irrigated utilised 
agricultural land), protective 
forests concerning primarily 
soil and water.
59 Handbook on Common 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
Framework. Guidance 
document, DG Agriculture 
and Rural Development, 
September 2006.
43 Observations
73  
Following an assessment of the Mem ‑
ber States’ monitoring programmes 
in 2012, the EEA reported: ‘There are 
examples of very good high‑quality 
reporting. However, there are also 
cases where reporting contains gaps 
or contradictions’60. In another report, 
the Commission states: ‘A clear gap in 
monitoring emerges from the informa ‑
tion reported to the Commission. […] 
In some Member States ecological and 
chemical water status is unknown for 
more than 50 % of the water bodies’61. 
In some Member States, monitoring 
networks were set up late and/or have 
methodological weaknesses. The audit found that, in some Member 
States, monitoring focuses on col ‑
lecting information on the status of 
water bodies, with little concern for 
monitoring the pressures on water 
(see  Box 15 ). At local level, there 
have been some scientific studies or 
experimental networks linking agri ‑
cultural practices with water quality 
(see  Box 16 ).
An example of weaknesses in a monitoring network
France — The RBMP scoreboard does not contain specific indicators for monitoring agricultural pressures 
alone. One of the indicators supplied relates to the cumulative impact of household, industrial and farming 
activities on water status. The same is true of an indicator on exceeding quantitative targets at nodal points.
Still in France, an indicator on the volume of water drawn from groundwater and surface water bodies by 
different sectors of activity quantifies the water used for irrigation, but this indicator (i) has no quantified ob ‑
jective and (ii) does not allow abstracted volumes to be compared with what is sustainable at times of water 
scarcity.
Good examples of monitoring networks
The Netherlands has two specific monitoring grids linking agriculture with water. The first network assesses 
concentrations of a number of substances on agricultural holdings and links these with a database contain ‑
ing information about management type, manure and substances used, etc. The other network uses existing 
testing points in agricultural areas to assess the influence of agriculture on water quality (phosphorus and 
nitrogen content).
Denmark has a monitoring programme aimed at documenting the effect of national aquatic environment 
plans and other agricultural sector programmes on the leaching of nutrients into the aquatic environment. Six 
representative catchment areas are monitored through direct measurements, interviews with farmers about 
their farming practices and modelling of the relationship between agriculture and the loss of nutrients into 
the environment.Box 15 Box 1660 EEA Report No 8/2012 
‘European waters — 
assessment of status and 
pressures’.
61 COM(2012) 670 final. Report 
from the Commission to 
the European Parliament 
and the Council on the 
Implementation of the 
Water Framework Directive 
(2000/60/EC). River Basin 
Management Plans.
44 Observations
74 
Monitoring under the WFD has thus 
increased knowledge about the status 
of European waters and the pressures 
affecting them, but it is still incom ‑
plete and results must be interpreted 
with care owing to data gaps and 
methodological shortcomings. In most 
cases, there is no monitoring by Mem ‑
ber States of the individual measures 
in RBMP programmes (see  Table 2 ).
75 
As regards monitoring the nitrate 
content of surface water and ground ‑
water, the Nitrates Directive62 requires 
Member States to ‘draw up and imple ‑
ment suitable monitoring programmes 
to assess the effectiveness of action 
programmes’. Every 4 years they are 
required to report on nitrate concen ‑
trations in groundwater and surface 
water, the eutrophication of surface 
water, the impact of action pro ‑
grammes on water quality and agricul ‑
tural practices, revisions of nitrate‑vul ‑
nerable zones and action programmes 
and anticipated future trends in water 
quality63. These reports by the Member 
States are used as the basis for a sum ‑
mary report by the European Com ‑
mission on the implementation of the 
Directive. However, there have been 
delays in the Member States’ reporting 
under the Nitrates Directive. The sum ‑
mary EU report for 2008–11 was not 
published until 4 October 201364.76 
The individual Member States’ re ‑
ports for 2008–11 show differences in 
quality and approach. In its summary 
report, the Commission states: ‘There 
was a large variety in both the format 
and the quality of the report content 
among Member States, with conse ‑
quent challenges in developing a con ‑
sistent aggregate synthesis at the EU 
level. Likewise, in a number of cases, 
digital data provided together with 
the written reports by Member States, 
presented inconsistencies and difficul ‑
ties of interpretation, which required 
clarifications from Member States’. Not 
only are data not always available for 
all Member States, in some cases there 
is no data comparability between 
Member States.62 Article 5(6) of the nitrates 
directive (91/676/EEC).
63 http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/water/
water‑nitrates/
64 Commission staff working 
document SWD(2013) 405 
final accompanying the 
Report from the Commission 
to the Council and the 
European Parliament on 
the implementation of 
Council Directive 91/676/EEC 
concerning the protection 
of waters against pollution 
caused by nitrates from 
agricultural sources based on 
Member State reports for the 
period 2008–11.
45 Observations
WISE, the ‘gateway to European 
water information’, needs to be 
further improved
77 
The Water Information System for 
Europe (WISE) was created in 2003 
as both a reporting tool for Member 
States and an online portal giving 
access to water information at EU 
level. WISE is fed by a variety of data 
flows coming both from mandatory 
data collected by the Commission’s 
DG Environment as part of its obliga ‑
tions under the Water Framework, 
Urban Wastewater, Bathing Water and 
Dinking Water Directives, and from 
voluntary data collected by the EEA on 
a yearly basis65. WISE does not contain 
data reported by the Member States 
under the nNtrates dDrective66 or data 
collected by DG Agriculture through 
the CMEF. From 2003 to 2011, the data 
collected and collated by WISE focused 
on water quality rather than water 
quantity or the risk of water scarcity4.
78 
Despite its potential to provide com ‑
prehensive information about water 
in Europe, WISE is experiencing some 
difficulties. Not all the data flows in 
WISE are fully integrated. Due to data 
confidentiality issues and differences 
in scale, data frequency (e.g. yearly 
averages versus four‑yearly averages) 
and data processing by Member States 
(some countries provide aggregated 
data), it is not always possible to col ‑
late the data so as to exploit them 
fully.The Commission’s efforts to 
develop indicators linking 
water quality and quantity with 
agricultural practices have not 
yet been successful
79 
Since 2002, the Commission has been 
working on the development of a set 
of agri‑environmental indicators (AEIs) 
to track the integration of environ ‑
mental concerns into the CAP at EU, 
Member State and regional levels67. In 
practice, data availability is a problem 
for most of these indicators (see Ta-
ble 5 ). None of the AEIs make the link 
with individual agricultural practices.65 EEA indicators related to 
agriculture and water are: 
gross nutrient balance; use 
of freshwater resources; 
oxygen‑consuming 
substances in rivers; nutrients 
in freshwater; nutrients in 
transitional, coastal and 
marine waters; chlorophyll 
in transitional, coastal and 
marine waters; pesticides 
in groundwater (EEA 
Environmental Indicator 
Report 2012).
