Dorota Metera
IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe
Rural Development Policy in the EU10
One Year of EU 25 – Nature Conservation Policy Experience Regarding the 2nd Pillar of the CAP
and Reform ProspectsBonn, 3-7 September 2005
Positive influences:
- ensuring incomes for populations in rural areas
- preventing migration of rural populations to cities and ensuring sustainable rural development
- preventing further land abandonment
- stimulating agri-environmental measures, especially organic farming
- increasing the significance of certification (organic agriculture and forestry) and agricultural animal welfare.
Potential effects of CAP in New EU MS
Negative influences:
- intensification of agricultural production due to land consolidation, early retirement and support for young farmers;
- increased income encouraging farmers to purchase fertilizers (leading to worse water quality) and machinery (leading to soil damage)
Source: Study on the impact ... (BfN Skripten 100, 2004)
Oportunities:
- RDP is providing instruments for compensatory payments for land owners or users of Natura 2000 sites,
- RDP is providing instruments for improoving environmental standards,
-Attractive packags and adequate administrative support for sufficient uptake of RDP measure (role of small farmers),
-The RDP are contributing to the sustainable development of Europe’s rural areas
Gaps and limitations of the Rural Development Plans of the CEE New Member States
Gaps and limitations:
- unsufficient stakeholders consultation on the planning of RDP and to little involvement of the civil society;
- mostly unlikely to be sufficient information for farmers about the possibilities and requirements of RDP measures, intensive promotion of direct payments,Source: Gaps and Limitations of the Rural Development Plans ..., IUCN, 2004)
Key features in selected countries of EU10
Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland
Average size of the farm (ha)
12 4 0,87 8
Number of farms
44 310 606 022 15 100 1 400 000
Total UAA (ha)
2 488 000 3 489 000 12 000 18 220 000
Different sources
Estonia
14%
18%
30%
6%
0%
22%
0%7%
2%
Latvia
9%
54%8%
0%
2%
18%
1%
1%
8%
Lithuania
20%
24%
10%4%
23%
13%
0%
1%5%
Poland
20%
27%
10%
3%
18%
7%
1%
1%
10%
Hungary
11%
41%
11%
23%
3%
0%
5%
5%
3%
Czech
45%
49%
1%0%
3%
0%1%
0%
1%
Slovakia
19%
47%
3%1%
5%
1%
1%
15%
0%
15%
30%
18%
3%
13%
9%
7%2%1% Shift-back to the 1st pillar
Less Favoured Areas
Agri-Environmental Prog.
Afforestation of farmland
Early retirement of framers
Meeting EU standards
Semi-subsistence farming
Setting up producer groups
Technical asistance
Rural Development Plan 2004-2006Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland
Rual Development Plan
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
country
mil
lio
n E
2004 123,38 133,4 0,00 1949,30
2005 137,50 145,7 0,00 2162,50
2006 149,25 155,1 0,00 2347,00
Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland
Rural Development Plan total sum planned for 2004-2006
per ha UAALatvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland
Rual Development Plan2004-2006
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland
country
Eu
ro/h
ecta
re U
AA
Distribution of Rural Development funds in EU 7
1%
2%
3%
7%
9%
13%
18%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Setting up producer groups
Technical asistance
Afforestation of farmland
Semi-subsistence farming
Meeting EU standards
Early retirement of framers
Agri-Environmental Prog.
Less Favoured Areas
Shift back from second pillar of CAP to the first pillar in EU 7
14%
9%
20%
20%
0%
0%
19%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Hungary
Czech
Slovakia
Total(CEE7)
Agri-environmental Programmes in EU 7
30%
8%
10%
10%
41%
49%
15%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Hungary
Czech
Slovakia
Total(CEE7)
Less favourite areas in EU 7
18%
54%
24%
27%
11%
45%
47%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Hungary
Czech
Slovakia
Total(CEE7)
Setting-up producers groups in EU 7
0%
1%
0%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Hungary
Czech
Slovakia
Total(CEE7)
Transfer of funds from Rural Development Plan
to SAPs 2004-2006Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland
Transfer of funds
0,00
50,00
100,00
150,00
200,00
250,00
300,00
350,00
400,00
450,00
500,00
country
mil
lio
n E
uro
2004 18,28 36,83 0,00 485,10
2005 13,00 32,82 0,00 432,50
2006 6,50 26,72 0,00 351,90
Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland
Transfer of funds from Rural Development Plan
to SAPs 2004-2006 per ha UAA Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland
Transfer of funds
2004-2006
0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00
100,00
Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland
country
Eu
ro/h
ec
tare
UA
A
Programmes in the non-investment area 2004-2006
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland
Programmes in the non-investment area2004-2006
0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00
100,00
120,00
140,00
160,00
180,00
200,00
220,00
mill
ion
Eu
ro
Malta 1,35 4,80 0,00 6,00 6,06 1,29 0,00 0,00 6,73 7,40
Latvia 2,87 25,26 8,27 221,98 67,06 0,00 30,98 0,00 0,00 0,00
Lithuania 0,00 49,76 103,74 117,52 56,14 4,74 24,40 21,43 96,36 0,00
Poland 45,60 627,90 1152,90 1758,20 438,10 61,10 677,30 183,20 1269,50 0,00
Producers Groups
Agri-Environment
Early retirement
Less-favoured areas
Meeting standards
Technical assistance
Support for semi-
subsistence
Afforestation of agricultural
land
Complementation of Direct Payments
Ad Hoc Measure
677,30627,90 1152,901758,20
438,10
1269,50
Programmes in the non-investment area 2004-2006 per ha UAA Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland
Programmes in the non-investment area2004-2006
