Environmentally Friendly Agriculture
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notice Environmentally Friendly Agriculture Success Stories of Agri-environment Measures of Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007―2013 Dear Reader Publisher: This is a new publication of success stories of Estonian Rural Development Plan issued by Estonian National Rural Economy Research Centre www.maainfo.ee Rural Network Support Unit. Previous publications include “Notice the Innovative Agriculture”, “Notice LEADER” and a number of other publications of LEADER success stories. Texts: Helen Külvik and Triin Nõu / NGO Loodusajakiri The publication gives an overview of the measures implemented within the framework of agri―environment Agricultural Research Centre support scheme in 2007―2013. You can gain an insight into eleven success stories presenting reasons for Ministry of Rural Affairs agricultural producers to pursue environmentally friendly agriculture or organic farming and the impact of agri-environment support of the Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007―2013 (ERDP) on the application of Editors: these measures. Ester Valdvee and Reve Lambur The area under environmentally friendly management was approximately 400 000 ha and the area under Translators: organic farming over 126 000 ha supported from agri-environment support measures of the RDP. Supports Anneli Saluste and Helen Külvik (success stories) have contributed to the preservation of endangered breeds and species and Natura 2000 areas, as well as to the maintenance of semi-natural habitats and the restoration of stonewalls. Design: Koidu Pilve / Pinnamuster LLC In addition to success stories, the description, objectives and information of measures for the period 2014―2020 have been provided. Print: Ecoprint AS Agri-environment support measures can briefly be described by five key words: • biodiversity ISBN 978-9949-9871-2-2 (publication) • soil protection ISBN 978-9949-9871-3-9 (pdf) • water protection • endangered species © Rural Economy Research Centre 2017 Jäneda • landscapes The publication has received support from the Estonian Each story can be expanded to at least three key words because the pursued environmentally friendly activ- Rural Development Plan 2014―2020 through the technical ities are meeting several objectives at a time. assistance resources allocated to activities of the Estonian Rural Network Unit The Estonian National Rural Network Support Unit is grateful to the Estonian Agricultural Research Centre for compiling the texts of the agri-environment measures, as well as the Estonian Ministry of Rural Affairs for the overview of the implementation of the agri-environment support scheme. ISBN 978-9949-9871-2-2 Rural and Innovation Network Bureau of the Rural Economy Research Centre 9 7 8 9 9 4 9 9 8 7 1 2 2 1 Introduction 1 Contents 2 ERDP 2007―2013 Axis 2 ― Supporting Environmentally Friendly Agriculture 3 MEASURE (code 214) ― In Fact, the Farming Practices of our Ancestors Were Environmentally Friendly 6 ERDP 2007-2013 Axis 2 - Parduse Farm: Just the Right Size 8 At Pajusi, Both Environment and the Community are Held Important 10 Supporting Environmentally MEASURE (code 214) ― Centuries of Energy Accumulated in ‘Sangaste’ Rye 12 Friendly Agriculture MEASURE (code 214) ― Genetic Diversity in Agriculture 13 The Sepa Farm is Counting on the Dairy Plant 14 Kaarli Farm in the Swirl of Turning Points 16 Food production as any other type of activity has a certain impact on the environment which can be either good or bad. Very intensive management MEASURE (code 214) ― Semi-natural Habitats Protect us and Give us a Warning 18 methods are too capital-using whereas not managing the land is not good for the nature. MEASURE (code 216) ― Stonewalls as a Piece of our Agri-culture 19 Different management methods and the diversity of landscapes are the pre- The Peculiar Kurese Farm 20 requisites for the preservation of biodiversity. How to achieve biodiversity when market prices favour monoculture production and it is cheaper to keep The Iisaka Farm, Paradise of Sheep 22 cattle in barns all year round? It can be said for certain that agri-environment measures will be implemented as long as they are in accordance with good MEASURE (code 215) ― Thanks to the Support Cows are Grazed on Pasture 24 agricultural practice and are not very costly. MEASURE (code 212) ― Maintenance of Lands in Less-Favoured Areas Contribute to the Preservation of the Countryside 25 Agri-environmental support schemes of the Rural Development Plan have been introduced for encouraging agricultural producers to apply more envi- Rural Entrepreneurship Keeps the Family Together 26 ronmentally friendly methods. Agri-environmental payments compensate fully or partly for income forgone or additional costs of environmentally friendly The Main Beef Cattle Farmers of Vormsi Care about the Nature 28 management. MEASURE (code 214) ― Organic Farming ― the Most Environmentally Friendly Production Method 30 A total of 942.84 million euros was paid from the funds of the second Estonian Rural Development Plan (ERDP) 2007―2013. The