66 Where nitrates are concerned, 
the EEA and DG Environment 
have worked in recent 
years towards streamlining 
data from the State of the 
Environment reports and 
collected under the nitrates 
directive and the WFD. The 
aim is to reduce the burden 
of reporting for Member 
States while improving the 
comparability and consistency 
of data from different 
sources. This work is currently 
suspended.
67 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.
eu/portal/page/portal/agri_
environmental_indicators/  
introduction.
46 Observations Table 5Overview of AEIs identifying major pressures on water quality and water quantity
AEI indicator heading Main indicator/sub‑indicator Responsible body Problems encountered
Gross nitrogen balancePotential surplus of nitrogen on 
agricultural land (kg/ha/year)EurostatMethods for calculating gross nitrogen 
balance are not consistent across coun -
tries, data are not comparable between 
countries. 
Risk of pollution by phosphorusPotential surplus of phosphorus on 
agricultural land (kg/ha/year)
Vulnerability to phosphorus 
leaching/run -offEurostat
DG EnvironmentMethods for calculating gross phospho -
rus balance are not consistent across 
countries, data are not comparable 
between countries.
Not yet ready, due to limited data avail -
ability and methodological difficulties. 
Water quality — nitrate 
pollution Rivers and groundwater with nitrate 
concentrations above 50 mg NO 3/l
Nitrate concentrations above 25 mg 
NO 3/l are a warning threshold EurostatAvailable data not detailed enough to 
establish whether the trend is different 
in areas that benefit from CAP measures 
versus areas that do not. No differentia -
tion based on region, soil type, etc., 
although this would be useful in order 
to determine the causes of these trends.
Water quality — pesticide 
pollutionEEALimited information available. Lack 
of reliable data on pesticides in 
groundwater.
IrrigationShare (%) of irrigable area in utilised 
agricultural area (UAA) (and its 
trend)EurostatNo information on water metering in 
order to measure efficiency. Information 
is not reported at river basin level. No 
link to water use (water abstraction and 
state of water in the area).
Water abstractionAnnual water abstraction by source 
and sector
Water use by supply category and 
userEEA/EurostatData is only available for between half 
and two thirds of the Member States.
Pesticide riskIndex of risk of damage from pesti -
cide toxicity and exposureDG SANCO/EurostatNo data available for this indicator. 
Data on sales of pesticides were to be 
made available from 2013, and data on 
pesticide use in 2015.
Note:  A number of other AEIs have indirect links with water. These include mineral fertiliser consumption in agriculture, consumption 
of pesticides, cropping patterns, livestock patterns, soil cover, manure management, specialisation of farms, and intensification/exten ‑
sification of farms.
47
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
80 
The Commission and the Member 
States have set ambitious policy tar ‑
gets for improving water management 
in the EU in the medium to long term. 
Agriculture, as one of the major users 
and polluters of water, has a key role to 
play in this. This was recognised both 
in the drafting of the water framework 
directive and in the more recent po ‑
litical agreement on the future of the 
common agricultural policy (CAP).
81 
In order to meet these ambitious tar ‑
gets, the CAP must be implemented in 
such a way as to encourage the most 
effective and efficient use of water in 
agriculture and discourage wasteful 
use, pollution, etc. Most EU funding 
and farm payments have been made 
conditional on certain good practices 
in relation to water (as part of the 
cross‑compliance regime). Significant 
funding has also been made available, 
through rural development measures, 
for specific water‑related projects.
82 
The audit examined whether the EU’s 
water policy objectives have been 
successfully integrated into the CAP. 
The Court concludes that the Com ‑
mission and the Member States have 
only been partially successful in doing 
so. This is due to a mismatch between 
the ambition of the policy objectives 
and the ability of the instruments used 
to effect change. The instruments 
currently used by the CAP to address 
water concerns have not so far man ‑
aged to achieve sufficient progress to ‑
wards the ambitious policy targets set 
as regards water. The audit highlights 
weaknesses both in the design and 
application of cross‑compliance and in 
the use of rural development funding 
and points out delays and weaknesses 
in the implementation of the WFD.83 
As regards cross‑compliance the audit 
highlighted that a number of impor ‑
tant water‑related issues are not yet 
covered by cross‑compliance require ‑
ments (paragraphs 35 to 37) and that 
the Commission has not ensured that 
GAEC (good agricultural and environ ‑
mental conditions) standards in rela ‑
tion to water are appropriate at Mem ‑
ber State level or formulated in such 
a way that they promote good farming 
practices (paragraphs 38 and 44 to 
48). Besides this, as currently applied, 
cross‑compliance can provide a useful 
but only partial response to the pollut ‑
er pays principle and cross‑compliance 
penalties are not calculated on the 
basis of the cost of the damage caused 
and thus, may represent only a portion 
of this cost (paragraphs 62 to 65).
84 
In the context of the CAP reform, the 
new period (2014–20) sets even more 
ambitious goals with respect to the 
integration of water policy objectives 
into the CAP . For this new period, the 
Commission aims to increase the scope 
of cross‑compliance. Bearing in mind 
the Court’s past observations on the 
functioning of cross‑compliance, the 
Court recommends:
Recommendation 1
At the policy level, the Commission 
should propose to the EU legislator the 
necessary modifications to the current 
instruments (cross‑compliance and 
rural development) or, where appropri ‑
ate, new instruments capable of meet ‑
ing the more ambitious goals with 
respect to the integration of water 
policy objectives into the CAP .
48 Conclusions and recommendations
85 
At Member State level the Court con ‑
cludes, given that cross‑compliance 
and rural development are the main 
instruments for integrating water con ‑
cerns into the CAP , that there are weak ‑
nesses in the application of cross‑com ‑
pliance (paragraphs 40 to 43) and that 
the potential of Member States’ rural 
development programmes to address 
water concerns has not yet been fully 
exploited (paragraphs 49 to 61). The 
Court therefore recommends:
Recommendation 2
Member States should:
— address the weaknesses identified 
by the audit in their performance 
of cross‑compliance checks;
— impose the appropriate penalties 
in cases of infringement;
— put increased emphasis on iden ‑
tifying water‑related problems in 
their RDPs and ensuring they are 
consistent with RBMPs;
— devise and rigorously implement 
safeguard mechanisms to avoid 
negative side‑effects on water 
of activities financed by rural 
development;
— more actively consider and ap ‑
propriately promote the use of the 
funds earmarked for water‑related 
issues, in a way that is consistent 
with sound financial management.86 
Given the relevance of the WFD in the 
context of EU water policy, and not ‑
ing that there is a recognised need to 
integrate water management con ‑
cerns into other policy areas, such as 
agriculture, the Court concludes that 
the delays and weaknesses affecting 
implementation of the WFD have hin ‑
dered integration of the water policy 
objectives into the CAP (paragraphs 21 
to 32 and 72 to 76). Acknowledging 
that EU water policy is effectively im ‑
plemented through funds from other 
policies (such as the CAP) and pursuing 
consistency between EU water and ag ‑
ricultural policies the Court therefore 
recommends:
Recommendation 3
The Commission should propose 
appropriate mechanisms that can ef ‑
fectively exercise a positive influence 
on the quality of Member States’ WFD 
programming documents and avoid 
departing from the timeframe set by 
the WFD. To this end, minimum condi ‑
tions as regards the implementation 
of the WFD could be ensured before 
committing rural development funds.
