Peak Performance - New Insights into Mountain Farming in the European Union - Hoofdinhoud
Contents
| Documentdatum | 15-01-2010 |
|---|---|
| Publicatiedatum | 21-01-2010 |
| Kenmerk | 5402/10 ADD 6 |
| Van | Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director |
| Aan | Mr Pierre de BOISSIEU, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union |
| Externe link | originele PDF |
| Originele document in PDF |  |
COUNCIL OF Brussels, 15 January 2010 THE EUROPEAN UNION
5402/10 ADD 6
AGRI 14 AGRISTR 4 AGRIORG 4
COVER NOTE
from: Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 18 December 2009
to: Mr Pierre de BOISSIEU, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union
Subject: Peak Performance
-
-New Insights into Mountain Farming in the European Union
Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2009)1724 final - Part 7.
________________________
Encl.: SEC(2009)1724 final - Part 7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Brussels, 16.12.2009 SEC(2009) 1724 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT (Part 7)
PEAK PERFORMANCE
New Insights into Mountain Farming in the European Union
ANNEX 6
Screening of National Strategy Plans and of Rural
Development Programmes 2007-2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction and overview of the screening approach and methodology 1
2 Summary of main findings from the screening of NSP’s and RDP’s ______ 1
2.1 The National Strategy Plans (NSP’s) ______________________________________ 1
2.2 The Rural Development Plans (RDP’s) ____________________________________ 2
2.3 Italian and Spanish National Summaries__________________________________ 6
2.4 Monitoring data summary ________________________________________________ 8
National Strategic Plans (NSPs) Screening Results _________________________ 9
Rural Development Plans (RDPs) Screening Results _______________________ 13
Overview of 2002-2006 monitoring data __________________________________ 26
Draft submitted to DG AGRI on 09/10/09 iv
1 Introduction and overview of the screening approach
and methodology
This paper provides a summary of the results of the screening exercise conducted by the European
Network for Rural Development Contact Point. The main purpose of the screening exercise was to
provide more detailed information on the situation of mountain areas in various Member States and to
provide an overview of the different possibilities, under the EAFRD, available to mountain areas and an
assessment of how they have been used by different Member States (MS).
The selection of the countries and regions to be included in the screening exercise was made in
accordance with Article 18 of EC Regulation 1257/99 i which defines mountain areas as ‘characterised by a
considerable limitation of the possibilities for using the land and an appreciable increase in the cost of working it due: to the existence, because of altitude, of very difficult climatic conditions, the effect of
which is substantially to shorten the growing season; or at a lower altitude, to the presence over the
greater part of the area in question of slopes too steep for the use of machinery or requiring the use of
very expensive special equipment, or; to a combination of these two factors, where the handicap resulting from each taken separately is less acute but the combination of the two gives rise to an
equivalent handicap. In addition, areas north of the 62nd Parallel and certain adjacent areas shall be
treated in the same way as mountain areas’.
In consequence, the screening exercise undertaken by the ENRD Contact Point (CP) was agreed to cover
16 National Strategic Plans (NSP’s) and 60 Rural Development Programmes (RDP’s). The CP identified a
team of regional technical experts to undertake the analysis for specific countries. Selection of experts
was based primarily upon their knowledge of rural development programmes, knowledge and experience
of the specific country, language and regions to be screened.
In parallel, monitoring data on the 2000-2006 funding period relevant to mountain areas was also
analysed and these results were also presented, as a separate technical annex.
2 Summary of main findings from the screening of
NSP’s and RDP’s
2.1 The National Strategy Plans (NSP’s)
The NSPs of the sixteen Member States with delimited mountain LFAs plus the UK (where no
mountainous LFA are designated but were reviewed.
Overall consistency / strength of links between the NSPs and RDPs: The screening results
reveal a high correlation between the NSP and RDP’s in four Member States (i.e. clear identification of the
problems/constraints addressed and link with relevant RD measures); A medium level of correlation in seven Member States (i.e. identification of some problems/constraints which are addressed /linked with
selection of some relevant RD measures) and a low level of correlation in six Member States (i.e.
identification of some problems/constraints but weaker link with selection of RD measures). Six NSPs
limit their analysis to the identification of the main problems in mountain areas; A further six NSPs
elaborate on certain problems and identify some potential opportunities in mountain areas; And only in
two NSPs is there a clear recognition of many of the problems/challenges, the potential opportunities and
the linked policy responses/ interventions.
Explicit references to mountain areas: 14 of the 16 NSP’s contain explicit references to mountain
areas and/or farms and their challenges, mainly related to the economic, social, infrastructure and
environmental challenges in mountainous rural areas. Common issues highlighted in most NSP’s include
the general demographic decline in mountain areas; remoteness and accessibility problems; degradation
of land and landscapes (erosion and deforestation); Lack of farm competitiveness and scale issues; and
the overall trends and diversity of mountain areas.