most significant share (37.5%) MEASURE (code 213) ― Pan-European Network Protects Endangered Species and Habitats 31 of the budget was paid for Axis 1 supports (improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector), almost the same proportion (36.75%) The Organic Boutique of Koplimäe 32 was paid for Axis 2 supports (improving the environment and the countryside). Payments for Axis 3 supports (quality of life in rural area and diversification) Peri Organic Manor is Growing some Special Vegetables 34 contributed to 12.32%, payments for Axis 4 (LEADER) supports to 9.03% and payments for technical assistance (Axis 5) to 4.39% of the budget. Breakdown The Story of Pajumäe Farm: from Roses to Yoghurt 36 of ERDP 2007―2013 funds between different axes is provided in figure 1. Colour it yourself! 38 2 3 Breakdown of RDP 2007―2013 Breakdown of RDP 2007―2013 Axis 2 Breakdown of RDP 2007―2013 agri-environment payments by axes payments by measures payments by submeasures € 41 407 073,29 € 310 338 € 18 422 953 € 27 377 485 € 85 163 075,13 € 62 729 637 € 3 049 309 € 114 240 € 126 071 216 € 25 180 194 € 353 574 315,69 € 3 664 875 € 116 159 178,92 € 5 000 633 € 231 839 854 € 74 612 038 € 346 532 915,97 Support for less-favoured areas Non-productive investments Environmentally friendly management Natura 2000 support for agri- Support for the establishment of Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5 Support for organic production cultural land protection forest Agri-environmental support Natura 2000 support for private Support for keeping animals of local endangered breeds forest land Figure 1. Breakdown of ERDP 2007—2013 payments by axes. Animal welfare support Support for growing plants of local varieties Support for the maintenance of semi-natural habitats The following measures were implemented within the framework Figure 2. Breakdown of RDP 2007—2013 Axis 2 of improving the environment and the countryside, i.e Axis 2: payments by measures. Figure 3. Breakdown of agri-environment payments by submeasures. 1. Support for less-favoured areas 2. Natura 2000 support for agricultural land 3. Measure 2.3 ― agri-environmental support 346.53 million euros paid within the framework of Axis 2 was divided • Submeasure 2.3.1 ― environmentally friendly management between the measures as follows: agri-environmental support con- • Submeasure 2.3.2 ― support for organic production tributed to 66.9% of total Axis 2 support, support for less-favoured The following pages will give an overview of the benefits gained with the support. • Submeasure 2.3.3 ― support for keeping animals of local areas to 18.10%, animal welfare to 7.27%, Natura 2000 support for endangered breeds private forest land to 5.32%, Natura 2000 support for agricultural Currently the new Rural Development Plan 2014―2020 is being implemented. Several new envi- • Submeasure 2.3.4 ― support for growing plants of local land to 1.44%, non-productive investments to 0.88% and support for ronmental supports have been introduced focusing on more specific environmental issues (region- varieties the establishment of protection forest on agricultural land to 0.09% al soil protection support, environmentally friendly horticulture support) or a specific region (re- • Submeasure 2.3.5 ― support for the maintenance of semi- of total Axis 2 support. Breakdown of Axis 2 support between meas- gional water protection support). All previously implemented support schemes ― environmentally natural habitat ures is provided in figure 2. friendly management, support for keeping animals of local endangered breeds and for growing 4. Measure 2.4 ― animal welfare: support for grazing animals plants of local varieties, support for the maintenance of semi-natural habitats, animal welfare 5. Measure 2.5 ― non-productive investments The budget of agri-environmental support (AES) scheme was divided support and support for organic production have been amended to be able to even better meet • Submeasure 2.5.1 ― support for the establishment and between submeasures as follows: 54.38% of the budget accounted the environmental objectives. Let’s take notice of the environmentally friendly agriculture! restoration of stonewalls for environmentally friendly management, 32.18% for organic pro- • Submeasure 2.5.2 ― support for the establishment of mixed duction, 11.81% for the maintenance of semi-natural habitats, 1.58% Sille Teiter, species hedgerows for keeping animals of local endangered breeds and 0.05% of the Chief Specialist of the Agri-Environment Bureau of the Ministry of Rural Affairs 6. Measure 2.6 ― support for the establishment of protection support scheme accounted for growing plants of local varieties. forest on agricultural land Breakdown of the agri-environment budget between submeasures 7. Measure 2.7 ― Natura 2000 support for private forest land is provided in figure 3. 4 5 In Numbers To date the EFM support has contributed to the largest share of contributed to better implementation of all EFM requirements. In Fact, the Farming Practices agri-environmental support scheme payments both in terms of the number of applicants and the area of land.