Conference Proceedings
1 von 76
These conference proceedings reflect the opinions of the contractor and these may not concur with the opinions of the contracting authority.
The conference proceedings were compiled by: Kerstin Bohnsack, Matthias Meissner und Lutz Ribbe, all of European Nature Heritage Fund (Euronatur), ([email protected] - www.euronatur.org )
Cooperation: Rosie Simpson (Countryside Agency – UK, [email protected] ) and Burkhard Rüther (Bonn University)
Technical assistance for the conference was provided by: Karin Robinet ( [email protected] ) of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) Dr. Kilian Delbrück ( [email protected] ) and Ulrike Nyenhuis ( [email protected]) , both of the Federal Ministry for the Environment , Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU).
2 von 76
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 7
2. EU agricultural policy – a historic summary...... 8
2.1 The “old” EU agricultural policy ...... 8
2.2 The “new” EU Agricultural Policy: Rural Development and Nature Conservation in the EU ...... 12
3. Background to the Conference ...... 15
4. The Conference – Presentations and Discussion Results...... 15
4.1 Module I: “Opening of the conference, introduction and general ‘stock-taking’”16
4.1.1 Jochen Flasbarth, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany: “Eastward enlargement of the EU and Nature Conservation”...... 16
4.1.2 Uwe Brendle, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany: “Nature Conservation and Rural Development” ...... 17
4.1.3 Martin Scheele, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agri) Brussels: “Rural Development Policy Under Changing Conditions”...... 18
4.1.4 Kilian Delbrück, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany: “From Potsdam to Bonn – CAP Reform 2003 and its National Implementation” ...... 19
4.1.5 Lutz Ribbe, European Nature Heritage Fund (EURONATUR), Germany: “Rural Development Policy in the EU15 - An overview of measures taken to date under EU Regulation 1257/99 on Rural Development”...... 20
4.1.6 Dorota Metera, IUCN CE: “Rural Development Policy in the EU10 and the Accession Candidates: “An Overview of Measures taken to Date under the EU Regulation 1257/99 on Rural Development” ...... 22
4.1.7 Discussion results: Dorota Metera’s presentation...... 23
4.1.8 Martin Konecny, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOE), Belgium: “EU Enlargement and Agriculture – Risks and Opportunities”...... 24
4.1.9 Discussion results: Module I...... 25
3 von 76
4.2 Module II: “Examples of Second Pillar (VO 1257/99) programmes and their impacts on nature conservation – Reports from the new Member States”...... 27
4.2.1 Jolita Ruzgiene, Lithuanian Ministry of the Environment: “Agri-Environmental Measures” .. 27
4.2.2 Discussion results: Jolita Ruzgiene’s presentation ...... 27
4.2.3 Eva Havlinova, Ministry of the Environment, Czech Republic: “Integration of RDP with Natura 2000”...... 28
4.2.4 Discussion results: Agri-environmental programmes...... 28
4.2.5 Bozenna Wócik, Institute for Sustainable Development, Poland: “Forestry Support and Early Retirement in Poland after One Year of Implementation” ...... 29
4.2.6 Gábor Figeczky, WWF, Hungary: “RD measures working for nature?” ...... 30
4.2.7 Discussion results: Afforestation, early retirement, training ...... 31
4.2.8 Bozenna Wócik, Institute for Sustainable Development, Poland: “Less-Favoured Areas in Poland after One Year of Implementation” ...... 31
4.2.9 Gábor Figeczky, WWF, Hungary: “Less Favoured Area Scheme in Hungary. How it works and how it could work for nature conservation”...... 32
4.2.10 Discussion results: Compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas...... 32
4.2.11 Diane Spiteri, Rural Development Division, Malta: “Investments in Agricultural Holdings & Improvements in Processing and Marketing Measures” ...... 33
4.2.12 Jaak Herodes, Estonian Farmers Federation, Estonia: “Promoting the Adaptation and Development of Rural Areas”...... 34
4.2.13 Urszula Budzich-Szukala, The Cooperation Fund and the Polish Rural Forum (FAOW), Poland: “LEADER-Type Projects in Poland” ...... 34
4.2.14 Discussion results: Urszula Budzich-Szukala’s presentation: ...... 36
4.2.15 Goran Sóster, PREPARE, Slovenia: “Integral Rural Development as the Ground of Environmental Sustainability”...... 36
4.2.16 Dorota Metera, IUCN CE: “Natura 2000 in the EU 10” ...... 37
4.2.17 Dimitar Popov, Green Balkans, Bulgaria: “Natura 2000 in Bulgaria” ...... 37
4.2.18 Discussion results: Module II ...... 37
4 von 76
4.3 Module III: “The new EAFRD Regulation / Rural Development 2007 – 2013”....40
4.3.1 Lutz Ribbe, EURONATUR, Germany: “The EU Financial Perspective 2007 - 2013 – Nature Conservation and Rural Development” ...... 40
4.3.2 Matthias Meissner, EURONATUR, Germany: “Presentation of Main Points of New EAFRD Regulation (Summer 2005)”...... 41
4.3.3 Jan-Erik Petersen, European Environment Agency (EEA): “EU Rural Development Policy– Making it Work for Nature Conservation”...... 42
4.3.4 Discussion results: Module III...... 42
4.4 Module IV: “Prospects arising from the new EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development – Plans in the EU25” ...... 44
4.4.1 Christof Weins, MLUV, Germany: “Actual Status and Perspectives of Agri-Environmental Measures in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia”...... 44
4.4.2 Nina Dobrzy ńska, Ministry of Agriculture, Poland: “Perspectives of Rural Development Programmes in Poland” ...... 44
4.4.3 Discussion results: Presentation by Nina Dobrzy ńska: ...... 45
4.4.4 Wolfgang Suske, Consultant for Rural Development and Nature Conservation, Austria: “Rural Development and Nature Conservation in Austria - Background, Effects, Examples and Plans for the Future” ...... 45
4.4.5 Discussion results: Presentation by Wolfgang Suske:...... 46
4.4.6 Discussion results: Module IV...... 46
4.5 Module V: “Results - Lessons Learned” ...... 47
4.5.1 Rosie Simpson, Countryside Agency – Great Britain: “Opportunities for Integrating the Environment into Rural Development Programmes 2007 - 2013”...... 47
4.5.2 Simone Lughofer, Rural Development Consultant, Austria: “Achieving Sustainable Rural Development through Partnership - Experiences & Lessons Learned”...... 48
4.5.3 Karin Robinet, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany: “Participation and Cooperation as Requisites for Successful Sustainable Development” ...... 48
4.5.4 Discussion results: Module V...... 49
4.6 Conference summary Dr. Kilian Delbrück, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany...... 51
4.7 Assessment of the conference results from the organizer’s point of view ...... 53
5 von 76
4.8 Concluding theses on successful rural development...... 57
5. Annex ...... 58
5.1 Field trip summary ...... 58
5.2 Participants...... 71
5.3 Compilation of data by Euronatur (Presentation on budget)...... 76
6 von 76
1. Introduction
On May 1, 2005 the European Union was enlarged to include ten new Member States. In the run-up to this enlargement there was much talk about the fact that the economic area of the EU was to see an increase of 75 million people (20%) and that its area was to grow by 738,000 sq. km (23%). Less attention was given to the fact that the EU has gained a great amount of valuable natural and landscape components.
European agricultural policy will have a major impact on nature and the environment in the new EU Member States, as it has had in the old EU Member States. From the 4 th to the 7 th of September 2005 more than 50 experts from 15 European countries, including representatives of the Ministries of the Environment and Agriculture of all the new EU Member States and of environmental organizations, met in Bonn, Germany, to discuss the opportunities and outlook of agricultural policy for nature conservation and environmental protection.
The central topic dealt with at the conference was the question as to how the new agricultural policy of the European Union has already influenced farming in the new Member States and how it will do so in the future. More specifically, the delegates discussed the current design of the Rural Development Programmes in the new Member States ( VO 1257/1999 ). A question that was pursued in particular was whether the Rural Development Programmes have actually contributed already, or will be able to contribute in the future, to dealing with the environmental, social, and economic challenges faced by the rural areas in new EU Member States.
The opportunities offered by the new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (VO 1698/2005 ) were critically analyzed against the background of uncertain financing for the EU Budget in the 2007-2013 funding period.
This conference, as initiated and financed by the Federal Ministry for the Environment and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) continued the dialogue with the additional Member States on the issue of agricultural policy and nature conservation that was begun with the Bonn (2001) and Potsdam (2003) conferences. The conference was organized by the European Nature Heritage Fund (Euronatur).
7 von 76
2. EU agricultural policy – a historic summary
In the run-up to the EU enlargement the new Member States were told again and again that the “new” reformed Common Agricultural Policy will contribute to overcoming economic, social, and environmental problems. To understand what this “new” agricultural policy does actually constitute and how it differs from the “old” policy one has to look back at the EU agricultural policy of the past decades.
2.1 The “old” EU agricultural policy
The Treaty of Rome (1957)
The 1957 Treaty of Rom provided the foundations for the current EU agricultural policy and described five objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy which have remained in the treaties to this day. The aims are “to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilization of the factors of production, in particular labour”, “to stabilize markets”, “to assure the availability of supplies”, and “to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.” Even back then the important issues of environmental protection, quality production and rural areas were not listed in the Treaty and to this day they have not been established as part of the contractually fixed objectives of the agricultural policy. One must stress, however, that the CAP was developed at a time when there was an insufficient supply of agricultural products in the EU and when a significant number of workers were required in the then massively expanding industrial sector.
Therefore the European Economic Community (EEC) began to support the rationalization and intensification of the agricultural sector. A largely isolated EU agricultural market was established, and market and price guarantees for agricultural products were introduced. Aid programmes for individual holdings allowed farmers who were willing to invest in their holdings to purchase new and larger machinery or to built new and bigger animal housing. Fragmented agricultural lands were joined up as part of state financed land consolidation programs. Thus holdings could be managed more effectively, e.g. by using larger machinery. In the course of the amalgamation of lands many specimen trees, hedges, small watercourses, dry-stone walls and other small-scale agricultural habitats of high ecological value were eliminated. Amelioration laid the groundwork for increased productivity. Wet grassland was drained to enable 'improved', i.e. more intensive, grassland management or to turn it into valuable tillage land. The use of fertilizers and pesticides in tillage farming increased massively. Farmers specialized – i.a. supported through investment grants from the European Union and the Member States – in order to work more effectively and achieve higher yields. The result was the
8 von 76
widespread specialization of agricultural holdings. Many holdings concentrated on nothing but crop production while others specialized on intensive livestock breeding or fattening.
Analogous to tillage production, where the use of new technology and new, ever more productive cultivars, fertilizers and pesticides continuously allowed for higher yield to being achieved, livestock production also became ever more productive in economic and management terms. Pigs, poultry, and cattle were crammed into ever smaller spaces and fattening periods were continuously reduced with the aid of concentrate feeds. This was accompanied by an increase in the use of veterinary medicines. Often enough illegal methods were used in addition to the numerous legal measures taken to increase productivity. Illegal growth promoters, adulterated feeds or violations of animal welfare regulations were used by quite a few fatteners in order to gain additional economic advantages.
Apart from the various investment aids, guarantee prices were the key to this spiralling intensification. In order to increase their income, farmers had to produce increasing amounts of cereals, fruit, milk, or beef as cheaply as possible. This process has been described as “grow or cease to exist”. If a farmer’s production costs were too high his profits were reduced or he may even have had to leave farming altogether on account of significant losses. The CAP has been and continues to be a policy which aids those holdings that hold the “cost leadership”.
The CAP was extremely successful: Production increased, indeed it increased well beyond demand. More workers were released from the farming sector then the industrial sector demanded or the services sector could absorb. And thus we come to the point: The agricultural policy also had effects which had not been considered and which required a reaction:
- Well visible structural change at full speed: Farm sizes kept increasing and smaller holdings were bought up by larger ones. Jobs in the farming sector were lost. Since the introduction of the CAP one job in farming has been lost every 2 minutes in the European Union! In turn the rural areas have increasingly lost their function as areas to live and work in.
- The various measures to increase productivity have led to a loss of biodiversity which is continuing to this day. Chemical fertilizers as well as surplus organic fertilizers have polluted surface waters and the groundwater with nitrates. Lakes and rivers have become euthrophied and contaminated with pesticides and drinking water wells have deteriorated.
- Apart from its ecological and social impacts, the policy of intensification has also brought about economic problems. Soon Europe had achieved a production level above the self- sufficiency level. Surplus produce began to pile up and the butter, fruit, beef and grain stores were bursting. Even programmes initiated to cheaply market these products did not help to empty these stores.
9 von 76
Common Agricultural Policy reactions to the problems occurring
As a reaction to the increasing and spiralling storage costs, a number of EU actions were decided, such as the destruction of food products, which entailed a negative reaction from the public. Another measure was the export of surplus production. This could only be done with the aid of “export subsidies” as the world market prices for the relevant EU surplus products were lower than the price level in the EU itself. With export subsidies, which were paid to the exporters, the products could be offered in the international marketplace below world market price levels. This entailed negative changes in the agricultural structures of developing countries and additional costs for the EU.
McSharry Reform (1992)
The images of surplus destruction being destroyed, the spiralling agricultural budget, the environmental impacts which were obvious even to the layperson, and also the pressures exerted by the then GATT (forerunner of the current WTO) triggered intense discussions and led to the 1992 ‘McSharry Reform’ 1.
In the context of this agricultural policy reform the EU limited the market and price guarantees which were granted for certain products, such as cereals, butter, milk powder, and beef. Guarantee prices were drastically cut. To make up for the lowered guarantee prices the EU introduced the so called deficiency and compensation payments which later began simply to be called “direct payments”. These deficiency and compensation payments have since been paid to farmers who grow crops on their lands which used to be eligible for price supports, or who keep livestock ( e.g. bullocks, suckler cows, sheep) for which livestock premia had been introduced. At the same time compulsory set-aside was introduced in order to reduce production and to re-align it with the market capacity.
In essence, these newly introduced policy instruments continued to support a policy of cost leadership, as exactly those holdings benefited from the reform measures which had previously benefited from the market and price guarantees. Much earlier than expected, i.e. in the late 1990s, it became obvious that the problems which had ultimately brought about the McSharry reform could not be tackled with the reforms agreed in 1992. Many countries demanded further steps towards trade liberalization on the world agricultural markets which put the EU under further pressure to stop dumping their surplus products on the world market. As agricultural structural change continued, the social and environmental problems were similarly not being tackled by the root by the 1992 reform.
1 So named after the then EU Agriculture Commissioner Ray McSharry
10 von 76
Agenda 2000 (1999)
At the 1999 EU summit in Berlin, the Heads of Government agreed a new reform termed “ Agenda 2000 ”. However, this reform essentially continued the McSharry reform. Again the guarantee prices were lowered and in turn the deficiency and compensatory payments (“direct payments”) were increased, not fully making up for the price cuts however. At the same time the EU and the Heads of Government put out the mantra that farmers must take their orientation from the world market and international competition. The further rationalization of holdings would have to take place, which had to lead to further intensification of production and fiercer structural change.
2003 CAP Reform
In the context of the Mid Term Review of Agenda 2000 (and again much earlier than planned) yet another, and now far-reaching, reform of the European agricultural policy was already agreed in 2003. The Member States agreed to largely break the link between payments to farmers and actual production. With Regulation 1782/2003 direct payments were ‘decoupled’. This means that farmers no longer had to show that they were, for example, growing maize or cereals or producing beef cattle or suckler cows in order to enjoy the benefits of state transfer payments. Instead the payments due to every farmer are now based on either historic payments received by the holding in the 2001-2003 period (“single farm payment”) or the payments are made on the basis of a regionally defined premia per hectare (“single area payment”). Some countries, such as Germany for example, have decided to take the second route. However, this single premium is only to be introduced following a long transition period (ultimately in 2013). Until then it comes down to this: Those who used to receive large payments before will continue to do so.
With this decoupling of direct payments from production the farmers in the EU Member States are supposed to orientate themselves further towards the international market. In the future the direct payments will no longer effectively determine what the farmer produces in order to maximize their state subsidies. In the foreseeable future there will thus be little change to the distribution of direct payments which has been highly disparate to date.
No matter in what form the premia will be paid out in the future, farmers must fulfil certain environmental standards as a result of the introduction of cross-compliance. With the cross- compliance regulation the EU links the EU compensatory payments to environmental commitments which farmers must fulfil if they are in receipt of direct payments. The cross-compliance rules show at least that the politicians in charge have understood that people don’t want farmers to receive state funding simply because they have done so for 50 years. Society expects something in return for the thousands of millions flowing into the farming sector. Farmers should also “produce” assets such as
11 von 76
nature. However, many experts doubt that the cross-compliance conditions as introduced will really contribute to reducing the negative environmental impacts of farming. This is because the conditions essentially mirror already existing statutory requirements and are not so much additional conditions to be met by the farmers.
2.2 The “new” EU Agricultural Policy: Rural Development and Nature Conservation in the EU
Apart from the historic changes in the “old” agricultural policy as described above, the so-called ‘First Pillar’, there is another parallel development. It had not escaped attention that intensified agricultural production became more and more limited to prime agricultural land and that it caused numerous ecological problems. In tandem with the concentration of production to favourable lands, holdings in “less-favoured” areas, e.g. in mountain areas, found it more and more difficult to generate sufficient incomes with their often more labour-intensive and input-extensive production techniques. Low yields with higher production costs meant that those farmers could not keep up in the race for cost- leadership.
Mountain and hill farming programmes (1975)
To prevent the complete disappearance of farming activities from such “less-favoured” areas the EC initially established an aid programme for mountain and hill farming. The establishment of this programme in 1975 can be regarded as the starting point of a process in which the EU again and again made proposals and established new programmes in order to cushion or mitigate the negative environmental, social, and regional economic impacts of the agricultural policy which had cost- leadership at the core of its design.
Support programmes for rural areas (1988)
Thus in 1988 the Structural Funds were reformed. For the purpose of the Structural Funds “Objectives” were defined pertaining to certain types of regions where structural support is required on account of particular development problems or structural difficulties. In addition to the Community Initiatives LEADER 2 and INTERREG 3, which include i.a. support programmes for rural areas, the
2 LEADER stands for “Liaison entre actions de développement de l´économie rurale” ( Links between the rural economy and development actions ) 3 The INTERREG initiative is designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion throughout the EU, by fostering the balanced development of the continent through cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. Special emphasis has been placed on integrating remote regions and those which share external borders with the candidate countries.
12 von 76
Objective 5a and 5b areas were established. Objective 5b regions were explicitly established for the purposes of the “development of rural areas”.
