The Farm Advisory System First results of implementation in the Member States Inge Van Oost & Alexa Vanzetta EC - DG Agriculture and Rural Development Unit D.3 – Cross Compliance DG AGRI - 26 June 2009 & JRC FAS Workshop - 10 June 2009

2 FAS: main elements (Art of R.1782/2003) ▶ As from 1 January 2007, MS are obliged to establish a system of advising farmers on land and farm management (the „Farm Advisory System“: FAS) ▶ The FAS does not replace the different existing advisory systems in the MSs but officialises a system with a clear goal: cross-compliance ▶ The setting up of a FAS per MS is an essential part of the CAP reform

3 FAS: conditions (Art.14 of R.1782/2003) ▶ Farmers may participate in the FAS on a voluntary basis ▶ 1 st pillar regulation does not specify conditions as to the frequency of advice, the qualification of advisers, whether the advice has to be paid, etc. ▶ R.1782: MSs must give priority to the farmers who receive more than € direct payments per year (not excluding other MS-priorities) Health Check new R.73 now leaves more flexibility

FAS: Notifications (Art.146 of R.1782/2003, Art 140 of R73/2009) ▶ Notification to the European Commission: “ Member States shall inform the Commission in detail of the measures taken to implement this Regulation and, in particular, those relating to Articles …, 13, ….” Questionnaires sent by DG AGRI in January 2009 Part 1. Setting up of the FAS Part 2. Output of the FAS Part 3. Financing of the FAS eventually via subsidised farm advisory services in Rural Developm. Programmes Part 4. Problems and suggestions for the FAS/fas

55 Year of introduction of the FAS DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/ Before MS: BG. 3 Regions: IT-CA, IT-SA, IT-VA MS: CZ MS: EE, LU, NL MS: DK, SI. 4 Regions: BE-FL, IT-LI, IT-PI, IT-VE MS: AT, CY, DE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IE, PL, RO, SE, SK 13 Regions: BE-WA, IT-BO, IT-ER, IT-FV, IT-LO, IT-MA IT-PU, IT-SI, IT-TO, IT-TR, UK-NI, UK-SC, UK-WA MS: LT, PT 4 Regions: IT-AB, IT-LA, PT-AZ, PT-MA MS: LV

66 Number of MS and Regions choosing the different way of Information MSRegions How were farmers informed on the existance and functioning activities of FAS? DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/2009

77 Authority responsibleMS / RegionsTOT* Ministry – National levelAT, CZ, EL, IE, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO9,5 Regional AuthorityBE (BE-FL, BE-WA), DE, FR, IT (IT-AB, IT-BO, IT-CA, IT-ER, IT-LA, IT-LI, IT-MA, IT- PI, IT-PU, IT-TO, IT-TR, IT-VA), UK (UK-NI, UK-SC, UK-WA) 4,5 Designated bodies by the Ministry or by Regional Authority / State Institutions BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, HU, (IT-TO), SE, SI, SK8,5 Paying Agency0 OthersCZ, FI1,5 No coordinationLU, (IT-ER, IT-LO, IT-VE)1 No answer(IT-BA, IT-FV, IT-SA, IT-SI)0 * Approximate value DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/2009

88 8 Authority responsibleMS / RegionsTOT* Ministry – National level AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, HU, IE, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI13 Regional Authority BE (BE-FL, BE-WA), DE, FR, IT (IT-AB, IT-BA, IT-ER, IT-LA, IT-LI, IT-LO, IT-MA, IT- PI, IT-PU, IT-SI, IT-TO, IT-VE), (PT-AZ, PT-MA), UK (UK-NR, UK-SC, UK-WA) 4,5 Designated bodies by the Ministry or by Regional Authority / State Institutions DE, DK, EL, FI, (IT-TO), LV, SE, SK6 Paying Agency FI0,5 Others CZ, RO1 No coordination(IT-VA)0 No answer(IT-BO, IT-CA, IT-FV, IT-SA, IT-TR)0 * Approximate value

