1 / 21

Bożenna Wójcik Institute for Sustainable Development Warsaw, Poland

„Less Favoured Areas in Poland after one year of the implementation” Conference „One Year of EU 25 – Nature Conservation Policy Experience Regarding the 2nd Pillar of the CAP and Reform Prospects” Bonn, September 5, 2005 r. Bożenna Wójcik Institute for Sustainable Development Warsaw, Poland.

rgracie
Télécharger la présentation

Bożenna Wójcik Institute for Sustainable Development Warsaw, Poland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. „Less Favoured Areas in Polandafter one year of the implementation”Conference„One Year of EU 25 – Nature Conservation Policy Experience Regarding the 2nd Pillar of the CAP and Reform Prospects”Bonn, September 5, 2005 r. Bożenna Wójcik Institute for Sustainable Development Warsaw, Poland

  2. The LFA measure in RDP for 2004-2006 for Poland (1) RDP Priority B “Sustainable and multifunctional development with special regards to environmental issues”: • Support for LFA • Agri-environmental schemes and animal welfare • Afforestation • Meeting EU standards

  3. The LFA measure in RDP for 2004-2006 for Poland (2) Financial support for within the RDP for 2004-2006: • All public expenditure 976.8 million Euro: - EU contribution fromEAGGF781.4 million Euro - Polish budget contribution 195.4 million Euro for 2004 - 244.8 million Euro for 2005 - 366.0 million Euro for 2006 - 366.0 million Euro • Allocation for LFA that is: 27.2 % of total RDP allocation – the biggest measure budget in the RDP 36.0 % of allocation for 7 main measures of the Plan 58.5 % of allocation for Priority B “Sustainable and multifunctional development with special regards to environmental issues”

  4. The objectives of the LFA implementation in Poland • ensuring continuation of agricultural land use and thereby contributing to the maintenanceof a viable rural community; • maintaining countryside; • promoting sustainable farming systems.

  5. The areas of the LFA implementation (1) • mountain areas (accord. to art. 18) – gminas (communes) where over half of farmland is situated above 500 m a. s. l. • lowland areas (accord. to art. 19) gminas where agricultural productivity is limited due to low soil quality, unfavourable climate, water and land relief conditions as well as demographic indicators and the share of population engaged in agriculture - lowland zone I - lowland zone II – more limitations • areas affected by specific natural handicaps (accord. to art.20) - gminas or municipal districts located in upland areas (those which in Polish tax system are covered by agricultural tax reductions because of natural handicaps)

  6. The areas of the LFA implementation (2) • area with 54,2 % of the country agricultural land – ca. 7,8 mln ha of agricultural land • but 53,5 % of country agricultural land entitled to LFA support (farms more then 1 ha) • this are areas with: - a large share of abandoned land (fallow and idle land) and - several times higher share of population working in agriculture than that in non-LFA areas

  7. The areas of the LFA implementation (3)

  8. Conditions: • The farm or a part of the farm is localised in LFA • Minimal area used for agricultural activity not smaller then 1 ha • The farmer is obliged to apply the conditions of the Usual Good Farming Practice • The farmer is obligate to continue farming practices on plots situated within the LFA for 5 years from the date of the first payment • The farmer is obligate to limit the use of hormones, thyreostatic and beta-agonistic substances in animal feeding

  9. Usual Good Farming Practice based on Polish binding legal acts The UGFP refer to: • 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

  10. Control 5% of farms is controlled each year as usual by all Single Area Payments First control: – problem recognised – warning Next control: – the some problem – no payment in current year – new problem – 7% reduction of payment

  11. Amount of Support • Mountain areas 68 Euro/ha • Lowland areas – zone I 38 Euro/ha – zone II 56 Euro/ha • Areas with specific handicaps 56 Euro/ha

  12. Limitations for support Degressivity of support depends from farms largeness: • 1-50 ha – 100 % of payments for each ha • 50-100 ha – 50 % • 100-300 ha – 25% • over 300 ha – no support

  13. State of the implementation Applications submitted: • 630.057 in year 2004 • 709.910 in year 2005 The area • ca. 6,5 million ha in 2004 • ca. 7,0 million ha in 2005

  14. Problems (1) Not all high nature value farmlands covered by LFA and Agri-Environmental Programmes – some Natura 2000 sites out of payments possibilities as a result of the designation by different institutions – no possibility to pay the farmers for activities positive for nature protection.

  15. Problems (2) Some environmental effects can be expected because of the intensification of agricultural practises – new money this is possibility to by more pesticides & fertilisers and some new machines – this can make bigger pressure on environment.

  16. Problems (3) Conflict with afforestation for some farmers as a result of lack of early information about full set of instruments on time: • promotion and implementation of LFA measure started since April 2004 with single farm payments – farmers who applied can not apply later for afforestation (promoted and introduced only since January 2005), because they are obliged to continue farming practices even on the very poor soils.

  17. Problems (4) Difficult and not giving satisfaction instrument for small farms: – „to small money” and „to many problems with fulfilling the conditions” for small farmers (lot of them are old or have very lot education level) result that not all apply for this support; – to 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.

  18. Problems (5) But this instrument that is „easy money” for big farmers – this can incrise the competition between small and big on the market: • simple condition of Usual Good Agriculture Practice deriving from the existing law, • 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 – only 5 % of farms.

More Related