Accompanying measures of the McSharry Reform (1992)
With the 1992 McSharry Reform the existing instruments were supplemented with accompanying measures (early retirement scheme, agri-environmental measures, afforestation measures and schemes to support less-favoured areas). Afforestation, early retirement, and agri-environmental schemes had been devised in order to re-align agricultural production with the market capacity. They did however turn out to be, at least in part, important components for the support of an agricultural sector that is not geared towards maximum yields and cost-leadership but towards quality production, the diversification of holding incomes, and a ‘greening’ of agricultural production. This “new” agricultural policy, i.e. rural development (later to be termed the “Second Pillar of the CAP”) was designed to mitigate the negative environmental, social, and structural policy impacts of agricultural aid.
Stock-taking by the EU Commission after 1992 showed that despite the introduction of the accompanying measures the EU farming sector continued to be characterized by an extremely divergent distribution of supports between regions and between holdings. The process of concentration onto favoured areas continued, farmers continued to give up farming and environmental problems remained unsolved, as is particularly evident from the unabated loss of species.
The Second Pillar of the CAP is established – Regulation 1257/99
With the accession of Austria in 1999 Franz Fischler was made Agriculture Commissioner. As an EU Commissioner coming from Austria, a country with a high share of less-favoured areas, Fischler kept addressing the problems of rural areas. In 1999 he succeeded in integrating rural development with Reg. 1257/99 into the overall package of Agenda 2000. This package of programmes, known as the Second Pillar, was granted somewhat higher financial appropriations than the previous individual programmes. However, total expenditure on the Second Pillar only accounts for a tenth of the total agricultural budget.
Ahead of the negotiations on Agenda 2000 Commissioner Fischler had proposed a much more far- reaching reform. In particular, his objectives had been to transfer more funds from the First Pillar to the Second Pillar (termed “modulation” in agri-political lingo), to establish ceilings for direct payments to individual holdings, and to provide for more environmental improvements and better policies regarding food quality. However, he had to keep bowing to the interests of other Member States which ran counter to his own. Due to the Member States’ rigid stance Fischler did not succeed
13 von 76
in limiting compensatory payments, in coupling these payments with minimum standards, or in the earlier abolition of the silage maize premium which would have been desirable on account of the ecological damage it was causing.
Member States block the strengthening of rural development (Second Pillar)
In the context of the Mid Term Review of Agenda 2000 Commissioner Fischler again tabled a comprehensive catalogue for the purposes of revising the EU agricultural policy. He proposed, for example, to transfer 20% of funds from the First Pillar (direct payments) into the Second Pillar in order to further strengthen rural development. With the “environmental option” of the Luxemburg Reform ( Article 69 of Reg. 1782/2003 ) Commissioner Fischler gave the Member States the additional option of granting 10% of direct payments to “… specific types of farming which are important for the protection or enhancement of the environment or for improving the quality and marketing of agricultural products... ” This means that additional payments should be granted, for example, for grassland and grazing programmes as well as for ethologically sound livestock keeping or quality assurance programmes. This was to ensure that farmers were to be supported who produce “class, not mass”, who diversify their holdings and at the same time respect nature. However, most of the Member States held their stance against this so that in only a few countries these proposals for the strengthening of rural development were implemented.
EAFRD Regulation – Support for Rural Development 2007 to 2013
It is clearly a positive step that from 2007 a special fund for rural development (“Second Pillar”) will be established, the “Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)” ( VO 1698/2005 ). The EAFRD Regulation basically replaces Regulation 1257/1999 and aims at increasing competitiveness, improving the environment, improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification (for more detailed information on the axes of the EAFRD Regulations please refer to sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.2 of this document). However, the fact that the financial appropriations for this policy as considered necessary by the EU throw up more questions than they promise solutions is a problem.
14 von 76
3. Background to the Conference
With the EU enlargement in May 2004 the question arose as to whether farming in the ten new Member States would be guided by the same dogma of competition (cost-leadership) as had been the case in the old Member States or whether from the start the aim would be a sustainable, multifunctional farming sector aided by increased use of funds for rural development. Agriculture Commissioner Fischler clearly set out his position: Spend less money on the “old” policy and clearly prioritize rural development instead.
The aim of the conference was to take stock of agricultural policies in the new Member States. Against the background of the new EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development, it was analyzed which of the programmes financed under the Rural Development title farmers in Europe, and in the new Member States in particular, have already made use of. Several ideas were discussed at the conference as to how the diversification potential in the farming sector can be utilized for the development of rural areas and especially for ecologically compatible land use.
Furthermore the conference contributed to stimulating the exchange of experiences on positive and negative impacts of EU agricultural subsidies in the new Member States to date, and to support the discussion on an ecologically and environmentally benign and socially just orientation of the agricultural policy.
4. The Conference – Presentations and Discussion Results
The conference, which was preceded by a field trip in the Eifel region, was structured into five thematic modules. For each module, a number of presentations looked at numerous aspects of Community policy on rural development, and these were followed by extensive discussions.
Each module with the presentations given and the most important discussion results will be summarized below. The actual presentations are available on the enclosed CD or they can be downloaded at www.euronatur.org . Every title of each of the presentation summaries is hyperlinked to the relevant PowerPoint presentations, presentation texts, or discussion triggers. English was the conference language which is why all presentations and speeches are only available in the English language.
15 von 76
The conference modules:
Module I: “Opening of the conference, introduction and general ‘stock-taking’” Module II: “Examples of Second Pillar (VO 1257/99) programmes and their impacts on nature conservation – Reports from the new Member States” Module III: “The new EAFRD Regulation / Rural Development 2007 – 2013” Module IV: “Prospects arising from the new EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development – Plans in the EU25” Module V: “Results - Lessons Learned”
4.1 Module I: “Opening of the conference, introduction and general ‘stock-taking’”
4.1.1 Jochen Flasbarth, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany: “Eastward enlargement of the EU and Nature Conservation”
The conference was opened by Jochen Flasbarth, Head of the BMU Nature Conservation Division. Flasbarth made it clear that the EU eastward enlargement offers the opportunity to sustainably protect the European environment. The reduction of payments dependent on production (decoupling) in conjunction with the requirement to fulfil environmental standards (cross-compliance) are essential steps towards a type of agricultural subsidization that entails lower impacts on nature and the environment.
Especially the Community policy in rural development is one of the most important steering instruments for the establishment of sustainable and ecologically adapted agricultural production techniques and for the implementation of conservation and environmental measures in rural areas. For example, the EAFRD Regulation, as the most important co-financing tool, plays a decisive role in the realization of the NATURA 2000 network.
J. Flasbarth showed that rural areas often face significant economic problems. Therefore, measures which can increase added value are of particular interest. Against this background, rural development and nature conservation policies must act in combination in order to build capacity in the local populations and to sustainably combine agricultural land use with resource protection. The discussions should explore what rural development measures have already been implemented in the new EU
16 von 76
Member States, assess the status quo, and explore in how far the new Community policy for rural areas can be utilized to finance nature conservation activities.
4.1.2 Uwe Brendle, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany: “Nature Conservation and Rural Development ”
Uwe Brendle, Deputy Head of the BfN Conservation and Development Division stressed that an EU Common Agricultural Policy, which gives preferential support to agricultural practices that are compatible with nature and the environment and which couples farm payments with services towards the protection of nature and the human environment, could offer an opportunity for man and nature. Rural areas are of great importance, as the majority of valuable natural and landscape components can be found in the rural areas. In order to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 the protection of rural areas is of particularly vital interest.
U. Brendle emphasized that strong social and structural changes can be observed in the entire EU. Some of these changes will have negative impacts on nature and biodiversity. Nature conservation is strongly dependent on policies such as the CAP, EAFRD, the Structural Funds etc., as these policies have a major impact on rural areas.
For the future the following steps are of major importance:
- “‘Greening’ of all policy areas” : e.g. agricultural policy, housing development, economic development, transport. Payments in these areas must be more strongly coupled with ecological services.
- “Reduction of sectoral orientation” : The linking of economic and environmental initiatives would be of great importance in supporting nature conservation and creating jobs (example: Sustainable tourism development in nature reserves). In this context Integrated Rural Development with its participative approach plays an important role.
- “Sufficient financial incentives” : The financial appropriations for the Second Pillar compared to the First Pillar are much too low from the environmental, economic and social viewpoint. It is imperative that greater funds be made available for rural development as otherwise significant negative impacts for nature conservation must be expected.
17 von 76
4.1.3 Martin Scheele, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agri) Brussels: “Rural Development Policy Under Changing Conditions ”
Martin Scheele, Head of the DG Agri Unit “Evaluation of measures applicable to agriculture, studies” emphasized that the Rural Development policy faces enormous challenges. Therefore the EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development must:
- do justice to the great diversity of rural areas,
- involve local people,
- ensure that programming takes place with reference to clearly defined targets,
- ensure accountability through appropriate monitoring and evaluation of the use of Community funds.
Scheele pointed out that funding for future Rural Development, i.e. in 2007-2013, will be based on three main objectives as set out in the EAFRD Regulation (improving competitiveness, environment and land management, quality of life in rural areas) and will focus on four axes:“Axis 1 – Competitiveness:” In this context rural development does not only apply to environmental protection and nature conservation but also on the capacity for economic development (general investments, capacity building, improvement of quality of agricultural products, compliance with mandatory EU standards).
- “Axis 2 – Land management:” Land management incentives must be established for farmers in order to support activities which they otherwise would not be obliged to undertake (Examples: agri-environmental programmes and funding for the ecological network NATURA 2000).
- “Axis 3 – Diversification”: In order to improve the quality of life and achieve regionally adapted economic development in rural areas, diversification into non-agricultural activities must be promoted.
- Axis 4 – LEADER approach: In the future LEADER is no longer to be an independent funding instrument but rather serve as a strategy for the immediate implementation of the EAFRD Regulation. The implementation of local development strategies on the basis of the LEADER approach for the realization of the targets defined in the thematic axes (bottom-up approach) is a desired objective of rural development policy.
The EU Commission has further introduced a three-step programming mechanism ( EU Commission strategic guidelines, national strategy plan, regional rural development programmes of the Member States), which i.a. aims at simplifying administration. The implementation of the EAFRD Regulation
18 von 76
by the Member States must moreover be compatible with the Community measures, strategies, and priorities. Coherence with the measures of the First Pillar must also be assured.
M. Scheele emphasized that the European Commission has recognized the need for the establishment of a rural development network through which scientists, NGOs and local initiatives and associations are to be involved in the discussion on and implementation of the phases of programme implementation. Such a European network is to be established via the LEADER network of the Member States. In this context, capacity building will be of vital importance for the success of the Regulation.
4.1.4 Kilian Delbrück, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany: “ From Potsdam to Bonn – CAP Reform 2003 and its National Implementation ”
Kilian Delbrück explained that the decisions on the Common Agricultural Policy reform of June 2003 (VO 1782/2003 ) mark drastic changes in the European agricultural policy. Core elements are the decoupling of direct payments from production, the linking of direct payment to the respect of environmental, animal welfare, food and feed safety standards (cross-compliance), and the provision of funds for rural development measures through the modulation of direct payments.
The German Ministry for the Environment regards the current reform as basically positive. However, opportunities were missed, e.g. cross-compliance is not far-reaching enough; it is difficult for non- farmers to access agri-environmental programmes; less-favoured areas play a minor role; provision of continuous aids). Moreover, the possibilities of the “national envelope” ( Reg. 1782/2003, Article 69 – Environmental Option) was not utilized to provide additional support for environmental protection and the improvement of the quality and marketing of agricultural products.
K. Delbrück further stressed that environmental protection and nature conservation must not solely be concerned with safeguarding natural resources and biodiversity. The opportunities rural development offers for economic progress and intact social structures must be utilized. Today, rural areas are increasingly concerned with multifunctional agriculture and integrated rural development. Farming should be ecologically benign and should maintain landscapes. Moreover, regional added value chains should create networks between agricultural holdings, tourism and craft enterprises in the countryside.
19 von 76
4.1.5 Lutz Ribbe, European Nature Heritage Fund (EURONATUR), Germany: “Rural Development Policy in the EU15 - An overview of measures taken to date under EU Regulation 1257/99 on Rural Development ”
Lutz Ribbe presented a summary outline of the development of the entire EU budget from 1960 (60 million €) to 2005 (c. 106 billion €). Currently (2005), 52 billion € ( i.e. 50%) of the EU Commission’s total budget (104 billion €) are spend on agriculture and rural development and a further 21 billion € are spend on the regional funds. More than half (55%) of the total agriculture budget of the EU25 is spend on crop production and 28% are spend on livestock production. Both these areas fall under the First Pillar. A mere 17% of the agriculture budget is spend on rural development (9.1 billion €). By far the greatest part of the funds is still reserved for the First Pillar. These funds are basically not conditional on compliance with environmental or social standards.
Using EU15 figures from 2003 Lutz Ribbe showed how divergent the individual Member States’ approach is to making use of Second Pillar funding. On average in the EU 90% of the agriculture budget was made available for the First Pillar 4, only 10% for the Second Pillar. Austria received 41% of the total agricultural funding obtained from the EU for rural development measures. In Finland and Portugal the figures are quite similar, at 40% and 39% respectively. By stark contrast, Denmark only used 3.9% of the EU agricultural funding for rural development. Similarly, Great Britain only used 4% of the funds for rural development measures in 2003.
This very uneven distribution of funds shows that there are EU countries that have realized the value of Rural Development (Second Pillar) and thus the relevance for nature conservation and for innovative development in rural areas. However, the distribution of funds also shows that there are Member States that use the available EU funds to support the farming model solely focused on cost- leadership. There are thus very divergent priorities in the farming sector, despite a “common” agricultural policy.
L. Ribbe explained that the EU offers a variety of programmes under the Second Pillar, i.e. for rural development. The EU Member States utilize these in a most divergent manner.
4 Excluding EAGGF Guidance Section funds.
20 von 76
- For investments on agricultural holdings relatively minor funds were used; on average in the EU, 5% of all rural development expenditure was used for this measure. Only in Luxembourg (37%) and Belgium (18%) was the expenditure significantly higher.
- The support programme for young farmers was hardly used (EU15 average: 2%). In France and Greece the share of expenditure for this measure was 5%, in Italy 6% and in Belgium 7%.
- Only 0.5% (EU15 average) of funds for rural development were invested in training measures.
- On average in the EU15, 4.5% of expenditure was devoted to early retirement. Greece however made much greater use of this measures; 54% of all Second Pillar funds were spent on early retirement. In Finland and Ireland the share was 9% and 6% respectively. Some countries made no use at all of this measure.
- Compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas are of major importance across Europe. Twenty percent of all funds made available by the EU for Second Pillar measures come under this title. Ireland and Finland even use 39% and 40% respectively of the available Second Pillar funding for this measure.
- The greatest share of EU15 expenditure for rural development is devoted to agri-environmental measures (Sweden 84%, Austria 68%, Italy 51%, Germany 48% Great Britain 8%).
The differences outlined show that the Member States pursue very different strategies in utilizing Second Pillar measures. From the nature conservation point of view it can be said that Sweden and Austria use their funding most purposefully for rural development.
In conclusion L. Ribbe emphasized that it is important to pay attention to the fact that not all rural development programmes automatically entail conservation benefits. For example, early retirement programmes and aids for less-favoured areas are not linked to particular environmental standards (Observations on the Environmental Compatibility of the EU Agriculture Budget , Euronatur, 2003). Afforestation measures can also have negative environmental impacts.
21 von 76
4.1.6 Dorota Metera, IUCN CE: “ Rural Development Policy in the EU10 and the Accession Candidates: “An Overview of Measures taken to Date under the EU Regulation 1257/99 on Rural Development ”
Dorota Metera’s presentation is based, in part, on a questionnaire carried out ahead of the conference amongst the participants.
Ms Metera explained the positive and negative effects of the CAP in the new Member States:
- Positive: Higher incomes, reduction of migration from rural areas into the cities, preventing land abandonment, encouragement to take up agri-environmental programmes, heightened importance of certification of organically produced agricultural products and forestry certification, improved animal welfare standards.
- Negative: Intensification of agricultural production due to land amalgamation and increased use of aids for early retirement and young farmer installation. Higher incomes allow for fertilizer purchases (deterioration of water quality) and machinery (contributing to soil degradation).
Ms. Metera showed that the take-up of the various rural development programmes on offer has already been very divergent in the new Member States and there are now already trends in place which are in agreement with those in the EU15 countries (see 4.1.5). The average expenditure on agri- environmental measures in the EU10 stands at 18% of total rural development expenditure. However, in the Czech Republic 49% are spent on agri-environmental measures, 41% in Hungary and 30% in Estonia. Poland only uses 10% of these funds for agri-environmental measures.
Compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas comprise 30% of all rural development expenditure in the EU10. In Slovakia 47% of the available funding is spend on compensatory allowances for less- favoured areas, the Czech Republic uses 46%, and Hungary only 11%.
D. Metera is of the opinion that compensatory allowances paid in less-favoured areas are “easy money” for large agricultural holdings. These payments are not linked to compliance with particular ecological or social standards. They are basically available to holdings without any services provided in return. The larger a holding the higher the payment. Conversely, this is only “small money” for small farms and not sufficient to allow for a development process on such holdings.
22 von 76
Due to the lack of environmental and social conditions the rationalized holdings are favoured and no true ecological steering effect can be achieved.
For the future, Ms. Metera advised that
- clear targets should be set for sustainable rural development and the financial instruments for rural development planning should be aligned with these (What exactly does one want to achieve with a particular measure?)
- better planning and coordination of the rural development instruments should be ensured,
- more targeted information should be conveyed to farmers and sound advice on the extension into additional income-generating activities should be offered,
- subsidiarity should be promoted down to the lowest levels of administration by way of improved guidance.
4.1.7 Discussion results: Dorota Metera’s presentation
During the discussion, participants repeatedly stressed that the premia paid under the agri- environmental programmes are economically not very attractive for intensive holdings. The agri- environmental premia can not compensate for reduced yields and resultant income foregone.
The conference participants further emphasized that compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas are generally of the same order, independent of the potential yields of the site concerned. This means that holdings with a higher productivity on account of the prevailing natural conditions are financially favoured. This leads to a polarization and competition between intensive and extensive land use. Therefore, the programmes cannot equitably fulfil the incentive function they were supposed to have in all areas, i.e. to offer farmers an attractive alternative to their current production techniques. Nevertheless, compensatory allowances are indispensable for the future development and maintenance of farming activities in the truly less-favoured areas. A clearer and more sharply defined suite of eligible areas is however urgently required in order to support the truly low-yielding and ecologically valuable areas.
The participants noted that it may appear as if some of the new Member States were primarily concerned with notifying successful administrative implementation of EU policies to the Commission. However, the programmes that have been introduced often appear much too complicated and there is a lack of advisory services for farmers (probably due in part to a lack of specialist competence in the administration). The participants stressed moreover that the Second Pillar should be seen as an
23 von 76
independent policy instrument offering major opportunities for the economic development of the rural areas in question, rather than as an appendix to the CAP.
