Commission of the European Communities environment and. quality of life Agriculture and environment: Management agreements in four countries of the European Communities Report EUR 10783 EN-FA Commission of the European Communities li li Agriculture and environment: Management agreements in four countries of the European Communities Institute for European Environmental Policy 3, Endsleight Sheet London WC 1 H ODD United Kingdom Edited by: Commission of the European Communities 200, rue de Ia Loi Brussels Belgium Contract No BSB-6600-026-11-N Directorate-General Environment, Consumer Protection and Nuclear Safety 1986 EUR 10783 EN-FA Published by the COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Directorate-General Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation Batiment Jean Monnet LUXEMBOURG LEGAL NOTICE Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1987 ISBN 92-825-6914-4 Catalogue number: CD-NA-1 0783-2A-C © ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels • Luxembourg, 1987 Printed in Belgium FOREWORD This report on management agreements and similar measures in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and the UK was commissioned from the Institute for European Environmental Policy by DG XI, the Directorate-General for the Environment, Consumer Protection and Nuclear Safety. Both DG XI and DG VI, the Directorate-General of Agriculture were involved in guiding the project and assisting the study team with certain information. The Introduction and Summary Report, which form the first part of this volume, were prepared by David Baldock of IEEP' s London office. The Summary Report draws on four national reports presented here as annexes 1-4: a) for France, prepared by Thierry Lavoux of IEEP's Paris office (in French) b) for the Federal Republic of Germany, prepared by Professor Dr Ernst von Weizsaecker, Director of IEEP, and Professor H. Priebe and Dr H. von Meyer from the Institut fur Landliche Strukturforschung, Frankfurt c) for the Netherlands, prepared by Graham Bennett of IEEP d) for the UK, prepared by David Baldock of IEEP. In the last few years there has been a rapid growth of interest in policies designed to encourage farmers to manage holdings so as to meet environmental criteria and respect nature and landscape conservation objectives. At a Community level, this interest was heightened by the publication in July 1985 of the Commission's "Green Paper", "Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy .. which pointed out the value of Community support for measures to encourage environmentally sensitive farming. This report is intended to provide an overall view of the measures which four member states have taken in this direction, with a specific focus on management agreements, and to suggest possible lines of action at a Community level. The report was prepared during the first nine months of 1985 and, with the exception of some up-dating in certain of the Annexes, it has not been revised to take account of subsequent events. * * * This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission of the European Communities and in no way commits the Commission as to its future position in this field. June 1986 - Ill - TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary •• . • . • • VII Chapter 1 Introduction............................................. 1 Chapter 2 Summary Report........................................... 13 * * * Annex 1 Management Agreements in France ............................ 45 Annex 2 Management Agreements in the Federal Republic of Germany ........................................... 133 Annex 3 Management Agreements in the Netherlands -................ 151 Annex 4 Management Agreements in the United Kingdom ., .............. 185 - v - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. This report is the result of a study of policy measures designed to encourage farmers to undertake activities and manage their farms in such a way as to meet nature and landscape conser­ vation aims. The particular focus of the study is the use of "management agreements" and similar measures in four EC countries - France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 2. The study was carried out in 1985 by staff of the Institute for European Environmental Policy based in each of the four prin­ cipal countries concerned. Help was received from ministry officials, agricultural and conservation organisations, academic experts, voluntary bodies and others. A major contribution to the German national report was made by Professor H Priebe and Dr H von Meyer from the Institut f6r L!ndliche Strukturforschung at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universit!t - Frankfurt. 3. Each country is covered by a separate national report, pres­ ented as Annexes 1-4. Annex 1, which covers France, is in French, the remainder of the report is in English. The main report provides an introduction, an overview of the national schemes, a discussion of implementation and a final section on possible measures to be taken at EC level. 4. In the Introduction, the background to the development of recent policies concerning habitat and landscape conservation is explained. The rapid decline in numbers of certain wildlife species and their habitats, as well a major landscape changes, have been caused in part by modern agricultural practices, especially intensification and land improvements. Highly spec­ ific forms of management are required to conserve specific sites, and the use of incentives has proved a useful policy tool on a wide range of habitats in the four countries, but particularly grassland. 5. The use of management agreements and similar measures is a relatively recent phenomenon, having grown rapidly since 1980, especially in FRG and the UK. A similar approach is used on a substantial scale in Denmark, but otherwise rather little in the EC outside the four main countries. 6. Different schemes of management agreements vary consid­ erably, but most are used only in designated areas, usually on a small scale. The principal objectives seem to be to restrict certain activities, often in return for some form of compen­ sation, to aid the continuation of traditional practices and to encourage farmers to undertake additional or novel activities which have positive conservation benefits. 7. Most schemes involve the use of cash payments, but other incentives are also used. Payments vary greatly, but perhaps are most consistent in FRG at around DM 300 - DM 500 per hectare. - VII - 8. Four main types of agreement are distinguished. A Agreements between landowners and farming tenants, B Maintenance agreements, normally relating to specific landscape features, C Management agreements applying to specific habitat types and regions of limited size, D Full national schemes, operating in the Netherlands and UK, but not the other two countries. 9. Most management agreement schemes are voluntary and although it is rather early to make an assessment, they do seem to have won acceptance as a useful tool to be used with care and in appropriate circumstances. The impact on agricultural production has probably been small because fairly limited areas have been affected. 10. Not surprisingly, a number of difficulties and contentious issues have emerged in the course of implementing new schemes. These range from problems of excessive complexity and laborious administrative procedures on the one hand, to the dangers of concentrating too many resources on very small areas on the other hand. .Many of the administrative difficulties can be solved by adopting a simpler approach, using standard payments for example. Amongst the more contentious issue is the question of whether or not agreements should be voluntary and the debate about how payments for farmers should be calculated. At present, most schemes are voluntary, but· practice over payments varies substan­ tially. 11. The possibilities of a Community scheme are discussed and some of the difficulties anticipated. The best way forward might be the introduction of a flexible scheme negotiated at the national or regional level, but within a broad EC framework. - VIII - CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Scope and structure of the study The principal objective of this study is to review the measures being taken in EC member states to encourage farming practices which meet wildlife and landscape conservation aims and specifi­ cally to examine the use of "management agreements" in four member states - France, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the Netherlands and the UK. On the basis of this analysis recom­ mendations are made about possible initiatives at the Community level. For each country, there is some description of the general approach towards the regulation of agriculture for wildlife and landscape purposes and a more detailed description of individual schemes. In the case of FRG, individual Laender are treated seperately as they are the relevant level of government. The report is divided into five main sections. The first section contains an introductory chapter and an overview chapter summarising the four national studies, drawing attention to certain comparisons and contrasts, discussing the achievements of implementation and the prob­ lems encountered, and ending with recommendations about pos­ sible Community initiatives. This section is self contained and is designed to