99 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/ Authority responsibleMS / RegionsTOT* Ministry – National level AT, BG, CY, EE, EL, IE, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK 13,5 Regional Authority BE (BE-FL, BE-WA), DE, FR, IT (IT-AB, IT-BA, IT-CA, IT-ER, IT-LA, IT-LI, IT-LO, IT- PI, IT-PU, IT-SI, IT-TO, IT-TR, IT-VE), (PT-AZ, PT-MA), UK (UK-NI, UK-SC, UK-WA) 4,5 Designated bodies by the Ministry or by Regional Authority / State Institutions DE, DK, HU, (IT-TO), LV, SE 4,5 Paying Agency EE, (IT-MA, IT-VE), FI 1,5 Others CZ 1 No coordination(IT-VA) 0 No answer(IT-BO, IT-FV, IT-SA) 0 * Approximate value

10 CountryCoordinationDesignation / CertificationControl AT, IE, LT, NL, PL, PT Ministry of Agriculture BG NAAS State InstitutionMinistry of Agriculture CY CC Service Designated bodyMinistry of Agriculture CZ Ministry of Agriculture Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information EE Estonia advisory coordinating centre for agriculture and rural economy Ministry of Agriculture Paying agency EL Ministry of AgricultureOPEGEPMinistry of Agriculture HU National advisory serviceMinistry of AgricultureNational advisory service LU Ministry of Agriculture LV Ministry of AgricultureRural support service RO Ministry of Agriculture National Council for Adult Training Authorities responsible for FAS – Summary per MS / Region (1) Ministry - National Level Regional Authority Designate d bodies Paying Agency Others DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/2009

11 Authorities responsible for FAS – Summary per MS / Region (2) CountryCoordinationDesignation / CertificationControl SI Chamber of AgricultureMinistry of Agriculture SK Agroinstitut NitraMinistry of Agriculture BE, FR, PT- AZ, PT-MA, UK Regional Authority IT Regional Authority Paying Agency (IT-MA) Regional Agency for agricultural development and innovation (IT-TO) DE Regional Authority Designated bodies DK Danish Food Industry Agency SE Swedish Board for Agriculture FI AdvisorsFinnish Agency for Rural Affairs Finnish Food Safety Authority Ministry - National Level Regional Authority Designate d bodies Paying Agency Others DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/2009

12 FAS: Health Check changes (Art. 12 of new R.73/2009) ▶ The management of the farm advisory system will be made easier: MSs can decide to which farmers they give priority. ▶ The 2010 report on the farm advisory system will not necessarily have “a view to rendering it compulsory”. “ Member States may determine, in accordance with objective criteria, the priority categories of farmer that have access to the farm advisory system.”

FAS: Perspective (Art.16 of R.1782/2003, Art 12 R73/2009) ▶ „By 31 December 2010 at the latest, the Commission shall submit a report to the Council on the application of the farm advisory system, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals [with a view of rendering it compulsory.]“ In 2010, the Council will decide on the basis of a report of the Commission, whether the FAS will be made mandatory

14 FAS: main elements ▶ Community legislation left MSs the flexibility to choose public or private bodies as actors in the FAS ▶ The FAS is to be operated by one or more designated authorities or by private bodies

15 FAS: responsabilities ▶ The advisor has to play his role, explaining the requirements to the farmer and helping him to understand cross compliance. Advice and control must be separated, the farmer is responsible for his actions. AdvisorFarmerController Helps farmer with advice Responsible for his actions, has to understand the requirements Controls can lead to sanctions

16 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

17 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

18 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

19 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/ EL, NL no data provided

20 FAS: main elements ▶ „The advisory activity shall cover at least the SMRs and the GAEC“ (= including maintenance of permanent pasture) ▶ The field of the FAS - advice is the whole cross- compliance but it is not limited to these cross- compliance standards: MSs can decide to enlarge it to other standards

21 Cross compliance level for 1st and 2nd pillar BASELINE Cross compliance SMR & GAEC Minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use (*)‏ Other relevant mandatory requirements (*)‏ (*) as established by national legislation and identified in the RD programme Agri-environmental commitment(s)‏ Agri-environmental measure Additional costs and income foregone Positive incentive: AEM PAYMENT No incentive, no reductions on direct and wine payments No incentive, no reductions on AE payments