4.1.8 Martin Konecny, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOE), Belgium: “ EU Enlargement and Agriculture – Risks and Opportunities ”
Martin Konecny noted that the CAP reform and its implementation in the new Member States offers both risks and opportunities for the EU25. In FOE’s opinion one problem evident in the entire EU is that environmental protection predominantly uses classic means such as threshold values and post closure measures. However, what is required is a policy that takes its orientation from the biosphere’s carrying capacity.
The speaker stressed that there are significant environmental risks in the EU10 which will increase, especially given increasingly strong competition (incl. in the food industry). The discussion on locations and locational advantages is gaining in importance. The accession of 10 new countries to the EU will continue to increase competition in the future, which in turn will lead to more transports, specialization, concentration, intensification and the closure of farm holdings. For example, Germany exports 29% of its agricultural products into the new Member States. In 2004 the export of meat products increased by 279%, of cheese products by 234%. Livestock animal exports to Poland and the Czech Republic have soared due to market access. From 2004-2005 Poland’s food exports increased by 37%; from 2003-2004 milk powder exports increased by 42% and cheese exports by 61%. In Hungary the domestic share in the food market declined from 90% to 85% in reaction to the accession.
M. Konecny pointed out that there is already an overall decline in the numbers employed in the farming sectors of the new Member States. In the EU15 agriculture on average accounts for 4% of employment while in the EU10 it accounts for 21%. In order to achieve the same level of productivity as the EU15 countries, the agricultural holdings in the EU10 would have to reduce the number of people employed in farming by 4 million.
The hesitant CAP reform is responsible for supporting intensive farming in particular, with all its known environmental impacts. Moreover, there are significant differences between Member States in how the Rural Development Programmes (RDP) are utilized, even though they have the capacity to lessen negative environmental impacts ( e.g. positive change due to Rural Development Programmes in the Czech Republic).
24 von 76
4.1.9 Discussion results: Module I
Maintain valuable natural and landscape components Especially in the new Member States it is important to maintain the remaining valuable natural and landscape components, to protect them and to utilize them in the regions to generate new employment in the areas of regional production, processing, and marketing, in a way that is compatible with conservation requirements.
An agricultural policy that solely focuses on providing holdings with cost advantages by improving production conditions has the capacity to create similar problems in EU10 as it has created in the EU15. For the rural areas of the new Member States, the rural development policy is therefore an excellent tool for supporting, in particular, an innovative farming sector based on quality production which sees itself as an engine for integrated regional development.
Apart from the challenge of taking account of the diversity of rural regions in Europe and their specific needs, the interlinkages between nature conservation and rural development must be emphasized and funds must be shifted towards more agri-environmental programmes and towards the establishment and maintenance of the network NATURA 2000. Therefore support should primarily be given to a farming sector that takes its orientation from the principles of sustainability, that provides services to society in the areas of nature conservation, environmental protection, consumer protection, and animal welfare, and that maintains existing or creates new employment.
Link supports to environmental protection and employment
Most of the EU farming subsidies have had a negative impact on the environment; most of payments to farmers have been and continue to be unconnected to sufficient environmental conditions. It is difficult to fathom that more than 83% of the agriculture budget currently flows into the First Pillar, despite the fact that the importance of rural development (establishment of diverse and sustainable rural structures) for environmental reasons, with a view to improved regional added value, and for job creation is well understood.
The provision of funds for nature conservation and environmental protection in the agricultural landscape in keeping with requirements can clearly create more jobs and generate more income than the income and employment effects achieved with payments under the First Pillar. If Second Pillar funds were increased rather can cut, this would also be in keeping with the Lisbon Strategy. To date, a sufficient shift of funds from the First to the Second Pillar and a coupling to social criteria has not been achieved. If the Second Pillar was cut and the First Pillar remained untouched this would be at the expense of nature and it would be difficult to convey this to society at large. In the long term such
25 von 76
transfer payments can only gain acceptance from the people if employment was created and if nature, landscapes and the environment overall was given additional protection.
Using a German example it was also described how one of the financially strongest dairy enterprises (“Müller Milch”) has reduced its workforce despite receiving millions of Euros in investment aid. This milk processor was granted more than 70 million € in EU, Federal Government and Regional State funds for building a new dairy processing unit in Eastern Germany. Müller Milch promised to create more than 100 jobs. However, in turn the company closed two units in Western Germany, generating a net job loss.
Guarantee controls and improve coherence Given that EU Member States use aids in a divergent manner ( e.g. young farmer installation, early retirement), it is important to plan the precise deployment of the aids and to effectively assess their impacts. Too often aids are not used in a targeted manner and lack strategic orientation.
For this reason, EU programming, financial management and monitoring must overall be unified and simplified. The EU only provides a framework in this regard while the national governments autonomously set their own priorities (subsidiarity). An improved data basis for monitoring the distribution of aids is imperative. Moreover, the evaluation of results is urgently required to allow for assessments as to whether the programmes have had any positive outcomes at all or whether they require reorientation.
European rural development policy must thus establish a coherent and sustainable framework programme for rural areas in Europe. The new EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development shall ensure that this is the case.
26 von 76
4.2 Module II: “Examples of Second Pillar (VO 1257/99) programmes and their impacts on nature conservation – Reports from the new Member States”
4.2.1 Jolita Ruzgiene, Lithuanian Ministry of the Environment: “ Agri-Environmental Measures ”
Jolita Ruzgiene described in detail how Lithuania is concentrating on agri-environmental measures in rural development. Lithuania practically supports only measures to support organic farming.
With the rural development measures Lithuania pursues the following objectives:
- Environmental improvements (grassland, arable land, combating erosion)
- Implementation of the landscape management plan (protection of traditional landscapes)
- Implementation of the plan for strengthening organic agriculture
- Implementation of a breeding plan for endangered landraces.
In 2004 ‘Organic Farming Schemes’ (1018 applications) and a ‘Rare Breeds Scheme’ (266 applications) were supported. The planned grant payments for 2005 were set at 8.3 million €. In 2005 Lithuania also established plans for coastal protection and for alleviating soil erosion (Landscape Management Plans – 101 applications; Organic Farming Schemes – 689 applications; Rare Breeds Scheme – 56 applications). The planned grant payments were set at 9 million €. With these measures Lithuania aims at supporting primarily farmers in order to achieve that environmental efforts going beyond good farming practice are being made.
4.2.2 Discussion results: Jolita Ruzgiene’s presentation
Lithuania concentrates on clearly defined conservation objectives. To this end Lithuania focuses its Second Pillar measures on organic farming. In the discussion the question was explored as to whether the resultant Lithuanian organic produce would ultimately have sufficient market outlet. Furthermore it was critically discussed whether it is not too ambitious to consider that the measures presented can achieve Lithuania’s conservation objectives as outlined, given the relatively small area that is managed organically. It was pointed out that it might be easier to achieve the conservation objectives using other rural development programmes.
27 von 76
4.2.3 Eva Havlinova, Ministry of the Environment, Czech Republic: “ Integration of RDP with Natura 2000 ”
Eva Havlinova explained that in the Czech Republic 14% of the total area have been designated as Natura 2000 sites. These sites include 70% of the already existing protected areas. Proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI) comprise 9.3% and 8.9% are Special Protection Areas (SPA). In the Czech Republic 49% of Second Pillar funds are spend on agri-environmental measures which clearly shows that rural development objectives have a clear focus.
The following measures are available in the Czech Republic for the management of Natura 2000 sites: extensive land and pasture management; late mowing of meadows, maintenance of marshes/wet meadows, maintaining and increasing breeding sites for endangered bird species.
In Ms. Havlinova’s opinion it is important for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network under the EAFRD Regulation that DG Agri adapts the definition of non-productive investments in such a way that these can support nature conservation/Natura 2000 in the future. Moreover, the allocation of sufficient total appropriations for the EAFRD is essential for the Natura 2000 network.
4.2.4 Discussion results: Agri-environmental programmes
Both national budgets and the EU budget are under increasing pressure to cut spending. It is therefore of increasing importance what exactly the funds are spend on, what objectives the spending aims to achieve in the future and what has already been achieved.
Member States must thus act in a targeted manner in the strategic orientation of their rural development programmes. The EU allows for a host of rural development measures. Participants called on the Member States to define clear environmental and conservation objectives, to which the agri-environmental programmes are then aligned, to allow for targeted spending of the available funds. Where there is too high a number of individual measures there is a danger that targets are not achieved and that the measures can no longer be properly monitored and administrated. Conference participants also highlighted that at present many farmers shy away from the major bureaucratic efforts required for participation in certain measures.
The implementation of the Natura 2000 network requires not only sufficient funding for the EAFRD but also increased exchange between numerous actors, especially at the regional level, in order to reduce fears and worries regarding possible consequences of the designation of protected areas.
28 von 76
4.2.5 Bozenna Wócik, Institute for Sustainable Development, Poland: “ Forestry Support and Early Retirement in Poland after One Year of Implementation ”
Afforestation measures:
Bozenna Wócik described the following official objectives of afforestation measures in Poland:
- To increase the share of land under forests through afforestation;
- To protect ecological stability by reducing fragmentation of forests and by creating ecologically coherent habitat corridors.
- To protect forest/woodlands in order to sequest carbon dioxide (carbon sink).
For participation in afforestation programmes, i.a. the following criteria are considered:
- Forest areas must be taken into account in the local forestry strategy;
- Native species must be planted,
- Environmental Impact Assessments are required for areas greater than 20 ha in size
- Afforestation plan to be drawn up (tree species and protection activities) by the Forestry Commission.
Problems with the afforestation programmes: In some areas of Poland successional woodlands are cut down and subsequently afforested in order to obtain EU funding. This entails negative impacts for biodiversity and also for soil and groundwater protection. In certain afforestation areas pine monocultures or non-native species are planted instead of native species. This runs counter to, for example, the aim of maintaining unfragmented natural landscape units and habitat networks which are wildlife corridors and actively help in combating biodiversity loss.
B. Wócik explained that this type of afforestation does not make any ecological sense and is a waste of exchequer funds.
Early retirement scheme:
In Poland 18% of rural development aids are spend on the early retirement scheme. In the EU15 the share was only 4.5% on average in 2003. The objectives of the early retirement scheme in Poland are:
- Land restructuring and improved productivity of agricultural holdings,
- Securing incomes for farmers who retire early from their holding,
- Reducing average age of farmers (generational succession)
29 von 76
The maximum monthly payment for farmers in the scheme is 526 €. This represents roughly 210% of the lowest monthly pension in Poland. Due to the level of this financial aid, interest in the early retirement scheme in Poland is much higher than expected. Direct environmental impacts of the early retirement programmes are not to be expected. During the discussions B. Wócik mainly criticized that farmers officially stop farming and obtain the early retirement pension while in reality they pass on the holding to their children but keep working the farm. These official successors in turn are in receipt of young farmers installation aid.
Such a policy does not contribute to a forward-looking re-orientation of holdings or to sustainable rural development, as the successors will in all likelihood give up farming once their predecessors are gone. Instead, the early retirement scheme clearly offers a windfall effect.
4.2.6 Gábor Figeczky, WWF, Hungary: “ RD measures working for nature?”
Gábor Figeczky explained that 11% of expenditure for rural development in Hungary is used for afforestation measures. For a three year period a 79.7 million € budget has been allocated for the improvement of the quality and protection of forests.
WWF sees the following environmental problems in Hungary resulting from afforestation:
- extensive planting of non-native species; resultant loss of biodiversity;
- forests are managed for profit, not for the protection of biodiversity;
- no biodiversity indicators are used for planning or monitoring of impacts.
For this reason Hungarian NGOs have developed the following proposals for optimizing the afforestation measures; however, the government did not take these on board:
- differentiation between grants for planting native and non-native tree species,
- no aid to be given to compensate for damage caused by game species,
- no aid to be given to prevent groundwater seepage, suitable species or such sites to be planted instead,
- supplementary aid for plantings in protected areas and green corridors with the aim of increasing biodiversity.
30 von 76
4.2.7 Discussion results: Afforestation, early retirement, training
In the discussion the afforestation, early retirement, and training schemes were largely criticized as they neither add ecological value nor do they contribute to sustainable rural development. It was also criticized that a strategic orientation of afforestation measures and early retirement schemes is lacking in the relevant countries. It was further criticized that the danger of windfall effects in the schemes examined is extraordinarily high.
4.2.8 Bozenna Wócik, Institute for Sustainable Development, Poland: “ Less-Favoured Areas in Poland after One Year of Implementation ”
Bozenna Wócik outlined that the payments for less-favoured areas in Poland comprise 27% of rural development funds and thus the biggest budget title of the “Rural Development Plan”. These funds are basically not conditional upon compliance with environmental or social standards.
Compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas have the following official objectives:
- ensuring the continuation of agricultural land use and thereby contributing to the maintenance of a viable rural community; - maintaining the countryside; - promoting sustainable farming systems.
The preconditions for the allocation of compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas are:
- mountain areas where more than 50% farmland is situated above 500 m a.s.l., - lowland areas where soil quality is unfavourable or areas affected by other natural handicaps.
The mountain areas are eligible for compensatory allowances of 68 €/ha, the less-favoured lowland areas only receive 38 €/ha.
At present, Bozenna Wócik sees the following problems in relation to the support measures in less- favoured areas:
- Not all of the areas of high importance for nature conservation are part of the suite of eligible areas. - Negative ecological impacts resulting from the unrestricted use of pesticides, fertilizers, and machinery. - Small farms lack support at the application stage; large holdings are better prepared to apply for funding.
31 von 76
In 2005, 700.000 applications for compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas were made in Poland, covering approximately 7 million hectares of land. On average, each application thus related to an area of about 10 ha. For these 10 hectares of land a farmer would receive between 380 and 680 €, depending on where the holding is located. Realistically this can not be regarded as a significant improvement of the income situation of small farms.
For Bozenna Wócik the compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas are not a goal-oriented instrument for the implementation of rural development in Poland. Funds are not used in a targeted manner in the less-favoured areas with the aim of supporting sustainable farming with an orientation towards ecological criteria. Furthermore, Bozenna Wócik emphasized that the payments made in less- favoured areas clearly create windfall effects.
4.2.9 Gábor Figeczky, WWF, Hungary: “ Less Favoured Area Scheme in Hungary. How it works and how it could work for nature conservation”
Gábor Figeczky explained that compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas in Hungary comprise 10% of the budget of the Rural Development Programme but that these payments do not tackle local environmental or social issues.
According to the WWF the following difficulties arise regarding the use of this measure in Hungary:
- Area designation is driven by concerns of optimizing profits and does not pursue sustainable development objectives.
- Highly profitable wine-producing regions are considered less-favoured areas and are thus eligible for funding.
- Ecologically valuable or geographically particularly peripheral areas are not included.
- Areas characterized by extensive management are not considered and often excluded from the measure.
- Compensatory allowances are too low to really have a steering function towards a farming sector compatible with conservation and social objectives.
4.2.10 Discussion results: Compensatory allowances for less-favoured areas
It was emphasized that peripheral regions which are currently recognized as less-favoured areas must be supported in the future. However, in their current form the compensatory allowances do not support those holdings that have a particular need for such aid for ecological or social reasons. This is due to
32 von 76
the often erroneous designation of areas. Moreover, the payment level is often too low for small farms so that sufficient income effects or the restructuring of holdings are not being achieved.
Funds are simply distributed with a “shotgun approach“ and are thus not sufficiently targeted. The danger of windfall effect is particularly great, especially with large farms that continue to produce in an intensive way despite the compensatory allowances. For example, highly productive wine-growing areas are in receipt of this funding while ecologically valuable sites are not included in the suite of eligible areas.
The conference participants thus called for the designation of the suite of eligible areas to be much more strongly linked to ecological criteria and to couple the receipt of funding to environmental and social production standards. This could serve to avoid windfall effects and to support sustainably managed holdings.
4.2.11 Diane Spiteri, Rural Development Division, Malta: “Investments in Agricultural Holdings & Improvements in Processing and Marketing Measures ”
Diane Spiteri outlined that apart from difficult climatic conditions, Malta faces numerous socio- economic challenges: an ageing farming population, lack of training, decline in numbers of full-time farmers, land fragmentation, seclusion, and high transport costs.
First Pillar financial assistance only plays a minor role in Malta. Of the available EU funding, 85% are spend on rural development, and only 13% and 2% on livestock premia and tillage production respectively, i.e. on the First Pillar. Sixty percent of farmers benefit from rural development funding, 34% are in receipt of aids for tillage farming and 6% receive livestock premia.
Ms. Spiteri showed that the investment aids for farm holdings are designed to achieve higher productivity, higher efficiency, improved competitiveness, higher product quality (animal welfare and hygiene) and more environmental services. She stressed that farmers and downstream processors have a high level of interest in investment schemes as part of the Rural Development Programme.
The example of Malta showed that the utilization of rural development measures in the EU is highly variable on account of differently structured rural areas. The average holding size in Malta is less than one hectare. The payment of the often very small amounts of First Pillar funding to farmers thus requires an enormous bureaucratic effort. Due to the amount of personnel resources tied up in this process, innovative rural development approaches on the basis of investment aids for farm holdings often fall by the wayside.
33 von 76
It will be important for Malta’s future to utilize measures for the improvement of the processing and marketing of agricultural products. These products make a significant contribution to improved competitiveness and added-value and additionally foster innovation and environmental protection.
4.2.12 Jaak Herodes, Estonian Farmers Federation, Estonia: “ Promoting the Adaptation and Development of Rural Areas ”
Jaak Herodes outlined that in Estonia farming is still of outstanding importance in employment terms. Estonia’s national agricultural policy however focuses on the First Pillar and not on sustainable rural development (Second Pillar). Due to this policy, large-scale producers are favoured by the government. In 1997 there were 898 large-scale holdings in Estonia with an average size of 450 ha, managing a total area of 404.000 ha. On the other hand their were 22.722 small private farms with an average holding size of 22 ha (500.000 ha in total) for whom the implementation of sustainable rural development measures under the Second Pillar would be indispensable.
The 2003 CAP reform has achieved that rural development has been developed as the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy ( i.a. modernization of holdings, food quality assurance, creation of alternative employment opportunities in rural areas). However, Jaak Herodes mostly criticized that the Estonian Government continues to support the further development of formerly state-owned large- scale holdings instead of using Second Pillar funding to consistently help develop the thousands of small farms.
4.2.13 Urszula Budzich-Szukala, The Cooperation Fund and the Polish Rural Forum (FAOW), Poland: “ LEADER-Type Projects in Poland ”
According to Urszula Budzich-Szukala Poland’s rural areas are still characterized by a high share of employment in agriculture, high unemployment, and a lack of alternative employment (officially unemployment stands at 20%, only 1/3 of farmers produce for the market). Small-scale structures prevail in Polish farming and the sector is characterized by a low output-to-labour ratio. Non-farming activities and opportunities for income generation should be supported, according to Ms. Budzich- Szukala.
