Vergleich ausgewählter Regelungen der Standards zum guten landwirtschaftlichen und ökologischen Zustand (GLÖZ-Standards) und des Ordnungsrechtes in Deutschland - mögliche Regelungslücken bei einer nicht mehr flächendeckenden Anwendung bzw. einem Wegfall der GLÖZ-Standards als Teil der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP)

As part of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), farmers who receive payments are obliged to comply with the standards for good agricultural and environmental condition of land (GAEC), among others. If farmers do not apply for payments, they no longer have to comply with GAEC standards, but only with the relevant regulatory law. Against the background of the abolition or reduction of direct payments, the question arises as to what extent the provisions of national regulatory law currently ensure a similar level of protection for the environment as the GAEC standards. The question arises as to what extent the provisions of national regulatory law currently ensure a similar level of protection for the environment as the GAEC standards. This study this question with regard to abiotic resource protection. The study is based on a very detailed comparison of the environmental protection arising from the GAEC standards and the applicable regulatory law (Lübke et al. 2025). This comparison includes the relevant legal foundations, case law and legal commentary. GAEC standards 1 (Maintenance of permanent Grassland), 2 (Protection of wetland and peatland), 4 (Establishment of buffer strips along water courses) and 5 (Tillage management, reducing the risk of soil degradation and erosion) are analysed, for which regulatory law exists at federal and state level. As a result, the comparison of the GAEC standards and the regulatory law in Germany shows a very differentiated picture of the various regulations. If society wishes to maintain the level of environmental protection ensured by these GAEC standards if direct payments are to be reduced, the regulatory law must be adapted. To this end, it generally makes sense to harmonize the definitions of terms in funding and regulatory law and to improve the congruence between regulatory and funding law. Irrespective of this, it must be ensured that when direct payments are ‘phased out’, adequate enforcement of regulatory law is guaranteed independently of funding law.