Member States should urgently speed 
up the process of implementing the 
WFD and for the next management 
cycle (2015) improve the quality of 
their RBMPs by describing individual 
measures (e.g. in terms of scope, time ‑
frame, targets and costs) and making 
them sufficiently clear and concrete at 
an operational level.
49 Conclusions and recommendations
87 
The Court also concludes that there is 
insufficient knowledge, at European 
level and in the Member States, about 
the pressures placed on water by 
agricultural activities and how those 
pressures are evolving (paragraphs 66 
to 79). We found the following weak ‑
nesses at Commission and Member 
State level:
 — the CAP monitoring and evalua ‑
tion systems are of limited value 
in measuring progress towards the 
water objectives set out in the CAP 
regulations;
 — the Water Information System for 
Europe (WISE) is incomplete;
 — the Commission’s efforts to 
develop indicators linking water 
quality and quantity with agricul ‑
tural practices have not yet been 
successful.The Court therefore recommends:
Recommendation 4
The Commission should strengthen 
its knowledge of the link between 
water quality/quantity and agricultural 
practices by improving its existing 
monitoring systems and ensuring that 
they are capable at least of measuring 
the evolution of the pressures placed 
on water by agricultural practices; this 
would help with identifying the areas 
in which CAP funds are most needed.
Given that the quality of the informa ‑
tion about water for the EU as a whole 
depends on the quality of the infor ‑
mation Member States provide and 
that the availability of this informa ‑
tion is a prerequisite for taking sound 
policy decisions, Member States are 
encouraged to improve the timeliness, 
reliability and consistency of the data 
they provide to the Commission and 
the EEA.
This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mrs Rasa BUDBERGYTĖ, 
Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 26 March 2014.
For the Court of Auditors
Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
President

50
 Annexes
Audit questions and criteria used for the auditAnnex I
Cross compliance is fully exploited (applies to all pertinent
payments/ measures) in order to avoid negative side eﬀects
The Commission makes sure that MS have properly translatedthe cross compliance requirements into MS standards
The Commission has communicated guidelines to MS on howto address water protection through their RDPs
The Commission checks whether the RDPs address or notwater protection
MS standards translating cross compliance requirementsare suﬃciently demanding and RDP measures only ﬁnanceprojects or interventions that go beyond the crosscompliance obligations
MS standards translating cross compliance requirementsare concrete and operational at farm level and the systemof checks to verify their fulﬁlment works properly
In the elaboration of the RDP, the main actors responsiblefor the implementation of the EU water policy have beenconsulted
RBMP and Programmes of Measures are operational, speciﬁcand measurable in order to not compromise their integrationin the RDPs of the next programming period
The environmental analysis carried out for the RDP is coherentwith the environmental analysis carried out for the RBMP
The RDP measures address the water related needs identiﬁedin the needs analysis
RDP measures are designed in order toavoid any negative side-eﬀects on water
Commission monitoring system is reliable and shows a positivecontribution of the agricultural policy in achieving theobjectives of the EU Water Policy
Member States monitoring system is reliable and showsa positive contribution of the agricultural policy in achievingthe objectives of the EU Water Policy
Water-related cross-compliance requirements are knownby beneﬁciaries and have incited them to better respectwater-related obligations in their activities
Rural development programmes are attractive enough to haveincited beneﬁciaries to adopt farming practices contributingto water protection that go beyond the compulsoryrequirementsCross compliance rules address water quantity and quality
Has the Commission
ensured that cross-compliance and itsimplementation inMember States takeinto account the needto address theobjectives of the EUWater Policy?
Has the Commissionensured that MSaddress the objectivesof the EU Water Policythrough their RDPs?Has the Commissiondeﬁned how best touse the CAPinstruments to addressthe objectives of theEU water policy?1 COM
Have Member Statesused cross-complianceto address theobjectives of the EUWater Policy?
Have Member Statesused their RDPs toaddress the objectivesof the EU WaterPolicy?Have Member Statesused the instrumentsavailable through theCAP to address theobjectives of the EUwater policy?Do the Commission andMember States have astrategy on how best touse the CAP instrumentsto address the objectivesof the EU Water Policy?
Can the Commission demonstrate that the CAPinstruments have been eﬀective in addressingthe objectives of the EU Water Policy?
Can Member States demonstrate that the CAPinstruments have been eﬀective in addressingthe objectives of the EU Water Policy?Can the Commission andMember Statesdemonstrate that the CAPinstruments have beeneﬀective in addressingthe objectives of the EUWater Policy?Has the CAPeﬀectivelyintegratedthe objectives of theEU Water Policy?2 COM
3 COM
4 COM
5 COM
1 MS
2 MS
3 MS
4 MS
5 MS
6 MS
7 MS
6 COM
8 MS
9 MS
10 MSCommission
reviewLegend
Member Sta tes
visits or desk
reviews
51 Annexes
Survey results: Main changes reported by farm advisory bodies following the  
introduction of cross‑complianceAnnex II
31
24
16
14
9
8
8
5
5
4
4
13- Mor e complian t individual sew age syst ems
- Incr eased c apacit y of manur e storage tanks
- Use of c omplian t washing ar eas
- Complianc e with periods when applic ation of
 fertiliser is pr ohibit ed
- Maintenance of native vegetation in buﬀer 
 strips, reduction of erosion
- Complian t reuse of r eclaimed w ater
- Mor e sec ure handing of pesticides b y farmersImpr oved monit oring and use of f ertilisers
Impr oved monit oring and use of pesticides
Better knowledge of/c omplianc e with r egula tions
No fertiliser/pesticide use in buﬀer strips
Creation of sec ure pesticide st orage r ooms ,
impr oved recycling
Impr oved c omplianc e of st orage of f ertilisers
Better contracting and monit oring of sew age
sludge usage
Use of w ater-sa ving irriga tion methods
Impr oved c omplianc e of spr aying syst ems
Installa tion of wat er met ers
Better st orage of hazar dous substanc es
OthersPlease p rovide e xamples of changes in farm prac tices tha t you ha ve obser ved, if an y, sinc e the in troduc tion of cr oss- complianc e
Number of quo tes
All
SMR2
SMR3SMR4
SMR9
GAEC on irriga tionGAEC on buﬀer strips
52 Annexes
Examples of water‑related issues not covered by cross‑compliance
Phosphorus use in agricultureApplication of pesticides in the immediate vicinity of water 
bodiesUse in 
agriculturePhosphorus is supplied to agricultural land through mineral and 
organic fertilisers (e.g. NPK mixtures or animal manure/slurry) and is 
used in animal feed. Pesticides protect crops from damage caused by weeds, diseases and 
insects.Impact on waterPhosphorus can migrate into surface waters and cause water quality 
problems such as eutrophication.Aerial spraying of pesticides has the potential to cause significant 
adverse impacts on human health and the environment, in particu -
lar from spray drift1.