The Polish government is performing a delicate agri-political balancing act. On the one hand it bows to pressures from the large-scale holdings (former state-owned farms or cooperatives) which back the paradigm of “competitiveness through cost reduction and increased productivity”); it was these holdings in particular, which called for direct payments to be brought up to the EU15 level as quickly
34 von 76
as possible, which ultimately led to funds being transferred from the First Pillar into the Second Pillar (“reverse modulation”).
On the other hand the Polish Government recognizes that such a policy rather aggravates than solves the problems of the rural regions. For this reason the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development supported the establishment of rural partnerships. The independent “Cooperation Fund” and the “Polish Rural Forum” have financially contributed to the setting up of local action groups. They participate in the “Preventive Environmental Protection Approaches in Europe” (PREPARE) network. Their aim is to make it more well-known what type of rural development opportunities exist, to train groups, foster ideas and start a bottom-up approach.
In the context of its accession to the EU, Poland has also adopted the existing set of CAP instruments almost unaltered. In view of the complex economic problems of Poland’s rural areas, the question as to whether bottom-up instruments starting at the local level might better serve the needs of the rural population at large than the conventional policy measures is being discussed more and more openly. The political climate for rural development is improving but there are still many problems. In Poland, as in many other of the new EU Member States, individual initiative and group projects are not very prominent as yet. There is a lack of positive examples and models.
Ms. Budzich-Szukala emphasized that one of the fundamental problems is the fact that Brussels funds 100% of the First Pillar payments which is why farmers particularly like to draw them down. Moreover, to receive the aids no services are asked in return so that the money from Brussels is “easy money” for the holdings “ (see 4.1.6).
Rural development however is more difficult: At first, ideas must be developed in order to clarify what exactly the programmes aim to achieve. The programmes must then be written. They must be designed in such a way that the farmers affected can understand and ultimately implement them. The administration must be trained right down to the smallest administrative unit in order to ensure that farmers can write the actual applications and in order to monitor implementation. Ultimately, the administration must not (only) administrate but help farmers in the concrete implementation of the programme. Despite this additional effort, Brussels does not provide 100% funding to the Member States (such as described for the First Pillar) but they must provide a co-funding share of 25% from their own budgets.
Since the 1990s LEADER-like action groups working towards sustainable development have already been established in the context of various local partnerships (bottom-up approach). Since 2005 LEADER+ has also been applied in Poland. Local partnerships (regional associations of private and public persons and institutions) aim at encouraging the solving of regional problems by way of
35 von 76
utilizing regional potentials while recognizing regional entities. Much emphasis is placed on broad public participation while adhering to democratic rules.
Results to date:
- Training of numerous multipliers in order to generate an understanding of environmentally- friendly land use; - Preliminary study of and database on local partnerships; - Information and action campaigns.
4.2.14 Discussion results: Urszula Budzich-Szukala’s presentation:
In the discussion it was emphasized that the way of thinking of the local people must absolutely be considered when measures are being implemented. Local people must take on responsibility and the programmes must be designed in a comprehensible and thus simple fashion.
4.2.15 Goran Sóster, PREPARE, Slovenia: “ Integral Rural Development as the Ground of Environmental Sustainability ”
In Goran Sóster’s opinion, integrated rural development firmly depends on effective cooperation and networking between the government and NGO’s. Therefore, the Slovenian Rural Development Network, through its active participation in rural development policy, tries to bring together the numerous players in the area of rural development, to motivate them to work in cooperation, and to provide information on rural development. Goran Sóster expressed the opinion that Rural Development Programmes must be very precisely oriented towards the local and regional status quo. Unfortunately this is not yet happening in Slovenia. Goran Sóster stressed that
- initially, targeted information and awareness-raising must create acceptance of the new CAP; - individual measures must be instituted which take their orientation from local traditions as well as the needs of the rural people and option available to them; - monitoring and evaluation must contribute to the continuous improvement of the Rural Development Programme.
Goran Sóster sees the following areas in which CAP measures have had an influence on improving the environment in Slovenia:
- The number of organic farms has been growing constantly. - A shift from conventional farming to adapted farming with major positive impacts in environmental terms. However, organically managed holdings receive less funding than conventional farms (danger of negative environmental trend!)
36 von 76
4.2.16 Dorota Metera, IUCN CE: “ Natura 2000 in the EU 10 ”
The report entitled “Implementation of Natura 2000 in New EU Member States of Central Europe” shows that the designation of Natura 2000 sites and the implementation of measures in the context of the Natura 2000 network varies widely in the enlarged European Union. Dorota Metera criticized in particular that NGO participation is not satisfactory in all the Member States.
In Natura 2000 sites human activities are by no means generally prohibited. Quite the opposite is the case: many habitat types and species are dependent on regular land use or on management measures. Dorota Metera highlighted that the Member States are required to ensure that these activities are reconciled with the maintenance of the ecosystems and the species living therein.
Dorota Metera outlined that the existing EU funds are by no means sufficient to meet the future challenges associated with the creation of the Natura 2000 network. So far the new Member States have not undertaken considerations regarding the financial resources they are willing to provide for the management of Natura 2000 sites on their territories.
4.2.17 Dimitar Popov, Green Balkans, Bulgaria: “ Natura 2000 in Bulgaria ”
Dimitar Popov outlined that management plans and measures taking into account the ecological requirements of the Bulgarian habitat types and species have been drawn up in consultation with Bulgarian NGOs. The plans describe measures designed to maintain or recreate a favourable conservation status in protected areas, draw attention to conflict resolution in case of conflicting interests and consider the development of possible contracts with land users.
Emphasis was given to the fact that the EAFRD Regulation offers numerous opportunities for the implementation of conservation measures and ensures the establishment of the European Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The implementation of concrete measures under the EAFRD could help protect habitat types and endangered species by financing adapted land use methods and management measures. In this context it would be very useful if the Directorate-General for Agriculture could produce a guide to using the EAFRD Regulation for nature conservation with examples and specific measures.
4.2.18 Discussion results: Module II
Agricultural policy must promote sustainability
The discussion foci in Module II show the administrative implementation of Rural Development Programmes is not the “be all and end all”. It is unacceptable that basically a “big vendor’s tray” is
37 von 76
presented containing offers from which farmers can choose those measures that allow them to achieve maximum financial benefits while providing minimal services in return. Instead, in cooperation with all stakeholders solutions must be worked out, and programmes developed and implemented that will have a long-term positive impact on rural areas and on nature conservation.
Make use of aids transparent
Overall the discussions have shown in how highly varied a manner the Member States make use of the Rural Development Programmes. It was stressed that for optimum effect the programmes must very precisely adapted to the local and regional status quo. The conference participants pointed out that funding from rural development programmes are at times misdirected. Aids are not used in a targeted manner to safeguard sustainable farming, maintain cultural landscapes and protect biodiversity.
In many countries clear windfall effect are being observed as part of individual rural development schemes ( e.g. investment aid / young farmers) which should be remedied. The support of a targeted use of funds is essential for the future of development in the rural areas.
Reduce environmental problems caused by EU funds
Generally the 17% of the EU Agriculture Budget spend on the Second Pillar are held to be “environmentally friendly”. The conference participants demonstrated however that these EU monies can cause new environmental problems. The destruction of valuable habitats was given as an example, such as it has resulted from afforestation measures in Poland. It was also criticized that the agri- environmental programmes are not sufficiently targeted and that the small budget for the Second Pillar can not compensate for the ecological problems caused largely by the subsidies paid under the First Pillar. From the ecological point of view the First Pillar clearly gives the wrong incentives, as the aids provided can basically not contribute to the explicite promotion of ecologically benign production techniques.
Promote regional development strategies: LEADER approach
Regional agri-environmental programmes with the aim of safeguarding environmentally benign land use should definitely be offered. Regional development strategies increase the accuracy of fit of the measures and allow for the development of individual solutions in cooperation with those affected. Therefore the compilation of regional development strategies must be financially supported. Higher co-financing rates for such programmes could motivate farming and conservation representatives to jointly devise suitable local measures. The LEADER approach is extremely well suited to bringing together a variety of interest groups that can advance concrete rural development concepts and
38 von 76
strategies. Therefore it is essential for nature conservation that LEADER approaches are positively included in the national agricultural and structural policies.
The aim must be to show how nature conservation can become an “engine” for integrated rural development in the regions. Through the combination of nature conservation with farming, crafts, trade and services new options for income generation can be developed and thus new jobs can be created.
Strengthen support and advice for conservation objectives:
A further essential item in the conference discussions was the further development of the area of “support and advice for conservation objectives” Based on the experience in other EU Member States farmers ought to be offered conservation advice on a whole-farm basis in order to implement the agri- environmental programmes on the holdings. Specialized support should be available in Natura 2000 sites; this can substantially contribute to defusing conflicts between land users in the sites and Natura 2000 conservation objectives. An essential aspect of the success of a Natura 2000 project, and thus of gaining acceptance amongst stakeholders, is to give attention to economic considerations. There are some interesting new approaches in this regard which consider e.g. the tourist infrastructure in a region or the potential for direct marketing.
39 von 76
4.3 Module III: “The new EAFRD Regulation / Rural Development 2007 – 2013”
4.3.1 Lutz Ribbe, EURONATUR, Germany: “ The EU Financial Perspective 2007 - 2013 – Nature Conservation and Rural Development ”
Lutz Ribbe emphasized that the Second Pillar of the EU agricultural policy (Rural Development) is the EU instrument for initiating economic development in rural areas and thus for increasing added value both inside and outside of the farming sector. The First Pillar with its direct payments has so far not been made compliant on environmental or social criteria. Moreover, the direct payments did not give any impetus for the maintenance or creation of jobs. In contrast, rural development includes targeted support for management practices on which the diversity and character of cultural landscapes are dependent ( e.g. agri-environmental measures).
The EU Commission proposal for the Financial Perspective 2007-2013 does not provide for funding increases in the Second Pillar but merely maintains the status quo. Indeed the Council negotiations so far even envisage significant cuts in the Second Pillar while the First Pillar is to remain largely untouched. Agriculture budget cuts thus threaten to hit, out of all things, the one future-oriented arm of agricultural policy. Cuts in Second Pillar funding give the wrong political signal. It would be better if any considerations of funding cuts were directed at the First Pillar or the Structural Funds. In these areas allocations are often made which have no justification in environmental, social, or employment terms. A sufficient shift of funding from the First Pillar to the Second Pillar and a linkage to social criteria has not been achieved as yet.
A stronger reallocation of funds from the First Pillar to the Second Pillar (‘modulation’) is important to prevent financial difficulties in the Second Pillar. Ultimately, state transfers to farmers should thus also become conditional on the provision of concrete services or on environmental or social criteria. Those who do much for nature conservation or maintain or create jobs in farming should be rewarded.
An alternative to cuts in the Second Pillar would be to direct any considerations of funding cuts at the First Pillar or the Structural Funds or to provide for co-financing in the First Pillar. It would be in keeping with the spirit of the Lisbon Strategy if no cuts were made in the Second Pillar and indeed if funding for rural development was increased, as Second Pillar measures provide for job creation and prevent the loss of jobs.
Moreover it would be difficult to convey to society at large if the high direct payments to farmers, which are not conditional upon sufficiently strict environmental and social criteria, were maintained at their current levels while funds for nature conservation and environmental protection in the
40 von 76
agricultural landscape and for the creation of jobs through rural development measures were not maintained at adequate levels.
Environmental and conservation associations regard the Second Pillar as the basis for rural economic development. In the “Financial Perspective 2007-2013” politicians must show commitment to the strengthening of the Second Pillar and thus comply with their commitment to sustainability. The British EU presidency has initiated a new agricultural policy discussion. It will be important to steer this important discussion towards sustainable rural development and nature conservation.
4.3.2 Matthias Meissner, EURONATUR, Germany: “ Presentation of Main Points of New EAFRD Regulation (Summer 2005) ”
Matthias Meissner explained that with the introduction of the EAFRD Regulation in 2007 the First and Second Pillars will be separated into two different policy areas. This does not turn rural development into a mere appendix of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). In contrast, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) will provide rural development policy with its own financing and planning instruments.
The Member States for their part are given much leeway in the detailed design of their programmes (national strategies) and stakeholder groups are to be systematically involved in programming. The set priorities are to be implemented through three “three axes” of rural development measures:
- Improving competitiveness;
- Land management;
- Improving diversification of the rural economy.
The LEADER approach as a bottom-up approach is to be horizontally integrated into all programmes in order to contribute to the improved involvement of local players in the rural areas. The establishment of an attractive rural development policy will continue to require regionally adapted concepts which integrate economic, environmental, and social aspects.
41 von 76
4.3.3 Jan-Erik Petersen, European Environment Agency (EEA): “ EU Rural Development Policy– Making it Work for Nature Conservation ”
Jan-Erik Petersen summarised the results so far from the environmental point of view: At present, economic development would appear to be more important than the development of a sustainable agricultural sector and nature conservation. Competition for rural development funding due to reduced funding allocations are evident. Different paths have to be followed in different countries and regions. The economic and environmental conditions in Austria, Brandenburg or Extremadura are very much at variance. Regionally adapted strategies must be developed.
The environmental instruments available under the CAP must be used in the right combination. In the future it will be of utmost importance that those measures provided for under the CAP which are suited to rural development will be utilized. These include the agri-environmental programmes, aid for less-favoured areas, farm advisory services, and aids for small holdings the yields of which only partly provide for a subsistence minimum.
Results monitoring through monitoring and evaluation is essential for the improvement of rural development strategies and for creating greater public awareness.
Important steps are: Reform of the programmes for less-favoured areas; further reform of the First Pillar; rural development measures to be more targeted; support for evaluation and knowledge transfer (learning from each other); interlinkage of rural development policy with other policies (LIFE, Structural Funds; energy policy etc.); strengthening of the LEADER approach.
4.3.4 Discussion results: Module III
Adequate financial appropriations for rural development
The creation of a single new fund for rural development is a step in the right direction. A single fund allows for simplified financial procedures and will give EU rural development policy a clearer identity. However, the aim must be to act efficiently and with a genuine interest in the public benefit; otherwise the EAFRD will not contribute to addressing the environmental, economic and social challenges faced by rural Europe. Unless rural development policy is allocated sufficient funding the rural areas will not be in a position to play their role in sustainable development.
42 von 76
Coherence and coordination between rural development policy and other policies
Furthermore, rural areas are not solely limited to their agricultural component, which indeed is continuing to loose importance in many rural areas. Rural areas must also provide for the development of non-agricultural activities which in turn can contribute to enhancing the economic potential and social conditions in these areas. Rural development depends on many factors all of which must be considered. The development of rural areas can be hampered by too intensive a farming sector. Who wants to spend their holidays in sight of slurry tanks and pesticide containers?
Coherence and coordination between rural development policy and other policies is required. Sustainability is important for the long-term development of rural public and economic areas. An integrated approach to environmental protection and nature conservation in rural areas can provide solutions to two current challenges: enhancement of the rural economy and thus improvement of the quality of life.
43 von 76
4.4 Module IV: “Prospects arising from the new EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development – Plans in the EU25”
4.4.1 Christof Weins, MLUV 5, Germany: “ Actual Status and Perspectives of Agri- Environmental Measures in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia ”
Christof Weins explained that with the extension of support for agri-environmental measures an instrument has been established that is to adequately remunerate farmers for environmental services. Agri-environmental measures are essential for a support policy in rural areas. They make a decisive contribution to the success of cooperative environmental protection and nature conservation efforts in the farming sector of North-Rhine/Westphalia.
A total of 20% of the agricultural area in North-Rhine/Westphalia is managed under agri- environmental programmes (13,000 holdings). This shows that farmers are willing to use sustainable / environmentally-friendly production processes, to manage habitats and thus to provide additional ecological services in the interest of society at large. However, this only works as long as it is profitable for the farmers.
North-Rhine/Westphalia offers a broad menue of individual measures so as to enable the greatest possible number of farmers to participate. The measures are designed in such a way that, in principle, any holding can participate independent of whether it is farmed intensively or extensively, conventionally or organically. Financial support for the remuneration of environmental services from farming must continue to be continuously extended and developed in order to help address environmental problems.
4.4.2 Nina Dobrzy ńska, Ministry of Agriculture, Poland: “ Perspectives of Rural Development Programmes in Poland ”
Nina Dobrzy ńska described that of the 1.9 million farm holdings in Poland larger than 1 ha, 48% are commercial producers, 26% are semi-subsistence farms, 11% are subsistence farms, and 17% operate on an temporary basis). Less-favoured areas comprise 54% of the utilizable agricultural area of Poland.
5 Ministry for Rural Development, Environment, and Consumer Protection
44 von 76
Ms. Dobrzy ńska described the wide variety of different programmes offered under the Second Pillar in Poland. She considers the implementation of the programmes to date as a major successes there is a high number of applicants and thus holdings which have applied to undertake the various measures. She pointed out, however, that due to the very high number of applications the handling of the Rural Development Programme is an administrative ‘nightmare’.
4.4.3 Discussion results: Presentation by Nina Dobrzy ńska:
In the discussion the question was raised as to whether too large a menue of programmes on offer could truly and verifiably contribute to addressing relevant environmental and social problems. Some of the participants critically asked whether the “big vendor’s tray” with all the different measures is understood by the “small” farmers and whether the variety of measures offered is really goal-oriented towards sustainable rural development.
4.4.4 Wolfgang Suske, Consultant for Rural Development and Nature Conservation, Austria: “Rural Development and Nature Conservation in Austria - Background, Effects, Examples and Plans for the Future ”
Wolfgang Suske described that the successes of the Austrian agri-environmental programme are firmly dependent on dialogue between the administration, experts (NGOs and planners) and farmers, in what W. Suske calls the “Golden Triangle”. He explained that in his country this intensive dialogue played the most important role in getting the development of programmes and packages of measures for rural development off the ground; schemes that are administrable, are accepted by the farmers and are ultimately of great benefit to nature conservation. Dialogue is at the heart of the implementation of conservation objectives in Austria.
Austrian farmers are given a “Conservation Plan” which is individually tailored to each farm and is compiled by the farmer and the administration in cooperation. It contains management prescriptions and conservation targets. The farmers also receive on-going assistance from advisors.
W. Suske is convinced that nature conservation/conservation initiatives start in the mind. Many farmers are basically ill-disposed towards nature conservation (conditions etc.) despite the fact that they work closely with nature and certain landscape elements. Therefore it is important to appeal to the “conservation awareness” by drawing on the farmers’ personal links with nature .
