The effects of the 2nd pillar of the CAP on nature conservation in the EU 27 ( ) Jaroslav Prazan Research Institute of Agricultural Economics Prague, Brno

EU target: halting dec- line of biodiversity (2010) CAP - expected Farm birds still a vital role declining Is EU going to reach the target?

Structure of the presentation Introduction to the RIAE. Main pressures on nature in agriculture Measures under Pillar II and their significance for nature conservation. Characteristics of the New Member States (NMS). Characteristics of agri-environmental measures in NMS (under Council Regulation No. 1257/99). Summary points.

Research Institute of Agricultural Economics (VUZE) Main activities of VUZE: Support policy making in agriculture and rural development. Report on main trends in performance of Czech agriculture. Participation on national and international projects related to agricultural policy, agricultural economics and trade, rural development etc. Collect and process key farm economic data (FADN).

Main pressures on nature in agriculture Changes in farm practices in general: Loss of traditional farm systems/practices. Land use change (e.g. abandonment). Intensification. Poor management of nutrients, pesticides use etc. In EU 15, Prime Butterfly Areas: 92% are dependent on agriculture. Suffer form land abandonment (47%) and intensification (43%), both (10%). Market/socio-economic/technological development and CAP are key drivers of change of farming!!!

Measures under Pillar II and their significance to nature conservation Investment in agricultural holdings * (drainage) Setting-up of young farmers Training* (implementation support of AEM) Early retirement Less favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions *** Agri-environmental measure **** Improving the processing and marketing Forestry ** Promoting the adaptation and the development of rural areas (art. 33) **, (planting trees…). Support of semi-subsistent holdings. Meeting environmental standards**

Role of the most important measures for nature conservation Agri-environmental measure: key measure –40% of EAGGF Guarantee in 2003 in EU 15, –20% of UAA under AEM in EU 15, of which 30% of land under biodiversity protection /enhancement schemes, –HNV farmland most likely not fully covered, –good (NI, EN, ES) and bad stories? Reasons?

Role of the most important measures for nature conservation II Less favoured areas (20% of the same fund): –the real impact not known on EU level, –prevents land abandonment (overlap with HNV area), –in some MSs pursuing specific land use (e.g. only grassland supported in CR, some arable/permanent crops excluded in HU,SI, additional standards Wales). –additional standards (GFP-demanding?, C-C). Areas with environmental restrictions e.g. N2k (not used in many cases, covered by AEM or not advanced implementation) Afforestation: species+ spatial targeting are important.

Agri-environmental measures in the New Member States

Some characteristics of the New Member States Farming –Structures (two groups of countries) and their changes (from 15 ha to 500 ha average farm size), –Intensity of production and its changes, (kg fertilisers/ha: CR-79.6, EE-89, HU-72, LV-72, PL- 99.3, SI-177, SK-55.2, decrease of animal numbers) Environment (examples) : corncrakes in NMS, pairs of starks in Latvia, ->7Mio. ha of semi-natural grassland, estimated higher chare of HNV areas than in old MSs….

Characteristics of the New Member States II Negative impact of farming on environment: –Soil erosion (CR, EE, HU, LV, PL, SK) –Water pollution caused by intensification or point sources (CR, EE, HU, LT, PL, SI, SK) –Drop of water level (PL) –Extinction of breeds and varieties (CR, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SI, –Loss of habitats and species by intensification or abandonment (CR, HU, LT, LV, EE, SI, SK). –Landscape deterioration (CR, EE, HU, SK) Positive change for environment during last decade (lower intensity of production).

Introduction to agri-environmental measure (AEM) History (accompanying measure in 90s, CR 1257/99 – AEM part of CAP, in NMSs from 2004). Payment of farmers for environmental services. Objectives: reduction of environmental risks (modern agriculture) and preserving nature and cultivated landscape (from farm practices change, abandonment etc.). Voluntary for farmers. Compulsory for the Member States. Going beyond Good Farming Practice (now C-C).