It has been estimated that only 0,1 % of applied pesticides reach the 
target pests, leaving the bulk of the pesticides (99,9 %) to impact the 
environment2 (e.g. water bodies).Current statusThe contribution made by agriculture to phosphorus loads in surface 
waters is estimated by the EEA to be anything between 20 % and 
more than 50 %3.
Recent reports from the Commission show that good status for phos -
phorus may not be reached by 2015 but only by 2027 (12 years after 
the deadline given in the WFD).According to the EEA, there is limited overall information available 
on Europe and a lack of reliable data on pesticides in groundwater.
In its report No 9/2012 the EEA states that pesticides are widespread 
causes of poor chemical status in rivers.How is it currently addressed?Indirectly, the requirements related to nitrates (SMR4) are likely to 
have an impact on phosphorus levels. Farmers in nitrate -vulnerable 
zones must adhere to nitrogen limits, which involves monitoring the 
level and timing of slurry and manure use. Doing this incidentally 
limits the application of phosphorus.Some Member States, such as France and Spain (Andalusia), have 
included restrictions on the use of pesticides in the GAEC on buffer 
strips by prohibiting the use of these substances within a fixed 
distance from water bodies.
In the other five Member States/regions visited during the audit, 
restrictions on buffer strips concern fertilisers but not pesticides 
(see  Table  3).Some Member States, such as the Netherlands, have taken the op -
portunity to address diffuse phosphorus pollution explicitly in their 
nitrates action programmes by establishing phosphate application 
standards for farmers.
1 Directive  2009/128/EC.
2  Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S. and Walker, P., ‘How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial 
agriculture’, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002, Vol.110, No 5.  
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240832/pdf/ehp0110 ‑000445.pdf .
3  Addressing phosphorus‑related problems in farm practice, Final report to the European Commission. Soil Service of Belgium, November 2005. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/pdf/phosphorus/AgriPhosphorusReport%20final.pdf .Annex III
53 Annexes
Additional Health Check and Recovery funds allocated and used by Member States 
for water management
EAFRD funds in million euro
Member State1HC and EERP funds allocated2 
to the ‘new challenge’ of water 
management  
(data for 2010)Expenditure3 
(to end of 2012)Implementation rate (%)
Belgium 21,6 20,1 92,9
Bulgaria 19,0 8,7 45,9
Czech Republic 7, 0 2,4 34,4
Denmark 61,0 7, 6 12,5
Germany 166,0 78,0 47, 0
Ireland 26,0 0,4 1,6
Greece 70,0 0,0 0,0
Spain 188,6 47, 2 25,0
France 460,5 3,4 0,7
Italy 88,5 20,4 23,0
Netherlands 21,0 1,1 5,2
Poland 34,0 0,0 0,0
Romania 22,0 0,0 0,0
Slovenia 1,0 0,2 17,7
Finland 31,0 2,3 7, 3
Sweden - 35,4  -
United Kingdom 104,0 5,7 5,4
EU‑27 1 332,0 232,9 17, 5
1 Member States that had not allocated any HC or EERP funds to water management are not included in this list.
2 According to COM press releases IP 09/1568, IP 09/1813, IP 09/1945 and IP/10/102.
3 Data provided by the Commission from the cumulative monitoring data for the EU27 for 2010, 2011 and 2012.Annex IV
54
 — Member States’ greater familiarity with the 
analytical framework of rural development 
policy and the process of composing river basin 
management plans — RBMPs — (in the frame ‑
work of the WFD);
 — particular conditions in the new Rural Develop ‑
ment Regulation concerning support for invest ‑
ments in irrigation.
VII
The Commission recognises that there have been 
delays in the implementation of agricultural meas ‑
ures under the WFD and is committed to working 
with Member States to resolve this issue. Where this 
cannot be achieved through consent it will be accel ‑
erated through infringement action. 
IX
In the context of the CAP reform, the Commission 
has proposed and the co ‑legislators have agreed 
in a joint statement1 that the WFD as well as the 
Sustainable Use of pesticides Directive (SUD) will be 
part of cross‑ compliance when these Directives will 
have been implemented in all Member States and 
the obligations directly applicable to farmers have 
been identified. 
Pending this introduction into cross‑ compliance, 
co‑legislators have also agreed that these two direc ‑
tives will be part of the compulsory scope of the 
Farm Advisory System so that all farmers concerned 
have access to the relevant advice. The main ele ‑
ments of EU water policy will therefore be included 
into the CAP in due course.
As for rural development policy, the necessary 
tools and mechanisms are provided for the period 
2014–20 through the new Rural Development Regu ‑
lation (RDR) — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council — and 
through related legislation.
1 Joint statement by the European Parliament and the Council on 
cross compliance attached to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.Executive summary
Common reply to V and VI
The Commission wishes to underline that cross ‑
compliance has increased farmers’ awareness and 
improved their practices on water issues. The Com ‑
mission notes, however, that the implementation of 
cross‑ compliance by Member States still presents 
certain weaknesses. 
Important water ‑related EU legislation, in particu ‑
lar regarding nitrates and pesticides, is already 
included into the scope of cross‑ compliance. 
Remaining water ‑related issues should be 
addressed by the Member States in fulfilling the 
obligations of the Water Framework Directive 
(WFD). Programmes of measures should address all 
of the mandatory requirements set out in Article 
11.3. The relevant measures under the WFD will be 
introduced in due course into the scope of cross ‑
compliance when the obligation at farm level is suf ‑
ficiently clear. In the meantime water ‑related Good 
Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) 
standards have been set in order to cover certain 
basic requirements already existing in national leg ‑
islation so as to make a link with CAP payments. 