45 von 76
4.4.5 Discussion results: Presentation by Wolfgang Suske:
It became evident in the discussion that training and advisory measures must target the farmers’ awareness in order to be able to fulfil the requirements of both sustainable and efficient farming and forestry as well as nature conservation, landscape protection, and species protection. In the old Member States there was a lot of emotion and conflict when Natura 2000 was established and developed. A training and advisory programme helped improve the way problems were dealt with. As expected, conflicts with land users in the new Member States are of a similar nature. The new Member States have the advantage of being able to draw heavily on the positive and negative experiences of the “old “ Europe.
The future of rural areas in the new Member States depends on the financial means required for improvements, the knowledge and self-confidence of the stakeholders as well as the will for cooperation.
4.4.6 Discussion results: Module IV
The discussion dealt with the issue of an appropriate suite of eligible areas for the allocation of funding for sustainable rural development. In this context the wide-ranging Polish rural development programme was regarded as an interesting approach but reference was made to the enormous administrative effort. Furthermore, some doubts were expressed as to whether the information transfer regarding the use of the numerous measures actually did reach the local level, and as to how it can be guaranteed that funds are used effectively and are not dispensed with a “shotgun approach” (control mechanisms).
The Austrian example showed that the requirements of future-oriented rural development can generally only be met if preceding training and advisory measures are targeted at the land users’ awareness.
In this light it can be said that the opportunities offered by the new EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development lie in the fact that the Regulation provides for the participation of farmers’, local players and associations and for the comprehensive consideration of the concerns of rural areas. The realization of individual rural development programmes in the EU Member States must be closely linked to the needs of the rural areas in the relevant countries.
46 von 76
4.5 Module V: “Results - Lessons Learned”
4.5.1 Rosie Simpson, Countryside Agency – Great Britain: “Opportunities for Integrating the Environment into Rural Development Programmes 2007 - 2013 ”
“Environmental integration lies at the heart of sustainable rural development”, says Rosie Simpson. Considering this statement, programming guidelines were developed in both the “Europe’s Living Countryside Project” report and the “Rural Development Programming Guidelines” handbook. These guidelines can be used for the successful integration of environmental concerns into the Rural Development Programmes (2007-2013). An evaluation system/checklist to assess the effectiveness of implementation was also developed.
Rosie Simpson presented a seven-step planning process developed for the British situation which aims at ensuring the successful integration of environmental concerns into rural development programmes. In this process the development of clearer priorities and comprehensible environmental objectives and the commitment of funds to priority topics are given special emphasis. The participation of a variety of interest groups in the preparation, implementation and on-going support of the Rural Development Programmes is to be strengthened considerably. This aims at creating a win-win situation within the axis structure of the draft regulation for the Rural Development Programmes (guidelines for effective participation). Moreover, this will ensure improved evaluation.
The division into axes is necessary in order to allow for the consideration of the following environmental priorities in the implementation of rural development: Safeguarding Europe’s biodiversity, maintaining water in good ecological condition, sustainable forest management, protecting the landscape heritage, and contributing to combating climate change. The combination of the relevant Articles of the EAFRD Regulation is expedient as it allows for the targeted assessment of potential environmental benefits.
Given the uncertain funding situation for rural development is became evident that the existing available funds must be used more effectively. Otherwise a long-term perspective for environmental, social and economic integration in rural areas can not be achieved.
For further information please see http://www.lupg.org.uk and http://ieep.org.uk .
47 von 76
4.5.2 Simone Lughofer, Rural Development Consultant, Austria: “ Achieving Sustainable Rural Development through Partnership - Experiences & Lessons Learned ”
Simone Lughofer described the new “Austrian Programme for the Development of Rural Areas”. With this programme, Austria hopes to use the overall high amount of funding for rural development in a targeted manner. This rural development programme is a cross-linked suite of measures which offers sufficient opportunities for the consideration of special conditions in the individual rural regions and which also allows for participation by all interested stakeholders in a region.
Ms. Lughofer stressed that in Article 6 of the EAFRD Regulation much emphasis is given to cooperation between representatives of the different stakeholder groups and the administration. This cooperation aims at contributing to a goal-oriented implementation of the Rural Development Programmes. Austria accordingly pursues the active involvement of public authorities, economic and social partners, and NGOs (especially environmental NGOs). It is expected that this will provide greater political legitimacy and a greater reflection of environmental and social conditions. Joint working groups of the Austrian Federal Government and the regional states are also used in the development and drawing up of the individual measures. The various stakeholder groups are further involved in the process of developing the Rural Development Programme through seminars, an internet platform and a concluding consultation.
Lessons learned in the drawing up of Rural Development Programmes:
- Spheres of responsibility must be clearly defined in order to achieve a structured process of participation;
- Linkages between technical and political levels must be created;
- Clear definition of roles is required;
- Continuous provision of information is essential.
4.5.3 Karin Robinet, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany: “Participation and Cooperation as Requisites for Successful Sustainable Development ”
Karin Robinet outlined that on the basis of the new EAFRD Regulation, including the stakeholder participation specified therein, it will be possible to better solve conflicts of interest between stakeholders, to achieve win-win situations for farming and nature conservation, and to generate momentum for socially, economically and environmentally sustainable regional development.
Ms. Robinet stressed further that with the organised three-step programming process for the drawing up of Rural Development Programmes (European strategy, national strategy, regional planning) the
48 von 76
interests of all stakeholders can be considered more strongly than before. Additionally, in Article 6 the new EAFRD Regulation sets out explicitly how the cooperation between stakeholder groups and the administration can contribute to the implementation of the Rural Development Programmes. Ms. Robinet assumes that in the long-term the involvement of stakeholders as outlined in Article 6 will allow for improved integration of environmental and conservation concerns into Rural Development Programmes. Moreover, the involvement of numerous players can help to ensure improved monitoring and evaluation of Rural Development Programmes.
4.5.4 Discussion results: Module V
Facilitate participation
Sustainable rural development lives on the initiative of local societal groups. Only through the active participation of local people can regions become engines for development and innovation in the rural areas. Therefore, concepts for sustainable solutions to environmental problems in land use in all the EU Member States ought to be developed which allow people to carefully utilize their environment while maintaining it at the same time. Especially in the new Member States participation of stakeholder groups must be fostered. An important outcome of the conference is, that early participation and cooperation between important players has been shown to be a success factor in sustainable regional development (Austrian example). In the drawing up and implementation of Rural Development Programmes, representatives from companies, institutions, associations, politics and administration as well as citizens should work together from the beginning as equal partners.
Participation and cooperation as a prerequisite for successful sustainable development
Due to the prescribed participation of players in the drawing up and implementation of Rural Development Programmes, the new EAFRD Regulation is principally a step forward compared to previous orientation of rural development. The EAFRD Regulation gives a clear signal in order to ensure the development of conservation criteria in a coherent system of objectives and measures for distinct planning areas (at EU, Federal, State, and regional levels). It was regarded as positive that in Germany there will be development partnerships at the regional level where the various players can work together. This will be more likely to guarantee local acceptance regarding the implementation of the Rural Development Programme.
The conference participants also stressed that information and coordination are required when players in a region are to jointly look for approaches for the strengthening of rural development in their regions. It was also pointed out that acceptance for conservation concerns can only be enhanced if
49 von 76
concrete options are outlined, i.e. if there is improved transfer of information. Knowledge transfer from one region to others can make a significant contribution in this regard. Therefore information events should be undertaken by multipliers (farmers, traders) who can report on their experiences with rural development processes in their own everyday language.
50 von 76
4.6 Conference summary Dr. Kilian Delbrück, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany
Kilian Delbrück summarized the most important outcomes of the conference and emphasized that the new EU policy for rural areas now offers great opportunities for environmental protection and nature conservation on account of the now agreed EAFRD Regulation. In this regard, sufficient appropriations for the fund for environmental protection and nature conservation is of central importance. Apart from the challenge of considering the diversity of rural regions in Europe and their specific needs, it is important that EU agricultural policy, at least as a future prospect, will strive to shift funds towards more environmentally and ecologically compatible measures or measures enhancing nature and the environment and thus last but not least, towards the establishment of the Natura 2000 network.
Supports should primarily be targeted at a farming sector which takes its orientation from the principles of sustainability, which provides services in the areas of nature conservation and environmental protection, consumer protection and animal welfare and which safeguards jobs or creates new ones. Especially in the new Member States it is important to maintain the still existing valuable natural and landscape components and to utilize this potential in the regions for job creation in the areas of regional production, processing and marketing initiatives in accordance with conservation objectives.
The following aspects were emphasized with regard to the successful integration of environmental and conservation concerns in the new programming phase:
- Integration should be positively conveyed in two respects: both the positive effects of farming for conservation and those of conservation for farming and rural development should be highlighted.
- Integrated projects, including the LEADER projects, which were further strengthened with the EAFRD Regulation, should be utilized for nature conservation and environmental protection and to promote greater acceptance thereof.
- Attention must be given more strongly than before to the broad involvement of all stakeholders, especially at local level, as the Austrian example has shown. The EAFRD Regulation already picks up on this in the planning process. In this regard, capacity building and the continuation of dialogue between farming and conservation interests are of particular significance for successful implementation.
51 von 76
- The avoidance of negative impacts of non-environmental measures ( e.g. agricultural investments or supports for infrastructure development in rural areas) must continue to be seen as one of the crucial challenges in the successful integration of environmental and conservation concerns into Rural Development Programmes.
Nature conservation must be understood as a cross-sectoral task which does not exclude people but involves them and all their activities in the existing strategies. Sustainable development concepts must be drawn up and implemented which allow people to cautiously utilize their environment while maintaining it at the same time. In this sense, nature conservation must be an integral component of the vision of sustainable, future-oriented rural development.
52 von 76
4.7 Assessment of the conference results from the organizer’s point of view
While the new EAFRD Regulation offers great prospects for environmental protection and nature conservation, it has become evident at the conference that in numerous new Member States “reverse modulation” is being practised, i.e. the redistribution of funds from rural development (Second Pillar) to direct payments (First Pillar). This indicates a preference amongst some governments to support an agricultural sector based on cost-leadership following the example of the “old” EU Member States.
Rural development prospects have not yet been recognized
It also became evident that the prospects arising from the consistent implementation of rural development, i.e. the protection of nature and the environment and to improve the quality of life in rural areas, have not yet been recognized by the governments of many of the new Member States. Therefore one must presume at present, that in many of the new Member States an agricultural sector will evolve where in the future only the supposedly “future-oriented” holdings will be able to survive. This means that primarily those holdings will currently be given financial assistance that go down the route of intensified production, enlargement of production areas, new technologies and crops and livestock bred for maximum yield.
Farming based on cost-leadership is an anachronism
Many conference participants rightly queried whether the agricultural vision of “ever more at ever lower prices”, which has prevailed since the Treaty of Rome, must be regarded as an anachronism, i.e. as out-dated. It was further questioned why the CAP policy instruments should be adopted in the new Member States despite the fact that they have been contributing to the problem of overproduction in the EU and to the continuing loss of employment in farming and thus in the rural areas. The EU ultimately sacrifices habitats of wild plants and animals and undermines the availability of natural resources for future generations only to produce supposedly “cheap” food.
For Euronatur it became evident once again, that especially the support instruments as part of the Second Pillar can guarantee financial aids for farmers which allow them to pursue sustainable, ecologically oriented agricultural production. In order to offer the rural areas of the enlarged EU a future it will be necessary to more strongly engage in higher quality production and increase added value on the holdings. This requires, amongst other things, greater economic diversification on the holdings, such as by way of processing and direct marketing of foods produced on the holdings, or through the provision services in conservation and tourism. The new EAFRD Regulation has made this its objective.
53 von 76
Create societal acceptance for rural development
To foster farming that is compatible with nature and the environment, creates employment and is quality-oriented, it is essential to increase societal acceptance for rural development in all EU Member States and at all political levels. Those responsible at the political level must realize that rural development (Second Pillar) is the real “new” agricultural policy. They must convey to society that rural development makes sense for economic, social, and environmental reasons and that it gives people in Europe’s rural areas a perspective for the future. Additionally, all relevant players must realize that rural development can make a significant contribution to the protection of natural and cultural landscapes, to the protection of natural resources and to the maintenance of a high quality of life in rural areas.
Furthermore, it is essential that all those in charge are made aware of the fact that rural development is not an appendix to the previous agricultural policy, solely aiming at, for example, mitigating detrimental environmental effects in agriculturally favoured areas. Rural development is an autonomous policy area for the support of rural regions where currently grave structural change is taking place.
Euronatur is convinced that this awareness – despite much lip-service being paid – has not even materialized yet in large sections of the agricultural administration of the EU Member States. Given this situation, it will be necessary in the future to describe both positive and negative examples of rural development in order to show what is ultimately done with the taxpayers’ money. There are numerous examples which show that targeted support of e.g. small marketing and processing projects are of greater relevance in terms of the safeguarding or creation of jobs than agricultural supports distributed with a “shotgun approach” such as is the case with the current direct payments.
Such an awareness-raising process is necessary in order to bring about a transfer of funds from the First Pillar to the Second Pillar (Rural Development). To achieve this goal, intensive lobby work must target the various European and national policy levels. This redistribution of funds is essential as the European community, in the long run, will be more likely to accept sustainable rural development as the reason for transferring approximately 50 billion € to European farmers than the First Pillar payments.
54 von 76
Rural development programmes must be drawn up in more concrete terms in cooperation with the stakeholders
Numerous examples given at the conference showed that in the EU Member States clear objectives for the implementation of rural development strategies are often lacking and that measures are not consistently designed to address these defined objectives. However, it is essential for the success of a rural development strategy that clear objectives are given. Only if the objectives are clearly spelled out can goal-oriented steering instruments (plans and programmes) be developed. This means that for successful rural development, the countries and regions must draw up long-term plans which guide their actions with the aim of achieving defined objectives. A focus on core areas is preferable to a big “vendor’s tray” of measures.
The Austrian example showed how rural development strategies can successfully be implemented with the participation of stakeholder groups. Much depends on the administration being proactive in identifying the driving forces in the region and to actively support them in the implementation of ideas and concrete rural development actions. This is a prerequisite for functioning programme development from the bottom-up.
Recognize problems of rural areas and use effective monitoring and evaluation systems
Euronatur assumes that many countries of the EU25 have analyses of the social, economic, and environmental problems in rural areas available to them. However, these problems are not sufficiently translated into clear targets for rural development and therefore there is a lack of tangible measures for the successful development of rural areas. One cannot help but get the impression that the primary concern appears to be to ensure that the available rural development funding can “flow” uninterruptedly. Massive windfall effects are being tolerated, for example in the early retirement scheme, the afforestation scheme, and the less-favoured areas scheme. Those responsible for rural development in the relevant countries must in the future be charged with avoiding this situation. To that end, effective monitoring and evaluation systems must be introduced so that it can be determined whether the set economic, social, and environmental objectives are actually being achieved with the measures that are being funded.
In addition, the administrations must seek honest dialogue with stakeholder groups. This is the only way to find out how exactly measures should be designed in order to actually reach the farmers. Only intensive dialogue can help those in charge to find out why certain programmes and their measures are not sufficiently being taken up or why only certain farmers take them up.
55 von 76
CONCLUSION
To date, in many EU Member States rural development is often understood as a mere appendix to the Common Agricultural Policy. This assessment is erroneous and presents a great risk to the future of rural areas within the EU. Such views must be changed. Support must be given for the retreat from First Pillar funding towards more rigorous programming for rural development which must be aligned with existing social, economic, and environmental problems in the rural areas.
56 von 76
4.8 Concluding theses on successful rural development
For Europe’s rural areas it is essential that the still existing valuable natural and landscape components be maintained and protected and that this potential is utilized in the regions for job creation in the areas of regional production, processing and marketing initiatives in accordance with conservation objectives.
Rural development funding (Second Pillar of the CAP) must be given preferential treatment over the First Pillar. Only strong financial appropriations will allow for a new policy for sustainable development in Europe’s rural areas.
Payments to agriculture must be coupled with services provided to society at large in order to justify societal acceptance of financial transfers in the context of the European agricultural policy and to protect nature and landscape diversity at the same time.
In order to safeguard Second Pillar appropriations in the long-term, society at large must be shown that the provision of appropriate funds for nature conservation and environmental protection in the agricultural landscape can clearly create more jobs and generate more income than the income and employment effects achieved with payments under the First Pillar.
Objectives pursued by the Member States with their rural development policies must be clearly defined so as to allow for the drawing up of goal-oriented measures.
Improved evaluations of the objectives of Rural Development Programmes and analyses of the impacts generated by the various individual measures are required. Evaluation and monitoring must be compulsory for the Member States.
The implementation of the EAFRD Regulation on Rural Development firmly depends on the active participation of stakeholders (bottom-up approach). Training and further education as well as dialogue between farming and conservation interests and between administrations and stakeholders are of utmost importance.
Improved individual advisory services for farmers on programmes and options for diversification must be provided.
In order to counter lobbyism, all players in the rural areas, and farmers in particular, must be sufficiently informed about measures and forms of participation so that they can put pressure on their representatives. In the agricultural sector alliances must be established which promote sustainable rural development.
The EU must develop all policy areas relating to the rural areas in a consistent fashion (Structural Funds, First Pillar, EAFRD, supports for economic development, conservation legislation). Only then can a true strengthening of rural areas be expected.
57 von 76
5. Annex
5.1 Field trip summary
58 von 76
Information for the field trip to the Eifel on 4 September, 2005
In cooperation with Prof. Dr. W. Schumacher (University Bonn)
59 von 76
Route :
Source: InternationalAtlasKümmerly Frey&
20 km
1 - 3
6
4
5 Dahlem
60 von 76
Stop 1
Sistig-Krekeler Heide Nature Reserve (the municipality of Kall)
Mountain pasture and wetland/mat grassland und wetlands/restoration of partially natural vegetation complexes
Altitude: 600 m. above sea level Geological Foundation: lower Devonian slate, sandstone and Ems quartzite (Klerf strata) Soils: acid brown soils, pseudogley, half-bog, and loess remnants Climate: 860-900 mm annual precipitation, mean annual temperature 7.6° C
The Sistig-Krekeler Heide, situated in the western Eifel in the district of Euskirchen, belongs to the municipality of Kall and covers several partial areas between the towns of Krekel, Sistig, and Benenberg. The region lies in the middle of a rolling plateau about 600 meters above sea level. The surface area measures approximately 100 hectares in total, about 50 hectares of which has been acquired by the NRW Foundation. It is a relatively wide area with extensively used pastureland complexes and the following plant communities (selection):
- Yellow Oat Grass Meadow (Geranio-Trisetetum)
- Baldmoney Root ( Festuca rubra-Meum-athamanticum community)
- Montane False Oat Grass (Arrhenatheretum elatioris)
- Red Fescue-Common Bentgrass Meadow ( Festuca rubra-Agrostis capillaris community)
- Ryegrass-White Clover Pastures (Cynosuro-Lolietum luzuletosum campestris)
- Marsh and Wetlands (Molinion and Calthion)
- Milkwort-Mat Grassland (Polygalo-Nardetum)
- Heath Rush (Juncetum squarrosi)
- Bell Heather ( Erica-tetralix community)
The widespread eared sallow bushes (Frangulo-Salicetum auritae) and the mountain ash and aspen forests, which are rich in birches as well, also deserve mention.