Implementation of selected measures of Pillar II in 9 NMSs (04) LFAAEMAfforest.Semi-subsist. Meeting stand. CR √√√- - EST √√√√ √ HU √√√√ √ LT √√√√ √ LV √√-√√ MT √√--√ PL √√√√√ SI √√--√ SK √√√√√

Characteristics of agri- environmental measures-in RDPs The Czech Republic – 9 schemes (+ options), 4 targeted at habitats/species, goals quantified- expected acreage, piloted monitoring. Estonia – 12 schemes, 4 targeted at habitats- species, goals quantified (expected acreage), monitoring established. Hungary - 23 schemes (+options), 15 targeted at habitats/species, 15 zonal Latvia – 4 schemes, 3 targeted at protection of habitats/species.

Characteristics of agri- environmental measures-in RDPs Lithuania – 4 schemes, 2 are targeted at habitat/species, Poland – 7 packages (40 options), 3 packages focused on habitats-species, 2 in priority zones. Slovakia – 10 schemes (+ options), 4 targeted at habitats/species, Slovenia – 21 schemes (+ options), 12 targeted at habitats/species, quantified goals on scheme level, In NMSs – organic farming is supported in all, in most - genetic resources, in most - quantified outputs (rarely impacts defined), most - did not have ecological monitoring in 2004.

Planned share of budget for AEMs – in Horizontal Rural Development Plans (%) Share of AEM % Czech Republic49.4 Estonia37.7 Hungary40.8 Latvia9.4 Lithuania10.1 Poland9.7 Slovakia5.8 Slovenia40.1

Agri-environmental measure (budget plans in selected NMSs)

Level of implementation of AEM in selected New Member States Proportion of the total UAA % in 2004, (where data was available) Czech Republic30.1 Estonia58.8 Hungary25.3 Latvia1.5 Poland1.1 Slovakia1.7 (16.9 in 05) Slovenia58.3 Expected increase during 05/06.

What influence success/failure of AEM in nature conservation? Sufficient scientific ecological knowledge (e.g. causal links, spatial distribution of HNV, species. Targeting (e.g. spatial, addressing issues and real causes). Proper implementation (involvement of relevant stakeholders, information and advice provision). Integration with other measures (e.g. non- productive investment, GFP/cross-compliance). Good monitoring producing feedback to policy design. Uptake of the measure (critical mass of land)

What influenced the uptake in the New Member States? Informing farmers. Pre-accession experience. Level of support. Delays in decision making and uncertainties concerning implementation. Five years obligation (in some NMS-land reform, shorter contracts etc.). Alternative source of income for farmers (PL)

Some factors in NMS limiting AES effectiveness in NMSs Not sufficient knowledge of geographical distribution of particular habitats and species – surveys (HNVF). Not enough sharing of geographical information among institutions on the state of environment etc. Not enough knowledge of causal links between farming practices and respond of ecosystems - research, trials, pilot schemes with monitoring Not sufficient assistance to farmers (advice provision etc.) Priorities – there are numerous priorities and/or budgetary limits. Integration of policies – AES-GFP-cross-compliance-Natura2000… Administration – in some NMS the capacity of administration represents limiting factor when designing ambitious and/or very targeted schemes. Objectives of the agri-environmental schemes should be clearer (the NMSs already have several good examples of well focused schemes). Lack of monitoring of actual effects of AES on ecosystems and lack of evaluation culture in general (designed according to objectives).

Summary points All New Member States managed to implement AES NMS with AEM before EU accession – more ambitious and quicker increase of acreage under AES. Benefits of the agri-environmental schemes in NMSs (environmental awareness, abandonment) Capacity building is needed – capacity of administration could be limiting factor, technical support – GIS etc. Research on links between farm practices and environment and information collection and sharing Broader debate on priorities is needed and involvement of all key stakeholders (design). Several good examples of targeted schemes – but clear objectives definition, monitoring and evaluation are lacking. Lack of clear link between analysis of problems and measures proposed (in programming documents).