22 FAS: Methods of advice One to one on the farm: ▶ Intensive method ▶ Higher chance that farmer accepts solutions proposed by the advisor (persuasive method) ▶ Farmer is less afraid to ask questions or talk about individual problems on his farm ▶ Often most effective: the advisor can detect problems/wrong behaviour even if the farmer is not aware ▶ Common understanding needed for credibility: the advisor should speak the farmer’s language

23 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

24 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

25 FAS: Methods of advice Telephone helpdesk: ▶ Lower cost ▶ Good chance that farmer accepts solutions proposed by the advisor as it is still a one to one method (persuasive method, possibility for farmer to react if needed) ▶ Sometimes difficult to explain individual farm problems by phone ▶ The advisor has a lesser chance to detect problems/wrong behaviour if the farmer is not aware ▶ Taylored to the individual problems on the farm

26 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

27 FAS: Methods of advice Small group advice on farm: ▶ Lower cost ▶ Some farmers dare not to explain individual farm problems or ask questions in group ▶ The example of other farms might convince the farmers ▶ Discovery of practical solutions via demonstrations

28 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

29 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

30 FAS: Methods of advice General information via internet, taylored website tools, paper publications: ▶ Low cost ▶ Not real FAS advice, more a way of giving information (according to Art. 4(2) of R.73/2009): “The competent national authority shall provide the farmer, inter alia by the use of electronic means, with the list of statutory management requirements and the good agricultural and environmental condition to be respected”. ▶ Efficiency to be discussed: although perhaps taylored to specific sectors (e.g. arable farms) it is not taylored to individual farmer’s problems

31 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

32 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

33 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

34 MSRegions Number of MS and Regions choosing the different methods to provide advice DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/2009

35 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/

36 The FAS can be funded in two ways under Axis 1 of Rural Development Programmes in the period : ▶ Financing the use of farm advisory services by farmers Support for FAS under the 2 nd pillar ▶ Financing the setting up of farm advisory services by MSs

37 “As a minimum these advisory services to farmers must cover: (a) the SMRs and the GAECs provided for in Art. 4 and 5 of and in Annexes III and IV to R. (EC) No 1782/2003); (b) occupational safety standards based on Community legislation ( not included into cross compliance). (1) Cofinancing of the use of fas by farmers (Art.24 of R. 1698/2005)

38 A Working document provides guidelines for the use of fas, concerning - possibility of prioritising certain target groups conditions to grant aid, - frequency of the advice, - the use of public or non-public advising bodies, - availability of appropriate resources (staff qualification, administrative and technical facilities, advisory experience and reliability), and - the selection and supervision of the bodies. (1) Cofinancing of the use of fas by farmers (Art.24 of R. 1698/2005)

IE 100% financed by the farmer FR 100% private financed (farmers and cooperatives) AT, PT no data provided

40 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/ Problems encounteredTOT Reduced importance of FAS because of already existing systems 2 MS Reduced importance of a pure FAS because farmers request at the same time advice both on CC and on other business 1 MS Lack of funding4 - 3 MS, 1 Re Dispersive regional budget1 Re High cost of FAS1 Re High cost of advisers accreditation and training2 Re Difficulty in creating a common image and culture of FAS 1 Re Lack of technical equipment 1 MS Problem in the computer management system 1 Re Insufficient administrative capacity 1 MS Uncertainty about the consulting services and about the documentation and proof requirements 1 MS Difficulty in the management, administration and designation of the advisory bodies 5 Re Lack of coordination between all bodies operating FAS 1 MS Lack of private organizations operating FAS 1 MS Problems encountered during the organisation and management of the FAS (1)

41 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/ Problems encountered during the organisation and management of the FAS (2) Problems encounteredTOT Insufficient number of qualified advisory bodies and advisors MS, 2 Re Difficulty in advising because of wide range of fields / FAS too focused only on CC MS, 1 Re Incomprehension between Regional authority and professional order of agronomics 3 Re Time costly Application and approval 1 MS Advisory 1 MS Implementation of FAS 1 MS Problems related to farmersHigh level of complaints 1 MS Reduced need for advice 1 MS Low interest to participate MS, 3 Re High degree of geographical dispersion 1 MS High cost of one-to-one advice for farmers 1 MS Monitoring impacts is difficult 2 Re The implementation of the FAS implied many changes in the policies at national level 1 MS No problems encountered MS, 1 Re No answer MS, 12 Re