61 von 76
The share of the naturalized to semi-natural units of vegetation has been enlarged by about 7 hectares since 1995 as a result of the restoration efforts of the NRW Foundation, namely through the removal of non-native stands of spruce, larch, and pine.
The supra-regional significance of the Sistig-Krekeler Heide from a conservationist perspective is based not only on the variety, size, and intactness of the plant families found there, but also on the high number of rare and endangered ferns and flowering plants. Most of them have clearly increased their population sizes since the spruce- and bush-removal measures and the resumption of cultivation of the meadow, and some now have their highest occurrence here in all of North Rhine-Westphalia or the Rhineland respectively. These include:
- Coeloglossum viride approx. 2,200 specimens
- Dactylorhiza maculata 126,000 plants in all (90,000 flowering, 36,000 vegetative)
- Gentiana pneumonanthe 60,000 individuals
- Pedicularis sylvatica approx. 20,000 individuals
- Platanthera bifolia approx. 20,000 individuals
- Platanthera chloranta approx. 20,000 individuals
The following also show remarkable population sizes: Arnica montana Dactylorhiza majalis Botrychium lunaria Pyrola rotundifolia
The abovementioned population sizes were determined through counting and geostatistical processes in the context of three dissertations (Kam 2004, Kühne 2004, and Lex 2003). This kind of work is necessary for successful biomonitoring and also for quantitative efficiency control of contract conservation.
Additional characteristic and significant species: Eriophorum angustifolium Primula veris Genista anglica Pseudorchis albida Hieracium lactucella Pyrola minor Juncus squarrosus Pyrola rotundifolia Meum athamanticum Salix repens Ophioglossum vulgatum Sanguisorba officinalis Polygala serpyllifolia Succisa pratensis Polygala vulgaris Valeriana dioica Primula elatior Viola canina
62 von 76
Stop 2
Overview of operations at the farm “Thelen”
Operating data Family Thelen
Holderweg 8, 53925 Kall-Steinfelderheistert, Germany
------
1. Geographical information: Altitude: 540 m. above see level Altitude of total area of holding: 520 – 600 m. above see level Annual Precipitation: 730 mm Annual mean temperature: 8.0 °C
2. Labour use: Farm manager 0.7 Wife/Sons 0.3 Parents 0.3 Apprentice 0.5
3. Land use: 102 ha permanent grassland (extensively managed/bio) Thereof 10 ha are used for nature conservation (so-called “Pflegefläche”)
4. Livestock No. of animals Dairy cows (Herdbuch) 69 Breed of dairy cows 84 Total 153
5. Milk quota: 557.000 kg (own quota) Delivered quantity: 600.000 kg
63 von 76
6. Average milk yield per cow: 9.710 kg/year (3.83 % fat, 3.31 % protein); (present moving average value of the “Landeskontrollverbände” (LKV)) 2.550 kg basic feed (grassland), produced by the farm
7. Mechanisation: All operations of foreign economics are undertaken by a contractor
8. Feeding: Valorised silage with 24/4 and wheat for a yield of 27 kg milk Further additionally concentrated feeding takes place at the milking parlour
Stop 3
Seidenbachtal Nature Reserve near Blankenheimerdorf
Altitude: 520-560 m. above sea level Geological Foundation: mid-Devonian dolomite Soils: basalt-rich to basalt-poor brown soils and brown soil rendzinas, partly pseudogley Climate: 800 mm yearly precipitation, annual mean temperature 7.5° C
The approximately 80 hectare Seidenbachtal Nature Reserve (property of the NRW Foundation) contains large vegetation complexes of limestone grasslands (Gentiano-Coelerietum typicum and globularietosum) and fresh and dry false-oat grasslands (Arrhenatheretum typicum and brometosum). Wetlands (Molinion), mountain pasture (Geranio-Trisetetum), and mat grassland (Polygalo-Nardetum) are all found on the southern edge of the area.
Small stands of juniper, orchid-beech wood (Carici-Fagetum), larch, and spruce are also found here, which are partly interspersed with European beech. Nearly all areas are leased to regional businesses, which use the land to grow hay. The remaining, unmowable areas are used by a shepherd with 300 mother ewes for grazing.
64 von 76
Stop 4
Overview of operations at the farm “GeLU GbR”
Operating data
Farm managers: Gerd Balter and Ludger Elz Adress/location: Eipachhof 30, 53449 Dahlem, Germany Phone: +49(0)2447 / 91 30 80 Fax: +49(0)2447 / 91 30 82 Altitude: 540 m – 620 m Soil: sandy loam soil, loam soil, clay soil
------
1. Production Arable land (ha): 0 Grassland (ha): 275 Total agricultural area (ha): 275 Number of cows: 200 Milk quota: 1.8 Mio. kg
2. Labour use Fulltime manpower: 2 External manpower: 1 Family manpower: 1
3. Milk yield kg milk/cow *year: 9500 kg/dairy cows total
4. Feeding Type of feeding: anhydrous mass ratio, 13 m³ wagon of feeding Number of cow groups 5 Size of the groups: 2 milking groups, 1 group dry at present, 1 transit group, 1 group to calve Number of feed silos: 3 Dimension of feed silos: 9 * 80 m
65 von 76
5. Cubicle loose housing Sleeping area: deep (litter) stable Litter: straw, carbonic magnesium lime Stable construction: framework of steel and laminated wood Type of fundament: point fundament System of drinking trough: tilting system of drinking trough with flow system in the cycle
6. System of dunging System of dunging: pusher installation with chain Storage of liquid manure: concrete containers Dimension of containers: 26,5 * 6,0 m, ca. 3000 m³
7. Milking parlour Type of milking parlour: “SbS Bowmatic” Number of places: 2 * 12, expandable to 2 * 16 Technology: animal identification, measurement of quantity of milk Number of milkers: 1 milker + 1 herder Yield of milking: 85 dairy cows per hour
8. Holding area towards the parlour entrance Extent: 182 m²
9. Investment/capital expenditures Total amount to be invested: 920.000 € Investment per cow place: 4.792 € (net per place with liquid manure, without silo, without lanes) Personal contribution (not covered in the total amount to be invested): little personal contribution
10. Particularities - Clear separation between the functions of feeding, resting, and swigging
- Ergonomically facilities and buildings
- Extension of the location is prioritised. An adequate development plan is available.
- Separate milk house with basement for excellent conditions of work
66 von 76
Stop 5: Nettersheim
Useful facts about nature, landscape, environment, and tourism
The municipality of Nettersheim (in the district of Euskirchen) lies on the southern tip of the federal Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, imbedded in a charming landscape of low mountains with altitudes of 350 to 600 meters.
The municipality’s territory is approximately 95 sq. km and up to 40% wooded; 52% is used for agricultural purposes. About 8% consists of populated areas: 11 villages with about 8000 inhabitants. Apart from the central point of Nettersheim, these are Marmagen (including Bahrhaus), Zingsheim, Pesch, Roderath, Bouderath, Holzmülheim, Frohngau, Engelgau, and Tondorf.
Skilled trades, commercial enterprises, and tourism play an especially important role in addition to agriculture and forestry. Nevertheless, 75% of the workforce commutes to jobs outside of the community, mainly to the Euskirchen-Bonn-Cologne area.
It was recognized early that the structurally weak region has a special kind of appeal. The large number of nature reserves, the impressive geological development of the Devonian period, and the high density of archaeological sites were essential in securing, preserving, maintaining, and protecting it. Expert scientific opinions from the most diverse fields were the basis for the design of forward- looking environmental management in the area, and for an unobtrusive tourism concept based on nature and history.
The municipality of Nettersheim’s decades of efforts in nature conservation and environmental protection, as well as in the safeguarding of its geological, archaeological, and historical diversity, have been recognized several times with the appointment as “German Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection Capital”, with the distinction of “National Champion in Nature Conservation” in a contest of municipalities, with the “European Award for Tourism and Environment”, and for innovative efforts in the framework of the project Nature Experience Village at the “National Contest of Environmentally Friendly Tourist Destinations”.
67 von 76
The Eifel Nature Conservation Centre in Nettersheim
The Eifel Nature Conservation Centre is a supra-regional centre for environmental education and nature information in the German-Belgian nature park Hohes Venn-Eifel. The official opening in May 1989 was made possible by the support of the North Rhine-Westphalia Foundation for Nature Conservation and Cultivation of the Natural Habitat and Culture.
Visitors get their first impressions in the reception area and museum shop. A newly designed archaeological exhibition shows the area’s settlement history from the stone age to the middle ages with the help of exhibits and vivid models and graphics. The older building next door contains exhibits of the different living spaces of the Eifel cultural landscape with their respective flora and fauna. This is in no way a “dead” museum: birds chirp all around you, and visitors can peer into the busy life of a bee colony, or observe the different stages of development of a tadpole to a fully grown frog in the aquarium. The old farmhouse, with its original furnishings and colourful, diverse garden, offers aspects of the cultural history of the region in a lively way. Next to the headquarters of the Nettersheim Educational Institution (see below), the “Old Blacksmith” contains various permanent and touring exhibitions about the geological development of the area and fossils from the mid- Devonian era. In addition to the limestone quarry itself, the limestone distillery also has two large kilns. Workshops housing a geological exhibition and an impressive mineral collection can also be found here.
A historical grain mill, which was built in the back part of the workshops, is fully functional. Visitors can grind flour from ecologically cultivated grain and even bake their own bread here. The various exhibitions of the Nature Conservation Centre serve as the starting point and last stop of the visitors’ up-close nature experience. They lead into the various topics and help visitors uncover secrets of nature and history for themselves, for example on the new experience path.
Additional Facilities
In order to accommodate groups and school classes for visits lasting several days, so that everything the Eifel Nature Conservation Centre and Educational Institution has to offer can be taken advantage of, the old Nettersheim primary school was completely renovated and expanded with a modern annex, and a youth guest house, with 180 beds at present, was built. Additional seminar and conference rooms are available in the community centre. The old brick building was completely restored by the municipality and equipped with modern furnishings. In addition, a photo lab with darkroom and video
68 von 76
interface was set up. Thus, the house offers plenty of room for the various activities of the Nature Conservation Centre and the Educational Institution.
Nature Experience and Environmental Education – Yearly Program The central task of the Eifel Nature Conservation Centre is nature education by experience with the main focus on out-of-school environmental and adult education. The pedagogical concept of “understanding by experiencing” offers students, interested laypeople, and experts alike experience- rich as well as technically-based events. Every year, an extensive yearly program is produced (80 pages and 230 events in 2002) in cooperation of the Eifel Nature Conservation Centre with the Biology Station of the District of Euskirchen e.V. This program highlights the full spectrum of the community’s efforts in nature and environmental conservation, monument protection, agriculture, and landscape conservation. In addition to technically-oriented excursions and walking tours, it offers a wide range of experience- and practically-oriented courses, technical seminars, trips, and presentations for families, groups, and other interested people. The individual events are derived from the fields of nature conservation and environmental preservation, biology, geology, archaeology, agriculture, forestry, nutrition and health. Beyond that, a special series of events offers the opportunity for creative design with a wide variety of materials.
The Nettersheim Educational Institution
Since the spring of 1998, the community of Nettersheim has also operated an educational institution, recognized by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia according to its Further Education Law. This facility offers weeklong projects in nature experience, culture, media, and ecology to youth groups, vocational school classes, secondary school level II classes, and adults. The demand for overnight accommodation in the area has risen noticeably as a result of the additional offerings in adult and youth education.
Additional Events
The Eifel Nature Conservation Centre has regular Open House days, when guests can see the centre’s versatile work and extensive facilities. Additional events are nature conservation weeks, EUREGIO days, field trips for companies and schools, and theme-based hikes, for example the Roman Canal day hike. Campaigns like “Citizens Plant Deciduous Trees”, “Brushwood Shredding”, and “Composting, And How” involve the local citizens in nature and environmental activities, and are especially important for the acceptance of the work by the local population.
69 von 76
Conclusion
In order to keep the nature conservation centre up-to-date and attractive, new topics in environmental education are regularly taken up and conveyed to visitors in a vivid, lively manner. Since the Rio Conference of 1992, we have learned how important it is to bring environmental topics closer to a broad stratum of society. In Nettersheim, the importance of nature and environmental protection and the corresponding educational work have been recognized for as long as 25 years.
Prepared by: Prof. Dr. W. Schumacher and H. Fuchs (both University of Bonn) and EURONATUR
70 von 76
5.2 Participants
“One Year of EU 25 – Nature Conservation Policy Experience Regarding the 2 nd Pillar of the CAP and Reform Prospects” 3rd to 7 th of September 2005 in Bonn / Germany (Last update 09.09.2005)
# Name First name Function Institution Email Address Country
Friedrich.loidl@lebensministeriu Stubenring 1 Austria 1. Loidl Friedrich Ministry for Agriculture m.at A-1012 WIEN Ministry of Environment 22 Maria Luiza Street Bulgaria 2. Dimitrova Tatyana [email protected] and Water BG-1040SOFIA Agri-Environment Ministry of Agriculture [email protected]. 55 Hristo Botev Blvd. Bulgaria 3. Stefanova Vyara Department and Forestry bg BG-1040 SOFIA 160 Shesti Septemvri Bulgaria 4. Popov Dimitar Head Office PLOVDIV [email protected] Blvd., BG-PLOVDIV 4000 PO Box 53411 Cyprus Panagides Daphnis S. Friends of the Earth [email protected] 5. CY-Limassol 3302 EU Department - Ministry Vrrsovicka 65 Czech 6. Havlinova Eva [email protected] of Environment CZ-11000 PRAHA 10 Republic AOPK CR Czech Agency for Nature Husova 2115 Republic 7. Hofhanzl Abraham Conservation and [email protected] CZ-HAVLICKU BROD Landscape Protection 5800 Estonian Farmer Teaduse 1 Estonia 8. Herodes Jaak [email protected] Federation EE-Saku 75501 Estonian Farmer Teaduse 1 Estonia 9. Kaul Nurm [email protected] Federation EE-Saku 75501
71 von 76
# Name First name Function Institution Email Address Country Head of Agri-Envi- Estonia Lai St. 39/41 10. Puusta Ülle ronment & Landscape Ministry of Agriculture [email protected] EE-15056 TALLINN Management Bureau Center for Ecological Jannseni 4 Estonia 11. Mikk Merit [email protected] Engineering (CEET), J.V. EE-51005 Tartu Institute for European 28 Queen Anne´s Gate GB 12. Farmer Martin [email protected] Environmental Policy UK- LONDON Senior Policy Advisor, Crescent Place, GB Countryside Agency, John [email protected]. 13. Simpson Rosie Land Management Cheltenham, Gloucs, Dower House uk Team GL50 3RA, UK Invalidenstr. 112 Germany 14. Schöne Florian NABU [email protected] D-10115 Berlin Hackescher Germany Markt/Große 15. Fleckenstein Martina WWF Deutschland [email protected] Präsidentenstr. 10 D-10178 Berlin Goldenbergstrasse 2 Germany 16. Schubert Dirk NOVA-Institute [email protected] D-50354 Hürth Bahnhofstr. 31 Germany 17. Korspeter Sonja AbL [email protected] D-59065 Hamm GERMANY WWF Hungary - Hungaria Németvölgyi út 78 b, H- 18. Figeczky Gábor Agriculture and Rural [email protected] 1124 BUDAPEST Development Officer Hungaria Soproni u.22H-9408 Kárpati Béla Imre University of Reading [email protected] 19. BRENNBERGBÁNYA Ministry of Agriculture Latvia Deputy Director of rural Ministry of Agriculture of Republikas laukums 2 20. Abolins Indulis [email protected] development department the Republic of Latvia LV-1981 RIGA LATVIA The Ministry of A. Jaksto Str. 4/9 Lithuania 21. Ruzgiené Jolita [email protected] Environment LT-2600 VILNIUS
72 von 76
# Name First name Function Institution Email Address Country Gedimino av. 19 Lithuania 22. Almantas Gediminas Ministry of Agriculture [email protected] (Lelevelio 6) LT-01103 VILNIUS-25 Moviment ghall-Ambjent, PO Box 13 Malta 23. de Giovanni, Martin Galea Agriculture campaigner [email protected] / FoE malta M-Valletta CMR 01 Agriculture Reserach + Malta Rural Development 24. Spiteri Diane [email protected] Development Farm Department GHAMMIERI Institute for Sustainable Nabielaka St. 15, Poland 25. Wójcik Bo Ŝenna [email protected] Development PL-00-743 Warszawa Gornoslaska 4a Poland Budzich- 26. Urszula The Cooperation Fund [email protected] PL-00-444 Szukala WARSZAWA Deputy Director of the ul. Wspola 30 Poland 27. Dobrzy ńska Nina Department of Rural Ministry of Agriculture [email protected] PL-00-930 Development WARSZAWA Bd. Libertatii nr. 12 Sec Romania Ministry of Environment 28. Cazacu Simona Roxana [email protected] 5 an Water Mangagement RO-BUCURESTI Ministry of Agriculture, Romania Blvd. Carol, nr. 24 Sec 3 29. Didicescu Paul Sergiu forest and rural [email protected] RO-BUCURESTI Development Focal Centre for Dorobantilor 93/67 Romania 30. Mihut Sergiu Biodiversity Monitoring [email protected] RO-400609 CLUJ- and Conservtion NAPOCA Str. Grivitei, nr. 1 bl. C1 Romania 31. Palade Florin Eco Pontica Foundation [email protected] ap. 9 RO-TULCEA 820056 Moskovska 48 SK- Slovakia [email protected] 32. Polláková Katarína The Living Planet 97404 BANSKA [email protected] BYSTRICA Ministry of Environment Dobrovicova 12 Slovakia 33. Zovicova Zuzana [email protected] of Slovak Republic SK- 81266 Bratislava
73 von 76
# Name First name Function Institution Email Address Country
Ministry of Agriculture of Dobrovicova 12 Slovakia 34. Gergelova Zuzana [email protected] Slovak Republic SK- 81266 Bratislava Ministry of Agriculture of Dobrovicova 12 Slovakia 35. Prokesova Jana [email protected] Slovak Republic SK- 81266 Bratislava Pre ŝernova 2 Slovenia 36. Soster Goran Prepare Network [email protected] SLO-9240 Ljutomer SLOVENIA
Speakers
Stumpergasse 24/16 Austria 37. Lughofer Simone Impact-Consulting [email protected] A-1060 WIEN Narbutta 40/21 Poland 38. Metera Dorota IUCN Central Europe [email protected] PL-02 541 WARSZAWA European Commission; EU 39. Scheele Martin DG Agriculture and Rural [email protected] B-1049 BRUXELES Development Agriculture and Denmak European Environmental DK-1050 40. Petersen Jan-Erik environment, EAS - [email protected] Agency COPENHAGEN K Sectoral integration Speisingerstrasse 63/1 Austria 41. Suske Wolfgang Consultant [email protected] A – 1130 Wien Schwannstr. 3 Germany 42. Weins Christof MUNLV [email protected] D-40476 Düsseldorf Bundesamt für Kostantinstrasse 110 Germany 43. Brendle Uwe [email protected] Naturschutz D-53179 Bonn Robert-Schumann-Platz Germany 44. JFlasbarth Jochen Head of Department BMU [email protected] D-53175 Bonn Friends of the Earth Rue Blanche 15 Belgium 45. Konecny Martin [email protected] Europe B-1050 Brussels
74 von 76
Organizers Grabenstrasse 23 Germany 46. Ribbe Lutz Euronatur [email protected] D-53359 Rheinbach Grabenstrasse 23 Germany 47. Meissner Matthias Euronatur Matthias.meissner@euronatur .org D-53359 Rheinbach Grabenstrasse 23 Germany 48. Bohnsack Kerstin Euronatur [email protected] D-53359 Rheinbach Grabenstrasse 23 Germany 49. Krumnacker Jutta Euronatur [email protected] D-53359 Rheinbach Wielefstr. 3 Germany 50. Wießner Wolfram Translation [email protected] D-10551 Berlin
Sponsors / Observers Robert-Schumann-Platz Nyenhuis Ulrike BMU [email protected] Germany 51. D-53175 Bonn Robert-Schumann-Platz Germany 52. Delbrück Dr. Kilian BMU [email protected] D-53175 Bonn Konstantinstr. 110 Germany 53. Robinet Karin BfN [email protected] D-53179 Bonn Wilhelms Universität Nussallee 21 Germany 54. Julius Gisela [email protected] Bonn D-53115 Bonn Konstantinstr. 110 Germany 55. Engels Barbara BfN [email protected] D-53179 Bonn Konstantinstr. 110 Germany 56. Heinze Birgit BfN [email protected] D-53179 Bonn
75 von 76
5.3 Compilation of data by Euronatur (Presentation on budget)
76 von 76
Compilation of data about the EU budget in 2005 (EU25) and EU expenses for rural development in 2003 (EU15)
prepared by: Lutz Ribbe, Kerstin Bohnsack and Matthias Meissner
77 von 76
“One year of EU 25 – Nature Conservation policy experience regarding the 2nd pillar of the CAP and reform prospects”
