Download
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

Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe

117 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

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!dorota.metera@iucn.orgwww.iucn-ce.org