IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

8
Risk analysis based control of agriculture IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September 2019 Anette Dodensig Pedersen, Danish Environmental Protection Agency

Transcript of IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

Page 1: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

Risk analysis based control of

agriculture

IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th – 20th September 2019

Anette Dodensig Pedersen, Danish Environmental Protection Agency

Page 2: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

Workshop on risk analysis based control of agriculture

• Part of the ongoing SWETE project (Safeguarding the Water Environment Throughout Europe)

https://www.impel.eu/projects/safeguarding-the-water-environment-throughout-europe-swete/

• Aim: Exchange experiences about risk analysis for sampling farms for cross-compliance control and risk based control of livestock productions regulated by the Industrial Emissions Directive to explore possible common ground and inspiration.

• Place, time participants: Copenhagen 19th – 20th September 2019, 11 participants from 8 different countries

• Content: Presentations from the participants and plenum discussions

2

Page 3: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

Observations from the workshop

• Difference in risk analysis purpose lead to different risk criteria chosen

• The right choice of risk criteria differs between countries (different circumstances) – General aim for objective, clear, unambiguous criteria.

• Regular evaluation of risk criteria is necessary to ensure that it actually finds mores violations than random selection.

• Some countries explore possibilities of technologies and more advanced data processing.

• Main challenges to efficient use of risk analysis are lack of data or availability of data (including cooperation between institutioner, fx agricultural paying agency and environment inspectorate) and lack of resources.

Risk based approach for Cross-compliance controls and IED inspections In common: Requirement for risk analysis → targeting controls and inspections Differences: Cross-compliance risk analysis → sampling, IED risk analysis → inspection frequency

Page 4: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

Risk parameters examples • Previous non compliance

• Physical location attributes (soil type, rainfall, risk to watercourse)

• Sensitivity of the installation’s near surroundings

• Farm business type (livestock vs plant production, livestock and manure type etc.)

• Scale of impact on the environment

• Level of environmental management

• Applied security measures and risk of accidents

Methods for risk analysis • Different tools in different countries,

for cross-compliance own developed methods, for IED some use IRAM or own methods inspired by IRAM

• Method and criteria depend on data available

• Some target certain regions, fx a municipality or river catchment

• GIS targeting with multiple layers of spatial evidence is used to determine the highest risk areas

Page 5: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

CROSS-COMPLIANCE NITRATES DIRECTIVE 1 % OF BENEFICIARIES PER YEAR

IED PIGS AND POULTRY 1 – 3 YEAR INSPECTION FREQUENCY

NON IED LIVESTOCK 1 – 6 YEAR INSPECTION FREQUENCY

ALL AGRICULTURE NO MINIMUM INSPECTION FREQUENCY

The municipalities

Agricultural Agency

Example: Cross-compliance and environmental inspections in Denmark

Page 6: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

Cross-compliance as a tool for improving environmental compliance • Can be a powerful measure due to the farmers’ risk of losing considerable

amounts of their Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments.

• The small percentage of beneficiaries controlled may mean that even targeting resources to achieve compliance will not match the requirements and does not yield sector wide results.

• The impact of cross-compliance can be disproportionate. Fx some business types (poultry, pigs, horticulture) may have fewer direct payments, or businesses can split to separate livestock production from field cultivation limiting the potential amount of support reduction.

• High visibility controls can be used to compensate for the small control percentage.

Page 7: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

Other IMPEL projects concerning risk appraisal

2010 – 2011 Development of an easy and flexible risk assessment tool as a part of the planning of environmental inspections linked to European environmental law and the RMCEI (easyTools) (EU’s Recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental inspection)

https://www.impel.eu/projects/development-of-an-easy-and-flexible-risk-assessment-tool-as-a-part-of-the-planning-of-environmental-inspections-linked-to-european-environmental-law-and-the-rmcei-easytools/

2012-2013 Environmental inspections of industrial installations in accordance with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)

https://www.impel.eu/projects/environmental-inspections-of-industrial-installations-in-accordance-with-the-industrial-emissions-directive-ied/

2013 Environmental inspections of industrial installations in accordance with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) – Drawing up of IRAM related inspection programmes

https://www.impel.eu/projects/environmental-inspections-industrial-installations-accordance-industrial-emissions-directive-ied-drawing-iram-related-inspection-programmes/

2014 Supporting the Implementation of the Integrated Risk Assessment Method (IRAM)

https://www.impel.eu/projects/supporting-the-implementation-of-the-integrated-risk-assessment-method-iram/

Page 8: IMPEL SWETE Workshop in Copenhagen 19th 20th September ...

END OF PRESENTATION