Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe

play fullscreen
1 / 35
Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Rural Development Policy in the EU10 One Year of EU 25 – Nature Conservation Policy Experience Regarding the 2nd Pillar of the CAP and Reform Prospects Bonn, 3-7 September 2005 Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe

  2. Potential effects of CAP in New EU MS • 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. • 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)

  3. Gaps and limitations of the Rural Development Plans of the CEE New Member States • 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: - 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)

  4. Key features in selected countries of EU10 Different sources

  5. Rural Development Plan 2004-2006Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

  6. Rural Development Plan total sum planned for 2004-2006per ha UAALatvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

  7. Distribution of Rural Development funds in EU 7

  8. Shift back from second pillar of CAP to the first pillar in EU 7

  9. Agri-environmental Programmes in EU 7

  10. Less favourite areas in EU 7

  11. Setting-up producers groups in EU 7

  12. Transfer of funds from Rural Development Plan to SAPs 2004-2006Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

  13. Transfer of funds from Rural Development Plan to SAPs 2004-2006 per ha UAA Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

  14. Programmes in the non-investment area 2004-2006Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

  15. Programmes in the non-investment area 2004-2006 per ha UAA Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

  16. 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 • AEP100 Euro/ha

  17. Lithuania • Good 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

  18. 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.

  19. Usual Good Agriculture Practice • in Poland • use offertilizers 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

  20. Control • 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

  21. 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

  22. Most important agri-environmental measures

  23. Agri-Environmental • Programmes • in Poland • (Euro/ha) • sustainable farming38 • organic farming grassland 38 • pastures on xer.grassland 89 • xerothermic meadows120 • mountain meadows138 • organic orchards 400

  24. Limitation of support

  25. 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

  26. Thank you for your attention!