As for rural development, the Commission is of the 
opinion that in the period 2014–20 improvements 
will come about as a result of:
 — the presence of explicitly water ‑related ‘focus 
areas’ (sub ‑priorities) within the new Rural 
Development Regulation itself — with cor ‑
responding indicators, against which Member 
States will set targets within their RDPs;
 — the obligation, within the new Rural Develop ‑
ment Regulation, to spend a minimum of 30 % 
of the total contribution from the EAFRD to 
each RDP on climate change mitigation and 
adaptation and environmental issues through 
certain measures;Reply of the  
Commission
Reply of the Commission 55
XI
As regards the newly introduced system for moni ‑
toring and evaluating the CAP , linking water quality 
and quantity with agricultural practices is very 
complex, given the wide variety of agricultural 
practices and agronomic circumstances across the 
EU, the pressures from non ‑agricultural sources 
which also have a significant impact on water qual ‑
ity and availability, and the challenges in attributing 
causal linkages. Therefore, the costs and administra ‑
tive burden related to the monitoring and evalua ‑
tion systems need to be carefully balanced against 
the benefits related to improved management and 
policymaking.
Lessons learnt from the 2007–13 Common Moni ‑
toring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) showed 
that it was very difficult to set accurate targets 
for impact indicators such as water quality due to 
the numerous external factors involved. Guidance 
documents have been provided to Member States 
to support them in the measurement of these 
impact indicators which are expected in the ex post 
evaluations.
As regards the result indicators, it is acknowledged 
that there were some difficulties in correctly record ‑
ing data for result indicator regarding ‘area under 
successful land management’. 
Under the WFD, Member States have to identify 
significant pressures and report these in the RBMPs 
and into the Water Information System for Europe 
(WISE). It is recognised that the level at which 
information was being reported was not useful 
for analysis and so, through the WFD CIS process, 
changes to be made to reporting requirements 
have been discussed, that allow for better track ‑
ing of pressures and the degree to which measures 
being implemented are having effect.
Please see also reply to paragraph VIII.Within the RDR (i.e. within the key legislation itself), 
‘improving water management’ and ‘increasing 
efficiency in water use by agriculture’ are explicit 
elements of the ‘priorities’ against which Member 
States/regions must programme spending within 
their RDPs.
A range of measures is available to help fulfil these 
priorities — support for training, use of advice, 
investments, multi ‑annual land management 
practices and experimental development (includ ‑
ing within the European Innovation Partnership for 
Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability).
The Commission has had a programme of work to 
communicate such opportunities to Member States 
in the context of various fora, and in particular 
within the WFD Common Implementation Strategy 
working group on agriculture. Finally, it should be 
borne in mind that rural development policy must 
address a range of priorities and financial resources 
are limited.
X
The Commission assessed all reported RBMPs and 
will have held meetings with all Member States 
before autumn 2014 to discuss the implementa ‑
tion issues with the first cycle RBMPs and agree 
an action programme with the Member States to 
address serious gaps. The gaps on effective agri ‑
cultural measures have been discussed with all 
Member States, and they have been given time 
to voluntarily come into compliance on this issue, 
after which further action will be pursued by the 
Commission. 
The Commission will also continue to work with 
Member States in the WFD Common Implementa ‑
tion Strategy (CIS) working group on agriculture 
where good practice examples are identified and 
promoted to Member States. 
Reply of the Commission 56
However, in the absence of a clear definition of 
such objectives, the task of drawing up RDPs with 
due regard to the criteria of EU water policy will 
not become completely impossible and must still 
be carried out through the detailed analyses of 
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats 
(SWOT) and of ‘needs’ — which form part of every 
RDP . Nevertheless, the absence of an adequate 
RBMP and objectives will indeed make this task 
much more difficult.
33
The Commission shares the Court’s conclusion that 
cross‑ compliance has increased awareness among 
farmers and has triggered some changes in farming 
practices in relation to water. 
The Commission would also like to underline that 
important EU legislation regarding the protection 
of EU waters from agricultural pollutions, such as 
the Nitrates Directive or the Pesticides Regulation, 
has been part of cross ‑compliance from the begin ‑
ning of this system. 
The Commission shares the Court’s conclusion that 
weaknesses are found in the application of cross ‑
compliance in the Member States, but would like to 
underline that identified weaknesses are dealt with 
under the clearance of accounts procedure. This 
procedure is an effective incentive to improve the 
implementation of cross ‑compliance by Member 
States.
35
The Commission considers that the pollution by 
phosphorus and pesticides is covered in some 
Member States by the Statutory Management 
Requirements (SMRs) in relation to the EU legisla ‑
tion as currently implemented. In some Member 
States, the action programmes in the context of 
the Nitrates Directive indeed include also require ‑
ments on phosphorus and this directive is part of 
the rules on cross ‑compliance. The provisions of the 
Pesticides Regulation on the authorisation of plant 
protection products are also part of the scope of 
cross‑ compliance. The Audit
19
With regard to Special Report No 7/2011, although 
the Commission admitted that improvements could 
be made in certain respects, it also underlined the 
strengths of the agri ‑environment measures as 
implemented in the period 2007–13. 
Observations
21
The mandatory components to be included in an 
RBMP are defined in the directive. The Commission 
has conducted a quality check on the RBMPs. The 
findings were published in Member State reports 
and bilateral meetings have been held to discuss 
the improvements that must be made in future 
RBMPs. 
23 
Guidance documents were prepared through the 
WFD Common Implementation Strategy process to 
help Member States prepare good quality RBMPs. 
Adherence to these guidance documents remains 
a priority for the Commission and Member States.
24
The Commission is aware of the lack of progress 
on making agricultural measures operational at 
the farm level and will use the Court’s evidence 
together with its own (reporting on programmes of 
measures) to follow this up bilaterally with Member 
States to improve action on this in the second cycle 
RBMPs. 
25
Member States develop RBMP at the level of the 
river basin district and then set objectives at water 
body level. The Commission will pursue the possible 
lack of such objectives with recommendations and, 
where necessary, infringement procedures will be 
addressed to the Member States.
Reply of the Commission 57
Member States should have included in their RBMPs 
measures to control abstraction and water pricing 
policies that allow for quantitative status consist ‑
ent with ‘good’ status as required under the WFD. 
Where such controls are absent or deemed insuffi ‑
cient for the purposes of achieving the objectives of 
the WFD, the Commission is following this up with 
Member States.
42
The difficulty of checking certain requirements 
is not specific to cross ‑compliance but originates 
in the obligation itself. While it is true that the 
annual cross‑ compliance control campaign cannot 
be adapted to all types of requirements, findings 
made at other occasions can also be followed under 
cross‑ compliance. 