42 FAS: types of problems raised by MS ▶ Problems related to existing systems: difficult to force existing (subsidised) bodies into the FAS system, added value of FAS if MS has already a system in place? ▶ High costs and not enough funding, both for MS and for farmers ▶ Start up problems: legislative changes, big effort for administration for training and approval of bodies, not enough advisors or technical equipment ▶ Monitoring is difficult ▶ Need to mix FAS advice with other events: integrated advice

43 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/ Suggestions regarding the legislative framework of FAS at EU level (1) SuggestionsTOT FAS should remain voluntary for farmers MS, 3 Re CC is not necessary in the next Regulation 1 MS No necessity of a EU legislative framework, FAS already integrated in the existing national advisory system 1 MS FAS should be voluntary for MS as there is no strong need of FAS 1 MS Reduced CC control for farmers participating in the FAS (immunity) 1 Re Obligatory participation to FAS for farmers violating SMR and GAEC 1 MS The criteria to prioritise clients should be more flexible according to the need of MS 1 MS More flexibility for MS to define priorities (not only based on amount of payment per year) 2 MS Wider margin of actions for MS in implementing FAS1 MS Possibility for farmers to choose advisory according to own needs 2 Re No equal consideration to all SMR and GAEC independently of the type of farm and location 1 MS Need of focusing on specific SMR and GAEC according to the situations 1 MS

44 DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/ SuggestionsTOT CC and safety at work should not be compulsory 1 Re Regulation at EU level for requirements of consultancy and certification of advisors 1 MS More often advisory services 1 Re Increased financial support 1 Re Mandatory advance training for advisory bodies 1 Re Community legislative framework in order to avoid incomprehension between Regional authority and professional order of agronomics 1 Re Less bureaucratization of FAS 1 Re Simplification of the regulatory framework1 MS No suggestions / No answer MS, 17 Re Suggestions regarding the legislative framework of FAS at EU level (2)

45 FAS notifications: conclusions from the discussion with MS ▶ Most MS realise the need and usefulness of FAS, not a lot MS mention problems ▶ Some MS having existing advisory services find it more difficult to integrate FAS ▶ More flexibility in prioritising wanted (done in HC) ▶ Not much priorities applied until now: it is a learning process for MS too ▶ Need for synergy with other advice themes ▶ Possibility to focus fas on specific SMR or GAEC ▶ FAS should be kept voluntary for farmers

46 FAS notifications: conclusions from the discussion with MS ▶ More financing needed ▶ EU rules for certification of advisors Y/N ? ▶ No obligatory coverage of occupational safety ▶ Problems to reach small and hobby farmers ▶ Mandatory training for advisors necessary? ▶ Simplification of administrative burden for applications RD support ▶ MS have done serious effort to put FAS in place and now ask not to impose too big changes in the regulatory framework

47 FAS notifications: conclusions from the discussion with MS Important for reflection: ▶ If low interest to participate: should be checked per MS if it is by lack of information on the existence of the FAS, or because no need felt by farmers because they are compliant, or because the system is not working well ▶ How to monitor effectively? How if CC advice is mixed with advice on other issues? ▶ Field of advice: is CC too wide or too narrow? ▶ Budget to be raised? Take into account that MS have their own priorities in the RDP

48 FAS: Perspective „By 31 December 2010, the Commission shall submit a report to the Council on the application of the farm advisory system, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals.“ (R.73) ▶ Notifications further to be scrutinised (invitation to MS) ▶ Questions? Suggestions?

49 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Please take care with the figures presented as they are only preliminary and need to be further assessed and completed. We invite MS to contact us in case they detect elements in these first results which would need to be completed or corrected : DG AGRI - D.3 - Inge Van Oost - Schwäbisch Gmünd - 10/06/2009 Inge Van Oost EC - DG Agriculture and Rural Development Unit D.3 – Cross Compliance