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
Eu
ro/h
ecta
re U
AA
Malta 11,25 40,01 0,00 50,00 50,53 10,71 0,00 0,00 56,04 61,67
Latvia 1,15 10,15 3,32 89,22 26,95 0,00 12,45 0,00 0,00 0,00
Lithuania 0,00 14,26 29,73 33,68 16,09 1,36 6,99 6,14 27,62 0,00
Poland 2,50 34,46 63,28 96,50 24,05 3,35 37,17 10,05 69,68 0,00
Producers Groups
Agri-Environment
Early retirement
Less-favoured areas
Meeting standards
Technical assistance
Support for semi-
subsistence
Afforestation of agricultural
land
Complementation of Direct Payments
Ad Hoc Measure
CAP in Poland: SAPs and RDP payments for farmers
SAP 2004 55% 100 Euro/ha
SAP 2005 60% 110 Euro/ha
SAP 2006 65% 120 Euro/ha
LFA mountains 80 Euro/ha
LFA lowland I 44 Euro/ha
LFA lowland II 66 Euro/ha
AEP 100 Euro/ha
LithuaniaGood Agriculture Conditions
(SAPs and RDP)•Min. 1 ha of agricultural land
•Arable land shall be planted with agriculture plants, green or black falow
•Medows and pastures used for grazing, hay shell be harvested once a year (15th July)
•Hay or green mass shell be removed from the field (1th August)
•Arable land, meadows, pastures, perennial grassland shell be free from trees and bushes
•Agriculture land shell be free fom remnant herbs
Conditions for LFA in Poland
•Min. UAA 1 ha
•The farm or a part of the farm localised in LFA
•The farmer is obliged to apply the conditions of Usual Good Agriculture Practice
•The farmer will continue farming practices for 5 years from first payment
•The farmer will apply limitations of use hormones, thyreostatic and beta-agonistic substances in animal feeding.
Usual Good Agriculture Practice
in Poland
•use of fertilizers and their storage•agricultural use of waste water •agriculture use of municipal sewage sludge •use of pesticides and their storage•grassland management•order and cleanliness in the farm•protection of wildlife habitats•soil protection•water management
• 5% as usual by all Single Area Payments• First problem – warning• Second time this some problem – no
payment in current year• New problem – 7% reduction of payment
Control
LFA payments in the opinion of famers„easy” money for big farmers – they applied with pleasure:• one of the first instruments promoted very agressively
by the time of registration of farms for SAPs• simple condition of Usual Good Agriculture Practice
deriving from the existing law• but easy to fulfil by big farmers, who will use other
programs to improve for example manure storage as Sectoral Operational Programme (SOP)
• Low control level
„small money” for small farmers – they hesitated or applied and afterwards withdraw:
• definitely too small to take this instrument as a serious support of continuing the farming practices or to invest in manure storage, they will be not able to use money of other instruments (SOP)
• definitely too small to continue the farming practices in the mountains in conjunction with average small size of farms
Most important agri-environmental measuresLithuania Malta Poland
Sustainable agriculture
Organic Farming Scheme Promotion of organic farming
Organic agriculture
Landscape Stewardship Scheme
Restoration of terrace retaining rubble walls
Management of extensive meadows
Management of extensive pastures
Protection shore belts of surface water bodies in meadows and arable land and prevention of soil erosion
Protection of soil and water
Conservation of Maltese Holm Oak
Buffer zones
Rare Breeds Scheme Conservation of Maltese Ox species
Protection of local animal breeds
Agri-Environmental Programmes in Poland (Euro/ha)
sustainable farming 38
organic farming grassland 38
pastures on xer.grassland 89
xerothermic meadows 120
mountain meadows 138
organic orchards 400
Latvia
25853804
5102863
19179930
30236443
6849975
2283325
1826660
Investments in agricultural holdings
Setting up of young farmers
Improvement of processing and marketingof agricultural products
Promotion of adaptation of development ofrural areas
Forestry development
Development of local action (LEADER+type measure)
Training
Poland
1320720292,00
175913419,00
20074497,00
54005305,00
465389417,00
10535219,00
140072592,00 8511450,00
4965773,00
107278138,00
90046666,00
21261018,00
12598707,00
18759722,0040766623,00
Investments in agricultural holdings
Support for Young Farmers
Vocational Training
Support for advisory system
Improvements in Processing andMarketingForests restoration
Land consolidation
Country side restoration and culturalheritageDiversification of agriculture production
Management of w ater ressources
Technical infrastructure for agriculture
LEADER+
Technical assistance programmemanagementInstitutional building
Information and promotion
Limitation of supportLithuania Malta Poland (AEP)
Beneficiaries of support for NATURA 2000 are not eligible for support under Landscape Stewardship scheme (AEP)
AEPSubmeasure: Restoration of rubble walls – upper limit 2000 Euro per 1 ha
1 – 50 ha 100%
Farmer granted for early retirement can not be granted for afforestation
Ad hoc payments –
14 500 Euro per AWU per holding
50 - 100 ha 50%
Meeting standards
25 000 Euro per holding 100- 300 ha 25 %
over 300 ha no support
Minimum size of support – 1ha Minimum size of support – 0,11 ha
Minimum size of support – 1 ha
For the future...• Review of goals of Rural Development and
financial instruments of RDP (WTO, expectations of the tax payers, monitoring of environmental and social effects)
• Better planning and coordination (in time, territory and goals) of all instruments of RDP
• More information for farmers and better advisory work of extension service
• Subsidiarity - better consultation on the lowest level – not only with leaders (government, parliament, parties, local administration, farmers unions), but also on the community level
Thank you for your [email protected]
www.iucn-ce.org