43
When weaknesses are found during the Commis ‑
sion’s audits, financial corrections may be decided 
until the shortcomings are addressed.
46
The diversity of buffer strips is linked to the specific 
provisions of the Nitrates Directive. Buffer strips 
shall take into account the environmental condi ‑
tions in the relevant regions of the Member State 
concerned (Article 5(3)(b)). It means that buffer 
strips can vary, provided that the design of the 
buffer strips together with the other measures 
present in the action programme are sufficient to 
reduce water pollution caused by nitrates (Art. 5(5)).
The Commission has no formal role in the adop ‑
tion of the nitrates action programmes where the 
measures, including buffer strips, are defined. How ‑
ever infringement procedures open show that the 
Commission does challenge the appropriateness 
of the measures in terms of meeting water quality 
objectives.Moreover, some Member States have comple ‑
mented this legislation by certain GAEC standards.
37
The timing of implementation of the WFD and the 
SUD, including at farm level, is laid down in the 
texts themselves. If this timing is not respected 
by Member States, they may face infringement 
procedures.
38
The GAEC standard on use of water for irrigation 
is based on existing national legislation and aims 
at making a link between these national rules and 
CAP payments. Water abstraction prior authorisa ‑
tion is a requirement under Article 11(e) of the WFD 
which differs from water use, so it was not added 
to the GAEC on water use. Where the national law is 
not explicit on meters and reporting of water use, 
this will also be absent from the GAEC. The national 
legislation must in principle take into account the 
national, regional or local needs as regards water 
use. These needs are very different from one loca ‑
tion to another and having the same requirements 
throughout the EU territory would not be relevant.
However, the Commission notes that, in the pro ‑
gramming period 2014–20, EAFRD support for 
investments in irrigation will be granted only if 
water metering is already in place at the level of the 
investment or is put in place as part of the invest ‑
ment. Various other conditions will also have to be 
met — many of them related to the status of water 
bodies affected by irrigation projects.
39
The relevant EU instrument to improve in a planned 
and coherent way the management of water in the 
EU is the WFD, which will be proposed to be intro ‑
duced into cross‑ compliance in due course when 
the obligations directly applicable to farmers will 
have been identified. 
Reply of the Commission 58
 — particular conditions in the new rural develop ‑
ment regulation concerning support for invest ‑
ments in irrigation.
Box 11  
 — Despite the focus of the DK Strategic Environ ‑
mental Assessment on the water quality, the 
measure 121 (Farm Investment), also includes 
specific support for reducing water usage in the 
horticulture sector, thereby directly targeting 
water abstraction.
Water abstraction can also be dealt with 
through basic measures to address water use 
efficiency, in line with the polluter pays princi ‑
ple. These will not need to be financed with the 
R D P.
 — The RDP includes training actions under meas ‑
ure 111 in order to increase the knowledge of 
farmers about environmental legislation. Advi ‑
sory actions are also supported under measure 
115 in order to promote a more sustainable use 
of water.
 — In Slovakia, the RBMP were adopted and report ‑
ed by March 2010 long after the environmental 
assessment of the RDP was carried out (the 
Slovak RDP itself was approved on 4 Decem ‑
ber 2007). This is why these measures identified 
in the RBMP were not addressed in the RDP’s 
environmental analysis. Better consistency 
should be possible in future as the first RBMPs 
have now been notified. 
 — In Greece, the RBMPs were adopted long after 
the approval of the RDP . The negative environ ‑
mental and economic impact of boreholes was 
nevertheless identified in the environmental 
assessment of the RDP . As a result, measure 125 
co‑finances projects that deal with the collec ‑
tion and exploitation of surface run ‑off waters, 
the modernisation and improvement of condi ‑
tions of irrigation, drainage, access and also 
infrastructure which helps in monitoring and 
recording the impact of hydro ‑morphological 
pressure on aquifers.48
The Commission is aware of irregularities in con ‑
trolling abstraction in the agricultural sector and 
is following this up bilaterally with Member States, 
pursuant to the RBMP assessment to ensure that 
effective legislation is in place. 
See also reply to point 39.
49
Recital (6) does not single out EU water policy for 
a particular mention, but this policy is of course 
included in the phrase ‘other Community policies’.
51
The Commission agrees that analysis of water ‑
related pressures should be thorough, there should 
be a good level of consistency between RDPs and 
RBMPs, negative side ‑effects of water ‑related sup ‑
port should be avoided and programmed funding 
should either be spent efficiently or, if necessary, 
appropriately reallocated (with sound justification).
Performance in these areas could be improved in 
some cases for the period 2014–20. The Commis ‑
sion believes that improvements will come about as 
a result of:
 — the presence of explicitly water ‑related ‘focus 
areas’ (sub ‑priorities) within the new Rural 
Development Regulation itself — with cor ‑
responding indicators, against which Member 
States will set targets within their RDPs;
 — the obligation, within the new Rural Develop ‑
ment Regulation, to spend a minimum of 30 % 
of the total contribution from the EAFRD to 
each RDP on climate change mitigation and 
adaptation and environmental issues through 
certain measures;
 — Member States’ greater familiarity with the 
analytical framework of rural development 
policy and the process of composing river basin 
management plans — RBMPs — (in the frame ‑
work of the WFD);
Reply of the Commission 59
58
Article 38 was activated in 2010 immediately after 
the deadline for the presentation of the RBMP . The 
new obligations became mandatory for farmers by 
the end of 2012, when the Rural Development Pro ‑
grammes were near to be closed in 2013. Thus, this 
measure was applied just by a few Member States.
Apart from this it must be taken into account that 
the compensation payment can help to advance 
implementation. However, as Article 38 concerns 
compensating costs, it does not add any environ ‑
mental requirement. Accordingly, Member States 
may well pursue an ambitious implementation 
without using the possibilities under Article 38. 
59
Although the reasons cited by the Court for low 
use of measure 213 provide valid explanation, two 
further points should be understood.
Firstly, in general, some rural development meas ‑
ures are more widely used than others.
Secondly, measure 213 is a somewhat unusual 
measure in that it offers compensation for disad ‑
vantages arising from mandatory requirements in 
particular areas. Most measures operate on a dif ‑
ferent basis (i.e. payments for investments made/ 
practices undertaken voluntarily). This distinctive 
feature of measure 213 may make some Member 
States cautious about implementing it until they 
have seen others do so successfully.
In any case, the Commission expects greater use of 
the measure covering WF D payments in the period 
2014–20, given that RBMPs are now in place.53
The Commission agrees that for many Member 
States much better defined programmes of meas ‑
ures for the agricultural sector are necssary in the 
second cycle RBMPs and are pursuing this actively 
with Member States. 