Compilation of data about the EU budget and EU expenses for rural development
1. Part The first part of the compilation describes the 2005 EU budget .
2. Part
The second part gives an analysis of the way each member state spends EU funds for rural development. The data is from 2003 and covers only the EU15. Due to a lack of information from the commission, no figures from the EAGGF Guidance could be included in the analysis.
The compilation was prepared as background material for the presentation "Rural Development Policy in the EU15 - An overview of measures taken to date under EU Regulation 1257/99 on Rural Development ". The presentation was held on the conference "One year of EU 25 – Nature Conservation policy experience regarding the 2nd pillar of the CAP and reform prospects” in Bonn (5/9/2005). prepared by: Lutz Ribbe, Kerstin Bohnsack and Matthias Meissner (all Euronatur)
© Euronatur September 2005 Part 1
Contents Table 1 EU General Budget
Table 2 Section III - Commission
Table 3 05 Agriculture and Rural Development
Table 4 05 Summary of the 2005 EU Agriculture Budget
Table 5 05 04 Rural Development 2005
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 1 EU General Budget in million €
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 Section I Parliament 1.272,0 € 1,20% 1.231,0 € 1.075,5 € 977,2 € 1.005,8 € 972,8 € 917,5 € 905,2 € 865,6 € Section II Council 568,3 € 0,53% 541,9 € 428,8 € 414,8 € 373,2 € 349,7 € 333,4 € 317,2 € 311,8 € Section III Commission 103.944,7 € 97,78% 99.531,9 € 86.855,5 € 82.359,0 € 78.452,2 € 78.809,1 € 78.617,0 € 79.016,8 € 78.798,2 € Section IV Court of Justice 232,3 € 0,22% 235,0 € 149,6 € 144,3 € 140,7 € 129,4 € 123,1 € 119,0 € 122,1 € Section V Court of Auditors 108,6 € 0,10% 96,9 € 75,5 € 82,8 € 72,2 € 66,3 € 63,9 € 57,5 € 53,7 € Section VI ESC 103,8 € 0,10% 102,7 € 73,9 € 74,2 € 73,5 € 75,8 € 127,6 € 99,9 € 90,9 € Section VII CoR 60,3 € 0,06% 59,4 € 32,9 € 35,3 € 33,1 € 32,1 € Section VIII A Ombudsman 7,3 € 0,01% 5,8 € 4,1 € 3,7 € 3,6 € 3,2 € 3,5 € 2,7 € Section VIII B Data-Protection Superviso 2,9 € 0,00% 1,3 € p.m. 1,3 €
Totals 106.300,2 € 100,0% 101.805,9 € 88.695,7 € 84.092,6 € 80.154,3 € 80.438,4 € 80.186,1 € 80.518,3 € 80.242,3 €
Notes: up to 2003: Budget implementation 2004, 2005: Initial budget based on general budget for 2004/2005
Copyright by 3 Table 2 Section III - Commission in million €
Titel 2005 in % 2004 2003 1 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS 464,5 € 0,4% 489,2 € 398,3 € 2 ENTERPRISE 356,4 € 0,3% 345,1 € 259,7 € 3 COMPETITION 89,8 € 0,1% 83,4 € 77,8 € 4 EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS 9.068,0 € 8,7% 9.392,4 € 7.683,1 € 5 AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 52.486,9 € 50,5% 47.743,3 € 46.977,0 € 6 ENERGY AND TRANSPORT 1.347,9 € 1,3% 1.333,0 € 877,4 € 7 ENVIRONMENT 320,1 € 0,3% 302,8 € 213,1 € 8 RESEARCH 2.572,2 € 2,5% 2.400,2 € 1.877,2 € 9 INFORMATION SOCIETY 1.086,1 € 1,0% 1.037,1 € 797,3 € 10 DIRECT RESEARCH 348,3 € 0,3% 337,0 € 266,5 € 11 FISHERIES 927,1 € 0,9% 968,4 € 901,9 € 12 INTERNAL MARKET 72,7 € 0,1% 69,1 € 58,5 € 13 REGIONAL POLICY 20.917,9 € 20,1% 22.067,5 € 17.135,4 € 14 TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION 115,0 € 0,1% 101,9 € 76,3 € 15 EDUCATION AND CULTURE 971,7 € 0,9% 869,4 € 781,0 € 16 PRESS AND COMMUNICATION 176,1 € 0,2% 164,9 € 126,8 € 17 HEALTH AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 517,8 € 0,5% 484,7 € 441,7 € 18 JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS 558,4 € 0,5% 501,1 € 104,4 € 19 EXTERNAL RELATIONS 3.810,8 € 3,7% 3.325,2 € 2.638,1 € 20 TRADE 77,8 € 0,1% 76,5 € 67,2 € 21 DEVELOPMENT AND RELATIONS WITH AFRICAN, CAR 1.316,1 € 1,3% 1.169,1 € 1.037,4 € 22 ENLARGEMENT 2.149,9 € 2,1% 1.930,2 € 1.810,2 € 23 HUMANITARIAN AID 515,7 € 0,5% 510,7 € 533,0 € 24 FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD 58,7 € 0,1% 53,7 € 41,7 € 25 COMMISSION’S POLICY COORDINATION AND LEGAL 205,2 € 0,2% 204,2 € 170,6 € 26 ADMINISTRATION 650,2 € 0,6% 672,6 € 573,0 € 27 BUDGET 1.385,4 € 1,3% 1.477,7 € 60,1 € 28 AUDIT 10,3 € 0,0% 9,6 € 9,3 € 29 STATISTICS 127,1 € 0,1% 116,2 € 106,2 € 30 PENSIONS 915,0 € 0,9% 836,7 € 755,2 € 31 RESERVES 325,7 € 0,3% 459,0 € 0,0 € Totals 103.944,7 € 100,0% 99.531,9 € 86.855,5 €
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 3 05 Agriculture and Rural Development in million €
Title Heading 2005 in % 2004 2003 05 01 Administrative expenditures of policy area "Agriculture" 151,7 € 0,3% 142,80 € 123,16 € 05 02 Plant Products 29.134,6 € 55,5% 26.830,40 € 26.325,68 € 05 03 Animal Products 13.683,8 € 26,1% 11.829,50 € 13.461,14 € 05 04 Rural development 9.194,1 € 17,5% 8.905,41 € 7.141,31 € 05 05 SAPARD 577,5 € 1,1% 400,00 € 263,38 € 05 06 External relations 5,3 € 0,0% 5,80 € 4,67 € 05 07 Audit of agricultul expenditures -362,8 € -0,7% -446,28 € -394,94 € 05 08 Coordination 102,4 € 0,2% 74,78 € 50,84 € Administrative expenditures of programmes made in 05 09 accordance with formal financial regulations 0,0% 0,94 € 1,78 €
05 Total 52.486,56 € 100,0% 47.743,35 € 46.977,01 € Table 4 05 Summary of the 2005 EU Agriculture Budget in million €
05 Agriculture and Rural Development 52.486,56 € 05 = 100%
05 02 Plant Products 05 03 Animal Products 05 04 Rural Development 05 Other 29.134,62 € 55,51% 13.683,78 € 26,07% 9.194,07 € 17,52% 474,54 € 0,90%
05 02 01 Market measures on cereals 05 03 01 Milk and milk products 05 04 01 RD in the EAGGF Guar. 05 01 Administration
395,00 € 0,75% 3.804,46 € 7,25% 4.910,00 € 9,35% 151,71 € 0,29%
05 02 02 Rice 05 03 02 Beef and veal 05 04 02 RD in the EAGGF Guid. 05 05 SAPARD 469,00 € 0,89% 7.887,85 € 15,03% 2.896,45 € 5,52% 577,50 € 1,10%
05 02 03 Direct payments for arable 05 03 03 Sheepmeat and goatmeat 05 04 03 Other 05 06 External relations crops 16.972,33 € 32,34% 1.794,47 € 3,42% 18,22 € 0,03% 5,72 € 0,01%
05 02 04 Food programmes 05 03 04 Pigmeat, eggs and poultry, 05 04 04 Transitional Instrument for 05 07 Audit of agricultural bee-keeping & other the new Member States expenditures 223,00 € 0,42% 197,00 € 0,38% 1.369,40 € 2,61% -362,79 € -0,69%
05 02 05 Sugar and monetary 05 08 Coordination 1.770,08 € 3,37% 102,40 € 0,20%
05 02 06 Olive oil 2.296,72 € 4,38%
05 02 07 Textile plants 912,85 € 1,74%
05 02 08 Fruits and vegetables 1.813,97 € 3,46%
05 02 09 Wine 1.227,84 € 2,34%
05 02 10 Tobacco 928,83 € 1,77%
05 02 11 Other plant products 737,00 € 1,40%
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 5 05 04 Rural Development 2005 in million €
05 04 Rural Development 9.194,07 € 05 04 = 100%
05 04 01 EAGGF Guarantee 05 04 02 EAGGF Guidance 05 04 04 Transitional 05 04 03 Other Section Section Instrument for the new MS 4.910,00 € 53,40% 2.896,45 € 31,50% 1.369,40 € 14,89% 18,22 € 0,20%
01 Investments in agricultural 01 Objective 1 regions 01 Forestry (outside the holdings EAGGF) 247,00 € 2,69% 2.571,40 € 27,97% 16,97 € 0,18%
02 Setting-up of young farmers 02 Special programs Northern 02 Plant and animal genetic Ireland resources 134,00 € 1,46% 9,67 € 0,11% 1,25 € 0,01%
03 Training 03 Completion of earlier programs in Objectives 1 and 6 36,00 € 0,39% 60,00 € 0,65%
04 Early retirement — old 04 Completion of earlier programs in Objectives 5b 113,00 € 1,23% 10,83 € 0,12%
05 Early retirement — new 05 Completion of earlier programs outside of Objectives 1 120,00 € 1,31% 30,00 € 0,33%
06 Lessfavoured areas 06 LEADER 843,00 € 9,17% 196,45 € 2,14%
07 Agrienvironment — old 07 Completion of earlier programmes 87,00 € 0,95% 18,00 € 0,20%
08 Agrienvironment — new 1.981,00 € 21,55%
09 Improving the processing and marketing 195,00 € 2,12%
10 Forestry — Former system 104,00 € 1,13%
11 Forestry — New system 372,00 € 4,05%
12 Promotion 631,00 € 6,86%
13 Other 47,00 € 0,51% © Euronatur September 2005 Part 2
Contents
Table 6 Agricultural expenditures of EU15 in 2003
Table 7 Share of Rural Development in all agriculture expenditures in 2003 (EU15)
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Table 8 Share of Investments in agricultural holdings B1-400
Table 9 Share of Setting-up of young farmers B1-401
Table 10 Share of Training B1-402
Table 11 Share of Early retirement B1-403
Table 12 Share of Less-favoured areas B1-404
Table 13 Share of Agrienvironment B1-405
Table 14 Share of Improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products B1-406
Table 15 Share of Forestry B1-407
Table 16 Share of Rural development B1-408
Annex
Table 17 B 1 - EAGGF Expenditure by Member States (EU15) 1988 - 2003
Table 18 All Direct Payments by farm size per member state (Implementation 1999)
Table 19 Direct payments in Germany
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 6 Agricultural expenditures of EU15 in 2003 in million €
State EAGGF Guarantee in % EAGGF Guidance in % Total in % Denmark 1.220,10 € 2,7% 1,04 € 0,0% 1.221,14 € 2,6% Belgium 1.017,00 € 2,3% 16,05 € 0,6% 1.033,05 € 2,2% UK 3.971,40 € 8,9% 37,00 € 1,4% 4.008,40 € 8,5% Netherlands 1.359,70 € 3,1% 4,20 € 0,2% 1.363,90 € 2,9% France 10.419,10 € 23,4% 102,36 € 3,9% 10.521,46 € 22,4% EU (15) 44.461,20 € 100,0% 2.612,67 € 100,0% 47.073,87 € 100,0% Greece 2.757,10 € 6,2% 136,28 € 5,2% 2.893,38 € 6,1% Spain 6.459,10 € 14,5% + 810,06 € 31,0% 7.269,16 € 15,4% Ireland 1.945,20 € 4,4% 16,61 € 0,6% 1.961,81 € 4,2% Italy 5.372,70 € 12,1% 577,80 € 22,1% 5.950,50 € 12,6% Germany 5.843,30 € 13,1% 545,41 € 20,9% 6.388,71 € 13,6% Sweden 865,60 € 1,9% 22,24 € 0,9% 887,84 € 1,9% Luxemburg 43,30 € 0,1% 0,10 € 0,0% 43,40 € 0,1% Finland 874,40 € 2,0% 23,43 € 0,9% 897,83 € 1,9% Austria 1.124,50 € 2,5% 25,93 € 1,0% 1.150,43 € 2,4% Portugal 849,50 € 1,9% 294,15 € 11,3% 1.143,65 € 2,4%
Sources: Guarantee section: C 105 / 2004
Guidance section: Agriculture in the European Union - Statistical and economic information 2004 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/agrista/2004/table_en/index.htm); NOTE: France (102,36 Mio €) was not included in the total sum of 2003. Error of the commission.
