Dorota Metera IUCN Programme Office for Central Europe 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

 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. Potential effects of CAP in New EU MS  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)

 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 of the Rural Development Plans of the CEE New Member States  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 paymen t s, Source: Gaps and Limitations of the Rural Development Plans..., IUCN, 2004)

Key features in selected countries of EU10 LatviaLithuaniaMaltaPoland Average size of the farm (ha) 1240,878 Number of farms Total UAA (ha) Different sources

Rural Development Plan Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

Rural Development Plan total sum planned for per ha UAA Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

Distribution of Rural Development funds in EU 7

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

Agri-environmental Programmes in EU 7

Less favourite areas in EU 7

Setting-up producers groups in EU 7

Transfer of funds from Rural Development Plan to SAPs Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

Transfer of funds from Rural Development Plan to SAPs per ha UAA Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

Programmes in the non-investment area Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

Programmes in the non-investment area per ha UAA Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland

CAP in Poland: SAPs and RDP payments for farmers  SAP % 100 Euro/ha  SAP % 110 Euro/ha  SAP % 120 Euro/ha  LFA mountains 80 Euro/ha  LFA lowland I 44 Euro/ha  LFA lowland II 66 Euro/ha  AEP 100 Euro/ha

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

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.

Usual Good Agriculture Practice in Poland 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

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 Control

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

Most important agri-environmental measures LithuaniaMaltaPoland Sustainable agriculture Organic Farming SchemePromotion of organic farming Organic agriculture Landscape Stewardship Scheme Restoration of terrace retaining rubble walls Management of extensive meadows Management of extensive pastures Protection shore belts of surface water bodies in meadows and arable land and prevention of soil erosion Protection of soil and water Conservation of Maltese Holm Oak Buffer zones Rare Breeds SchemeConservation of Maltese Ox species Protection of local animal breeds

Agri-Environmental Programmes in Poland (Euro/ha)  sustainable farming 38  organic farming grassland 38  pastures on xer.grassland 89  xerothermic meadows 120  mountain meadows 138  organic orchards 400

Limitation of support LithuaniaMaltaPoland (AEP) Beneficiaries of support for NATURA 2000 are not eligible for support under Landscape Stewardship scheme (AEP) AEPSubmeasure: Restoration of rubble walls – upper limit 2000 Euro per 1 ha 1 – 50 ha100% Farmer granted for early retirement can not be granted for afforestation Ad hoc payments – Euro per AWU per holding ha50% Meeting standards Euro per holding ha25 % over 300 hano support Minimum size of support – 1haMinimum size of support – 0,11 ha Minimum size of support – 1 ha

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

Thank you for your attention!