54
The new Rural Development Regulation for the 
programming period 2014–20 contains particular 
safeguards with regard to support for investments 
in irrigation — linking it to water metering, to the 
submission of a RBMP with relevant measures to 
the agricultural sector, and to the status of water 
bodies.
Furthermore, various legislative acts, especially 
the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, 
require that certain investments be preceded by an 
environmental assessment (this point is recalled by 
Article 45(1) of the RDR).
Finally, the implementation of GAEC, minimum 
requirements for fertilisers and plant protection 
products, and water pricing are ex ante  conditionali ‑
ties for EAFRD funding (see Annex V of the RDR).
Box 12  
In general, an extension of irrigated area and/or 
increase in overall water consumption would have 
‘negative side ‑effects’ only if insufficient water is 
available to comfortably cover these changes while 
ensuring the maintenance or achievement of good 
water status.
While under measure 125 in the Spanish RDPs the 
investments leading to the extension of the irri ‑
gated area or to an increase in the overall water 
consumption are not eligible, the risk of increas ‑
ing the irrigated area through investments under 
measure 121 is mitigated. This is because the water 
infrastructures/pipelines which are located outside 
the holding and which bring the water to the hold ‑
ing could not be eligible under measure 125 if they 
led to an increase of the irrigated area.
Reply of the Commission 60
For multi ‑annual programmes such as the Rural 
Development Programmes, certain results, such 
as impacts on water quality can only be properly 
assessed well into the programming period, and 
afterwards. Such effects can only be measured after 
sufficient time since implementation has passed.
68
Controls cannot provide information about the 
impact of a policy. The measurement of an impact 
requires a carefully designed evaluation which 
allows separating the effects of a policy such as 
cross‑ compliance from other intervening factors.
69
In the context of the CMEF, a number of indicators 
are defined that help to measure progress towards 
objectives. These are a source of information used 
by the evaluators during their work.
70
Since 2014, the new monitoring and evaluation 
framework contains also information on water 
quantity. Overall, it should be noted that collect ‑
ing information involves practical difficulties and 
a financial cost. Therefore there is a limit to what 
information can be collected as well as on the fre ‑
quency of data collection.
Lessons learnt from the 2007–13 CMEF showed 
that it was very difficult to set accurate targets 
for impact indicators such as water quality due to 
the numerous external factors involved. Guidance 
documents have been provided to Member States 
to support them in the measurement of these 
impact indicators which are expected in the ex post 
evaluations.
As regards the result indicators, it is acknowledged 
that there were some difficulties in correctly record ‑
ing data for result indicator regarding ‘area under 
successful land management’. 64
See reply to point 83.
65
Rural development measures mentioned by the 
Court which are not subject to cross‑ compliance are 
primarily investment measures.
The 2014–20 rural development legislation contains 
provisions to help ensure that support is granted 
only to investments which are environmentally 
sustainable. In this respect, the provisions related to 
investments in irrigation are especially detailed.
The related administrative burden of the inclusion 
of investment measures into cross‑ compliance 
would be high because the management of these 
measures is multi ‑annual. Moreover, the impact 
would be very limited since most farmers who 
receive support for investments through rural 
development policy are already affected by cross ‑
compliance through the Pillar I direct payments 
schemes and through area ‑related rural develop ‑
ment measures.
67
For the new programming period 2014–20 a new 
system for monitoring and evaluating the CAP as 
a whole against its objectives has been introduced 
in Regulation 1306/2013. This system also contains 
information on quantity of water used and water 
quality. However, linking water quality and quan ‑
tity with agricultural practices is very complex, 
given the wide variety of agricultural practices and 
agronomic circumstances across the EU, the pres ‑
sures from non ‑agricultural sources which also 
have a significant impact on water quality and 
availability, and the challenges in attributing causal 
linkages. Therefore, the costs and administrative 
burden related to the monitoring and evaluation 
systems need to be carefully balanced against the 
benefits related to improved management and 
policymaking.
Reply of the Commission 61
Conclusions and recommendations
82
See reply to paragraph V.
83
Important water ‑related EU legislation is already 
included into the scope of cross‑ compliance. In 
addition, water ‑related issues are dealt with under 
the Water Framework Directive, which will be pro ‑
posed for introduction in due course into the scope 
of cross‑ compliance when the directive will have 
been implemented in all Member States and the 
obligations directly applicable to farmers will have 
been identified. In the meantime water ‑related 
GAEC standards have been set in order to cover cer ‑
tain basic requirements already existing in national 
legislation so as to make a link with CAP payments. 
Cross ‑compliance contributes to the objectives of 
the polluter pays principle but is not designed to 
compensate for the cost of environmental damages. 
The principle for the calculation of the cross ‑compli ‑
ance reductions is indeed based on a percentage of 
all concerned CAP payments received by the farmer. 
It is the percentage itself, not the absolute amounts, 
which reflects the seriousness of the farmer’s 
breach of EU rules, according to the proportionality 
principle. 
Recommendation 1
The Commission considers that this recommenda ‑
tion has been partly implemented and will be fully 
implemented when certain conditions are fulfilled.
The Commission has proposed for the CAP post 
2014 that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) as 
well as the Sustainable Use of pesticides Directive 
(SUD) will be part of cross ‑compliance when these 
directives have been implemented in all Member 
States and the obligations directly applicable to 
farmers have been identified. The European Parlia ‑
ment and the Council have agreed to this approach 
and made a joint statement in this respect at the 
occasion of the adoption of the CAP reform. 71
Overall, the mid ‑term evaluations came too early 
in the programmes to be able to generate reliable 
data on impacts and results, since in most cases 
it was too early in the programme for the results/
impacts of the policy to materialise. 
For this reason, the mid ‑term evaluations have been 
abolished in the new programming period. 
For multi ‑annual programmes such as the rural 
development programmes, certain results, such 
as impacts on water quality can only be properly 
assessed well into the programming period, and 
afterwards. Such effects can only be measured after 
sufficient time since implementation has passed. 
For most interventions, this was not yet the case at 
the moment of the mid ‑term evaluation (2010).
74
Through the WFD Common Implementation 
Strategy working group on reporting, efforts are 
being made to change reporting so that a clearer 
link can be made between pressures, measures and 
response. Moreover, the Commission will take the 
necessary action to ensure that WFD monitoring 
requirements are fulfilled.
78
The Commission together with the European Envi ‑
ronment Agency (EEA) are working with Member 
States to improve WISE. 
79
Agri ‑environment indicators are under continuous 
improvements and some of them include farming 
practices, such as AEI 15 (Gross Nutrient Balance), 
AEI 12 (intensification/extensification, AEI 11 (farm 
management practices), AEI 7 (irrigation). In the 
future, it is acknowledged that better synergies 
between CMEF, Integrated Administration and 
Control System data and the Farm Structure Survey 
should be encouraged, in line with Article 17 of the 
Inspire Directive on the sharing of spatial datasets.