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 7 Share of Rural Development on all agriculture expenditures in 2003 (EU15) in million €
Agricultural EAGGF expenditures Guarantee (B EAGGF Total Rural (total) 1 - 4) Guidance Development in % Denmark 1.221,14 € 46,40 € 1,04 € 47,44 € 3,9% UK 4.008,40 € 151,70 € 37,00 € 188,70 € 4,7% Netherlands 1.363,90 € 69,40 € 4,20 € 73,60 € 5,4% Belgium 1.033,05 € 46,20 € 16,05 € 62,25 € 6,0% France 10.521,46 € 832,30 € 102,36 € 934,66 € 8,9% Greece 2.893,38 € 136,40 € 136,28 € 272,68 € 9,4% EU15 47.073,87 € 4.706,00 € 2.612,67 € 7.318,67 € 15,5% Spain 7.269,16 € 496,90 € 810,06 € 1.306,96 € 18,0% Ireland 1.961,81 € 341,00 € 16,61 € 357,61 € 18,2% Italy 5.950,50 € 655,70 € 577,80 € 1.233,50 € 20,7% Germany 6.388,71 € 799,10 € 545,41 € 1.344,51 € 21,0% Sweden 887,84 € 165,80 € 22,24 € 188,04 € 21,2% Luxemburg 43,40 € 16,80 € 0,10 € 16,90 € 38,9% Portugal 1.143,65 € 153,10 € 294,15 € 447,25 € 39,1% Finland 897,83 € 337,00 € 23,43 € 360,43 € 40,1% Austria 1.150,43 € 458,10 € 25,93 € 484,03 € 42,1% Annex Table 8 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Investments in agricultural holdings B1-400, in million €* reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 4 - 7
Investments in B 1 - 4 Rural agricultural % Development holdings Greece 136,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Ireland 341,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Portugal 153,10 € 0,00 € 0,00% Denmark 46,40 € 0,20 € 0,43% Finland 337,00 € 2,10 € 0,62% Netherlands 69,40 € 0,70 € 1,01% UK 151,70 € 1,70 € 1,12% Sweden 165,80 € 2,80 € 1,69% Austria 458,10 € 16,90 € 3,69% Spain 496,90 € 21,30 € 4,29% EU15 4.706,00 € 220,12 € 4,68% Germany 799,10 € 40,70 € 5,09% France 832,30 € 55,20 € 6,63% Italy 655,70 € 64,00 € 9,76% Belgium 46,20 €8,20 €17,75% Luxemburg 16,80 € 6,30 € 37,50%
*= Note in Objective 1 regions the investments are paid from structural funds (= EAGGF Guidance)
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 9 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Setting-up of young farmers B1-401, in million €* reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 8
B 1 - 4 Rural Setting-up of % development young farmers Finland 337,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Greece 136,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Ireland 341,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Netherlands 69,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Portugal 153,10 € 0,00 € 0,00% UK 151,70 € 0,00 € 0,00% Germany 799,10 € 0,70 € 0,09% Sweden 165,80 € 0,70 € 0,42% Austria 458,10 € 6,50 € 1,42% Spain 496,90 € 9,00 € 1,81% EU15 4.706,00 € 104,15 € 2,21% Luxemburg 16,80 € 0,60 € 3,57% Denmark 46,40 € 2,20 € 4,74% France 832,30 € 41,70 € 5,01% Italy 655,70 € 38,80 € 5,92% Belgium 46,20 € 3,80 € 8,23%
*= Attention: in Objectives 1 regions the investments are paid from structural funds (= EA
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 10 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Training B1-402, in million €* reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 9
B 1 - 4 Rural Traing % Development Greece 136,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Ireland 341,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Luxemburg 16,80 € 0,00 € 0,00% Portugal 153,10 € 0,00 € 0,00% Germany 799,10 € 0,60 € 0,08% Spain 496,90 € 0,80 € 0,16% France 832,30 € 2,90 € 0,35% Finland 337,00 € 1,20 € 0,36% Denmark 46,40 € 0,20 € 0,43% EU15 4.706,00 € 21,30 € 0,45% Italy 655,70 € 3,00 € 0,46% Austria 458,10 € 3,60 € 0,79% UK 151,70 € 1,40 € 0,92% Netherlands 69,40 € 0,80 € 1,15% Sweden 165,80 € 5,10 € 3,08% Belgium 46,20 € 1,60 € 3,46%
*= Attention: in Objectives 1 regions the investments are paid from structural funds (= EAGGF Guidance) © Euronatur September 2005 Table 11 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Early Retirement B1-403, in million € reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 10 - 12
B 1 - 4 Rural Early % Development Retirement Austria 458,10 € 0,00 € 0,00% Luxemburg 16,80 € 0,00 € 0,00% Netherlands 69,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Sweden 165,80 € 0,00 € 0,00% UK 151,70 € 0,00 € 0,00% Germany 799,10 € 1,10 € 0,14% Italy 655,70 € 2,20 € 0,34% France 832,30 € 10,80 € 1,30% Denmark 46,40 € 0,70 € 1,51% Portugal 153,10 € 6,50 € 4,25% EU15 4.706,00 € 205,50 € 4,37% Belgium 46,20 €2,60 €5,63% Finland 337,00 € 19,90 € 5,91% Spain 496,90 € 44,30 € 8,92% Ireland 341,00 € 39,20 € 11,50% Greece 136,40 € 78,20 € 57,33%
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 12 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Less-favoured areas B1-404, in million € reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 13-21
B 1 - 4 Rural Less favoured % Development areas Belgium 46,20 €0,00 €0,00% Netherlan 69,40 € 0,10 € 0,14% Denmark 46,40 € 0,70 € 1,51% Italy 655,70 € 41,00 € 6,25% Sweden 165,80 € 15,50 € 9,35% Spain 496,90 € 78,40 € 15,78% Germany 799,10 € 130,30 € 16,31% Austria 458,10 € 87,10 € 19,01% EU15 4.706,00 € 991,70 € 21,07% Luxembur 16,80 € 3,80 € 22,62% UK 151,70 € 40,80 € 26,90% France 832,30 € 241,70 € 29,04% Greece 136,40 € 45,40 € 33,28% Portugal 153,10 € 52,70 € 34,42% Ireland 341,00 € 120,40 € 35,31% Finland 337,00 € 133,90 € 39,73%
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 13 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Agrienvironment B1-405, in million € reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 22-24
B 1 - 4 Rural Agrienvironment % Development Greece 136,40 € 7,00 € 5,13% Netherlands 69,40 € 9,10 € 13,11% Spain 496,90 € 125,30 € 25,22% France 832,30 € 227,50 € 27,33% Belgium 46,20 € 13,70 € 29,65% Luxemburg 16,80 € 5,90 € 35,12% Ireland 341,00 € 131,30 € 38,50% Denmark 46,40 € 18,20 € 39,22% EU15 4.706,00 € 2.011,60 € 42,75% UK 151,70 € 66,40 € 43,77% Portugal 153,10 € 67,40 € 44,02% Germany 799,10 € 385,70 € 48,27% Finland 337,00 € 166,00 € 49,26% Italy 655,70 € 336,90 € 51,38% Austria 458,10 € 311,50 € 68,00% Sweden 165,80 € 140,00 € 84,44%
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 14 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products B1-406, in million €* reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 25-28
Improving the processing and B 1 - 4 Rural marketing of % Development agricultural products Finland 337,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Greece 136,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Ireland 341,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Portugal 153,10 € 0,00 € 0,00% Netherlands 69,40 € 0,10 € 0,14% Sweden 165,80 € 1,10 € 0,66% Austria 458,10 € 7,30 € 1,59% Luxemburg 16,80 € 0,30 € 1,79% Denmark 46,40 € 1,20 € 2,59% Germany 799,10 € 25,40 € 3,18% UK 151,70 € 5,20 € 3,43% EU15 4.706,00 € 178,77 € 3,80% France 832,30 € 37,00 € 4,45% Italy 655,70 € 50,20 € 7,66% Belgium 46,20 €4,00 €8,66% Spain 496,90 € 47,00 € 9,46%
*= Note: in Objective 1 regions the investments are paid from structural funds (= EAGGF Guidance) © Euronatur September 2005 Table 15 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Forestry B1-407, in million €* reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 30-32
B 1 - 4 Rural Forestry % Development Finland 337,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Greece 136,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Luxemburg 16,80 € 0,00 € 0,00% Sweden 165,80 € 0,00 € 0,00% Austria 458,10 € 0,40 € 0,09% France 832,30 € 1,40 € 0,17% Netherland 69,40 € 0,30 € 0,43% Belgium 46,20 €0,20 €0,43% Germany 799,10 € 4,20 € 0,53% Italy 655,70 € 10,30 € 1,57% EU15 4.706,00 € 110,70 € 2,35% Portugal 153,10 € 3,90 € 2,55% Denmark 46,40 € 1,90 € 4,09% Spain 496,90 € 25,10 € 5,05% UK 151,70 € 12,90 € 8,50% Ireland 341,00 € 50,10 € 14,69%
*= Note: in Objective 1 regions the investments are paid from structural funds (= EAGGF Guidance)
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 16 B 1 - 4 Rural Development Implementation 2003, Share of Rural Development B1-408, in million €* reference: EU-regulation 1257/ 99, article 33
B 1 - 4 Rural Rural development % Development Greece 136,40 € 0,00 € 0,00% Ireland 341,00 € 0,00 € 0,00% Luxemburg 16,80 € 0,00 € 0,00% Portugal 153,10 € 0,00 € 0,00% Sweden 165,80 € 1,60 € 0,97% Finland 337,00 € 8,70 € 2,58% Austria 458,10 € 16,10 € 3,51% Belgium 46,20 €2,70 €5,84% Denmark 46,40 € 3,30 € 7,11% Italy 655,70 € 47,60 € 7,26% UK 151,70 € 11,20 € 7,38% EU15 4.706,00 € 517,90 € 11,01% France 832,30 € 100,20 € 12,04% Spain 496,90 € 79,00 € 15,90% Germany 799,10 € 190,40 € 23,83% Netherlands 69,40 € 57,10 € 82,28%
*= Note: in Objective 1 regions the investments are paid from structural funds (= EAGGF Guidance)
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 17 B 1 - EAGGF Expenditure by Member States Budget implementation B 1 - EAGGF Guarantee section in million €
Year B DK D GR E F IRL I NL A P SF S GB EU (15, incl. L)
1988 721,50 1.212,40 4.904,40 1.318,80 1.887,20 6.209,70 1.081,30 4.349,70 3.831,50 0,00 157,20 0,00 0,00 1.992,80 27.687,30 in % total 2,61% 4,38% 17,71% 4,76% 6,82% 22,43% 3,91% 15,71% 13,84% 0,00% 0,57% 0,00% 0,00% 7,20% 100,00%
1989 585,80 1.015,10 4.188,70 1.650,90 1.903,20 4.810,50 1.241,20 4.621,80 3.749,90 0,00 174,40 0,00 0,00 1.917,00 25.872,90 in % total 2,26% 3,92% 16,19% 6,38% 7,36% 18,59% 4,80% 17,86% 14,49% 0,00% 0,67% 0,00% 0,00% 7,41% 100,00%
1990 873,70 1.113,70 4.355,20 1.949,70 2.120,80 5.142,20 1.668,40 4.150,30 2.868,70 0,00 214,20 0,00 0,00 1.975,90 26.453,50 in % total 3,30% 4,21% 16,46% 7,37% 8,02% 19,44% 6,31% 15,69% 10,84% 0,00% 0,81% 0,00% 0,00% 7,47% 100,00%
1991 1.468,50 1.220,30 5.234,50 2.211,20 3.314,30 6.394,40 1.731,10 5.353,40 2.679,30 0,00 315,60 0,00 0,00 2.391,30 32.385,90 in % total 4,53% 3,77% 16,16% 6,83% 10,23% 19,74% 5,35% 16,53% 8,27% 0,00% 0,97% 0,00% 0,00% 7,38% 100,00%
1992 1.379,80 1.174,40 4.593,50 2.231,70 3.567,70 6.858,60 1.350,00 5.139,30 2.178,70 0,00 423,50 0,00 0,00 2.314,00 31.234,30 in % total 4,42% 3,76% 14,71% 7,15% 11,42% 21,96% 4,32% 16,45% 6,98% 0,00% 1,36% 0,00% 0,00% 7,41% 100,00%
1993 1.298,80 1.332,30 4.862,00 2.718,50 4.188,20 8.167,70 1.606,40 4.773,30 2.299,40 0,00 479,10 0,00 0,00 2.679,00 34.423,30 in % total 3,77% 3,87% 14,12% 7,90% 12,17% 23,73% 4,67% 13,87% 6,68% 0,00% 1,39% 0,00% 0,00% 7,78% 100,00%
1994 1.174,40 1.287,90 5.271,60 2.723,50 4.426,90 8.048,80 1.527,10 3.481,40 1.935,90 0,00 713,30 0,00 0,00 3.001,90 33.605,40 in % total 3,49% 3,83% 15,69% 8,10% 13,17% 23,95% 4,54% 10,36% 5,76% 0,00% 2,12% 0,00% 0,00% 8,93% 100,00%
1995 1.623,40 1.403,60 5.385,10 2.425,50 4.575,00 8.423,30 1.419,70 3.390,70 1.944,60 87,50 708,10 63,30 76,50 2.955,90 34.497,70 in % total 4,71% 4,07% 15,61% 7,03% 13,26% 24,42% 4,12% 9,83% 5,64% 0,25% 2,05% 0,18% 0,22% 8,57% 100,00%
1996 1.152,70 1.358,40 6.050,40 2.801,70 4.054,60 9.572,10 1.700,10 4.231,10 1.536,20 1.214,20 646,00 649,30 624,10 3.470,10 39.080,90 in % total 2,95% 3,48% 15,48% 7,17% 10,37% 24,49% 4,35% 10,83% 3,93% 3,11% 1,65% 1,66% 1,60% 8,88% 100,00%
Year B DK D GR E F IRL I NL A P SF S GB EU (15, incl. L)
1997 983,40 1.235,70 5.778,40 2.730,80 4.605,60 9.149,00 3.024,00 5.090,80 1.757,30 861,30 656,90 570,60 747,60 4.399,70 40.623,20 in % total 2,42% 3,04% 14,22% 6,72% 11,34% 22,52% 7,44% 12,53% 4,33% 2,12% 1,62% 1,40% 1,84% 10,83% 100,00%
1998 859,70 1.155,00 5.556,70 2.557,40 5.304,60 9.014,30 1.633,70 4.183,20 1.374,70 843,20 639,60 576,40 770,90 4.322,60 38.810,00 in % total 2,22% 2,98% 14,32% 6,59% 13,67% 23,23% 4,21% 10,78% 3,54% 2,17% 1,65% 1,49% 1,99% 11,14% 100,00%
1999 1.004,00 1.258,30 5.793,80 2.573,30 5.243,00 9.445,90 1.723,50 4.675,10 1.301,50 844,40 653,90 560,00 734,80 3.933,70 39.780,30 in % total 2,52% 3,16% 14,56% 6,47% 13,18% 23,75% 4,33% 11,75% 3,27% 2,12% 1,64% 1,41% 1,85% 9,89% 100,00%
2000 957,30 1.309,10 5.674,90 2.598,20 5.484,40 9.005,80 1.681,30 5.042,70 1.441,90 1.018,70 652,70 727,80 798,10 4.061,60 40.505,90 in % total 2,36% 3,23% 14,01% 6,41% 13,54% 22,23% 4,15% 12,45% 3,56% 2,51% 1,61% 1,80% 1,97% 10,03% 100,00%
2001 938,60 1.114,20 5.880,10 2.616,60 6.193,70 9.248,00 1.599,40 5.347,90 1.155,50 1.054,70 881,60 816,10 780,30 4.380,30 42.083,30 in % total 2,23% 2,65% 13,97% 6,22% 14,72% 21,98% 3,80% 12,71% 2,75% 2,51% 2,09% 1,94% 1,85% 10,41% 100,00%
2002 942,10 1.221,00 6.784,30 2.633,80 5.933,00 9.752,10 1.709,20 5.671,90 1.132,70 1.090,10 753,70 837,70 816,80 3.642,50 43.214,30 in % total 2,18% 2,83% 15,70% 6,09% 13,73% 22,57% 3,96% 13,13% 2,62% 2,52% 1,74% 1,94% 1,89% 8,43% 100,00%
2003 1.017,00 1.220,10 5.843,30 2.757,10 6.459,10 10.419,10 1.945,20 5.372,70 1.359,70 1.124,50 849,50 874,40 865,60 3.971,40 44.461,20 in % total 2,29% 2,74% 13,14% 6,20% 14,53% 23,43% 4,38% 12,08% 3,06% 2,53% 1,91% 1,97% 1,95% 8,93% 100,00%
Source: Research by EURONATUR, various annual reports by the European Court of Auditors, and various issues of "The Agricultural Situation in the Community" (1993 report) Quelle 2000 - 2002: Anhang 11 Eu-HH-Plan 2003 © Euronatur September 2005 Table 18 B1 - All Direct Payments Implementation 1999
To the holdings receiving .... in direct payments 0 - 1,250 € 1,250 - 5,000 €5,000 - 10,000 € 10,000 - 50,000 € 50,000-300,000 € over 300,000 € holdings holdings holdings holdings holdings holdings payments payments payments payments payments payments ... % of all ... % of all ... % of all ... % of all ... % of all ... % of all they receive they receive they receive they receive they receive they receive all all all all all all belong ...... % of belong ...... % of belong ...... % of belong ...... % of belong ...... % of belong ...... % of A 44,6% 8,4% 37,8% 32,3% 11,3% 25,5% 6,1% 30,8% 0,1% 3,0% 0,00% 0,74% B 20,5% 2,4% 43,2% 22,6% 20,6% 24,8% 15,0% 47,2% 0,2% 3,0% 0,00% 0,00% D 24,3% 1,5% 37,4% 11,4% 16,6% 12,1% 19,5% 36,4% 1,9% 21,0% 0,35% 17,95% DK 12,2% 0,8% 31,5% 8,7% 22,0% 14,9% 32,2% 61,1% 2,0% 14,2% 0,00% 0,38% E 54,6% 5,8% 26,9% 18,4% 9,1% 16,7% 8,6% 40,7% 0,7% 16,7% 0,04% 1,81% EU (14) 53,8% 4,3% 24,8% 13,4% 9,2% 13,0% 10,9% 43,8% 2,2% 21,2% 0,00% 4,24% F 36,5% 1,0% 19,7% 6,1% 13,2% 10,1% 27,7% 61,9% 2,9% 20,9% 0,00% 0,10% FIN 28,0% 5,2% 49,2% 36,2% 15,6% 29,2% 7,1% 29,1% 0,0% 0,4% 0,00% 0,00% I 73,0% 16,1% 19,6% 27,1% 4,3% 16,5% 2,9% 29,4% 0,2% 9,5% 0,00% 1,36% IRL 35,9% 3,0% 34,1% 21,1% 17,4% 26,4% 12,2% 44,7% 0,5% 4,7% 0,00% 0,22% L 13,2% 1,1% 33,3% 14,5% 30,5% 29,5% 23,0% 53,0% 0,5% 1,9% 0,00% 0,00% NL 41,7% 9,9% 49,4% 53,0% 5,6% 14,9% 3,2% 20,1% 0,1% 1,8% 0,00% 0,03% P 83,8% 18,6% 12,1% 19,1% 1,8% 8,1% 1,9% 27,0% 0,4% 25,7% 0,00% 1,50% S 24,7% 1,8% 35,0% 12,6% 17,9% 16,1% 20,7% 52,0% 1,7% 17,0% 0,00% 0,52% UK 24,8% 0,7% 22,3% 3,3% 13,3% 4,9% 29,1% 36,1% 10,2% 49,6% 0,23% 5,46%
Source: EU Commission DG Agri, MEMO/02/198 of 1.10.02
Note: as part of their the Mid-Term Review the Commission has proposed to 'modulate' payments above a threshold of 5,000 €, i.e. to cut payments above this level by 3% annually (until a total cut of 20% has been achieved). The aim is to make these funds available for rural development measures. The majority of farmers - as can be seen from the table - would not be effected by such a rule.
© Euronatur September 2005 Table 19 Direct payments in Germany Implementation in 1999
Holdings Payments (million €) Holdings Payments total in % total in % total in % in % up to 1,250 € 87.940 18710,64% 53,51 € 15,39% 124.440 34,35% 3,10% 1,250 - 2,000 € 36.500 7765,96% 58,74 € 16,90% 2,000 - 5,000 € 99.010 21065,96% 344,17 € 98,99% 159.140 43,93% 21,62% 5,000 - 10,000 € 60.130 12793,62% 437,64 € 125,87% 10,000 - 20,000 € 48.600 10340,43% 677,44 € 194,84% 70.670 19,51% 36,37% 20,000 - 50,000 € 22.070 4695,74% 637,50 € 183,36% 50,000 - 100,000 € 3.900 829,79% 267,04 € 76,81% 5.850 1,61% 15,03% 100,000 - 200,000 € 1.950 414,89% 276,42 € 79,50% 200,000 - 300,000 € 870 185,11% 214,57 € 61,71% 300,000 - 500,000 € 790 168,09% 301,03 € 86,58% 2.130 0,59% 23,88% over 500,000 € 470 100,00% 347,68 € 100,00% Total 362.230 77070,21% 3.615,74 € 1039,96% 362.230 100,00% 100,00%
78.5% of all holdings in Germany receive less than 10,000 € in direct payments; taken together they receive 24.7% of all payments. 2.2% of all holdings in Germany receive more than 50,000 € in direct payments; taken together they receive almost 40% of all payments.
Source: EU Commission DG Agri, MEMO/02/198 of 1.10.02
© Euronatur September 2005