Reply of the Commission 62
86
EU water policy is implemented partly with the 
support of ‘funds’, but partly without (in fulfilment 
of the polluter pays principle). Non ‑funded legal 
requirements play a very important role in the 
whole package of measures necessary to address 
agricultures impact on water.
Recommendation 3
Reply to the first paragraph 
of recommendation 3:
The Commission considers that this recommenda ‑
tion has been partially implemented.
On the basis of the Water Blueprint adopted in 2012, 
the Commission will continue the well regarded 
WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) 
process that has produced 23 guidance documents 
so far in detailing how the WFD should be imple ‑
mented. The mandate of the CIS working groups is 
firmly focused on improving the quality of RBMPs 
and improving the status of EU waters by delivering 
on the proposals listed in the Blueprint.
The Commission is following up on significant gaps 
in the measures needed to implement the WFD with 
Member States bilaterally with the aim to resolve 
the issues in time for the second RBMPs in 2015. In 
some cases infringements will be opened if appro ‑
priate. In 2016, Member States will report to the 
Commission their updated RBMPs. The Commission 
will assess them and, inter alia on that basis, will 
accomplish a review of the WFD and propose any 
necessary amendments to it by 2019 at the latest, 
and/or put forward other initiatives.
With regard to the RDP , one of the basic meas ‑
ures — Article 9, water pricing policy is an ex ante  
conditionality for the RDP and as such Member 
States will have to ensure that this requirement is 
fulfilled to ensure that they can draw down RDP 
funds in certain cases. 
Reply to the second paragraph of 
recommendation 3:
This part of the recommendation is addressed to 
the Member States.In 2012, the European Water Directors2 took note of 
the recommendations from the Strategic Coordina ‑
tion Group and the Commission. Water Directors 
recognised that the list of basic measures proposed 
should be considered for inclusion in cross ‑compli ‑
ance if a decision to add WFD provisions in cross ‑
compliance is reached in the European Parliament 
and the Council in the CAP discussions.
Pending this introduction into cross‑ compliance, 
co‑legislators have also agreed that these two 
directives will be part of the compulsory scope 
of the Farm Advisory System so that all farmers 
concerned have access to the relevant advice. The 
main elements of EU water policy could therefore 
be included into the CAP in due course.
As for the rural development policy, the necessary 
tools and mechanisms are provided for the period 
2014–20 through the new Rural Development Regu ‑
lation (RDR) — Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council — and 
through related legislation.
Within the RDR (i.e. within the key legislation itself), 
‘improving water management’ and ‘increasing 
efficiency in water use by agriculture’ are explicit 
elements of the ‘priorities’ against which Member 
States/regions must programme spending within 
their RDPs.
A range of measures is available to help fulfil these 
priorities — support for training, use of advice, 
investments, multi ‑annual land management 
practices and experimental development (includ ‑
ing within the European Innovation Partnership for 
Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability).
Finally, it should be borne in mind that rural devel ‑
opment policy must address a range of priorities 
and financial resources are limited.
Recommendation 2
This recommendation is addressed to the Member 
States.
2 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/
browse/25d8b24a ‑c247 ‑4275 ‑9a56 ‑9676a75a90f6
Reply of the Commission 63
Under the WFD, Member States have to identify 
significant pressures and report these in the RBMPs 
and into the WISE system. The Commission recog ‑
nises that the level at which information was being 
reported was not useful for analysis and so, through 
the WFD CIS process, changes to be made to report ‑
ing requirements have been discussed, that allow 
for better tracking of pressures and the degree to 
which measures being implemented are having 
effect.
Reply to the second paragraph of 
recommendation 4:
This part of the recommendation is for the Member 
States.87 Second indent
The Commission together with the EEA are working 
with Member States to improve WISE.
87 Third indent
The correct and effective implementation of the 
agri ‑environmental indicators depends on the data 
and information supply of Member States. Without 
this information the indicators cannot function 
correctly. This problem of insufficient information is 
particularly affecting water indicators. 
Recommendation 4
Reply to the first paragraph of 
recommendation 4:
The Commission considers that this recommendation 
is currently being implemented.
For the new programming period 2014–20, a new sys ‑
tem for monitoring and evaluating the CAP as a whole 
against its objectives was introduced in Regulation 
1306/2013. This system also contains information on 
quantity of water used and water quality. However, 
linking water quality and quantity with agricultural 
practices is very complex, given the wide variety of 
agricultural practices and agronomic circumstances 
across the EU. Therefore, the costs and administrative 
burden related to the monitoring and evaluation sys ‑
tems need to be carefully balanced against the benefits 
related to improved management and policymaking.
For multi ‑annual programmes such as the rural devel ‑
opment programmes, certain results, such as impacts 
on water quality can only be properly assessed well 
into the programming period, and afterwards. Such 
effects can only be measured after sufficient time since 
implementation has passed.
Lessons learnt from the 2007–13 CMEF showed that 
it was very difficult to set accurate targets for impact 
indicators such as water quality due to the numerous 
external factors involved. Guidance documents have 
been provided to Member States to support them in 
the measurement of these impact indicators which are 
expected in the ex post  evaluations.
As regards the result indicators, it is acknowledged 
that there were some difficulties in correctly recording 
data for result indicator regarding ‘area under success ‑
ful land management’. 

HOW  TO OBTAIN  EU PUBLICATIONS
Free  publications:
•  one  copy:  
via EU Bookshop  (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more  than  one  copy  or posters/maps:  
from  the European  Union’s  representations  (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);   
from  the delegations  in non‑EU  countries  (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);   
by contacting  the Europe  Direct  service  (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm)  or 
calling  00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone  number  from  anywhere  in the EU) (*).
(*) The information  given  is free,  as are most  calls  (though  some  operators,  phone  boxes  or hotels  may  charge  you).
Priced  publications:
• via EU Bookshop  (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced  subscriptions:
•  via one  of the sales  agents  of the Publications  Office  of the European  Union  
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).nts/index_en.htm).
QJ‑AB‑14‑004 ‑EN‑C ISSN  1831 ‑0834
Protecting the quality of Europe’s water 
resources has been a priority for the EU since the 
late 1970s. Agriculture, as one of the main users 
and polluters of water, has a major role to play in 
the sustainable management of water. 
The EU has repeatedly acknowledged that its 
different policies need to be coherent and 
therefore recognises the need to ensure that its 
environmental policies, including in relation to 
water, are supported by the common agricultural 
policy. This audit examined whether the EU’s 
water policy objectives have been successfully 
integrated into the CAP and found this to be only 
partially the case.
EUROPEAN
COURTOF AUDITORS