Indirect references to mountain areas: Indirect references to issues affecting mountain areas and
how these may be addressed are included in all 16 NSPs. These issues tend to focus upon: Strategic
priorities and /or actions to assist disadvantaged/handicapped areas; actions to counter the depopulation
of remote or peripheral (mountain) areas; improving the economic, social and economic opportunities in
(mountain) areas; protecting the biodiversity; enhancing the rural heritage; and promotion of more
integrated rural and territorial development. The main body of the results from the NSP screenings are
summarized in Annex 1.
2.2 The Rural Development Plans (RDP’s)
The following main results have been found through the screening exercise on 60 RDP’s:
2.2.1. Summary of main LFA measure (211)
Of the 60 RDPs screened (in 16 MS), 49 apply measure 211, 11 apply a combination of measure 211 and
212.
When applying measure 211 (or measures 211 and 212 jointly), RDPs have set out a variety of eligibility
criteria that the potential beneficiary has to meet in order to be entitled to support through the measure.
The analysis has identifies four types of criteria most commonly used by RDPs to define eligibility,
namely: Altitude; Slope, Combination of altitude & slope; and Agricultural holding size 1 (usually expressed
in UAA hectares). A number of RDPs have also introduced additional criteria, varying from Livestock
Units (LU)/hectare density limits to the location and use of the land (type of cultivations).
Holding size criteria has been applied in 92% of RDPs (56). The general trend followed by the RDPs is to
combine holding size criteria with altitude/ slope criteria, with varying degrees of complexity. The
1 After revision of the fiches, it is clear that in the majority of the case, it seems to be no difference in the way in which ‘agricultural
holding size’ and ‘UAA’ criteria have been considered The distinction between the two criteria is often ambiguous and there is no sufficient evidence about what the difference consists in (no further explanation provided in the fiches). In addition, a lot of fiches
sophistication of the criteria tends to be directly linked to country and regional objectives and funding
allocations, which guide targeting of support to either broader or more focused groups of potential
beneficiaries in mountain areas. Generally, the greater the complexity, the more targeting that can be
achieved, with the underlying aim of channelling support to the beneficiaries most in need in
disadvantaged/handicapped areas.
The same approach appears to hold true for defining payment levels, which also vary considerably
between RDPs, subject to certain specific criteria. The analysis indicates that most RDPs use one or more
of four main criteria to define payments, namely: (i) Livestock unit (LU) density per hectare (i.e. following
an environmental safeguard approach); (ii) The type of farming and/or the type of cultivation; (iii) The
size of the holding in terms of Ha of UAA; (iv) The location of the holding. The area size criteria appears
to be the most frequently applied (used in 45 RDPs), often implemented together with criteria related to
the type of farming/cultivation (37 RDPs). The majority of RDPs apply a system based on multiple
criteria. In some cases these criteria are weighted using a scoring system, to define different levels of
support.
The range of the first per ha payment criteria (the minimum holding size eligible) also varies enormously
between RDPs, from a minimum holding dimension of 0,5 - 3 ha up to 50 ha. Accordingly, the payment
level is also variable, ranging from 150 €/ha in many parts of Italy, up to as high as 750 €/ha in Madeira,
Portugal. The payment levels are in all cases digressive (i.e. the larger the holding size, the smaller the
payment/Ha).
2.2.2 Other measures explicitly addressing the needs of mountain areas
Measure 214 appears to have the highest connection with mountain farming having been targeted to it in
35 RDPs.
Axis 1 measures are generally the most related to mountain areas. Several measures (122, 125, 114,
-
123)have a connection with mountain areas at least in 14 -17 RDPs; Measure 121 – modernisation of
agricultural holdings (27 RDPs) and Measure 112 – setting up of young farmers (21 RDPs) are the two
measures most frequently targeting mountain areas after measure 214.
Apart from measure 214, Axis 2 shows a relevant connection with the topic principally concerning forestry
measures (221- first afforestation of agricultural land, 226 – restoring forestry potential and prevention
actions, 223 – first afforestation of non-agricultural land).
Among Axis 3 measures, the highest connection with mountain farming is particularly evident for
measure 311 –diversification into non-agricultural activities (19 RDPs). Axis 4 measures were, in most
cases, generically indicated as addressing mountain issues but without any further reference to specific
measures/actions. This is due to specific priority criteria in selecting or targeting LAG and their actions in
LFA areas (explicitly or de facto including mountain areas).
considered the LU/ha density criterion under the ‘agricultural holding size’’ instead of under ‘other criteria’, which misleads the assessment of the choice of the criterion.
MS vary in terms of the number of explicitly targeted measures to mountain areas. In terms of number of
measures identified, Italy and Spain (on average) show the highest number of measures (7) followed by
Portugal (6).
Measure 214: Agri-environment payments
Measure 214 is the most frequently used amongst the other measures explicitly addressing the needs of
mountain areas. According to the results of the screening it is included in this capacity in 35 (57%) of
the RDPs. The analysis reveals a highly varied approach in the use of eligibility criteria in the RDPs. Five
main types emerge, all of which have tended to be used with equal frequency, namely: (i) Environmental
sensitive areas, which include Nature 2000 and vulnerable areas; (ii) Specific crops, when the measure
has been applied to support a particular kind of crop (for example rye, wheat, barley) including
endangered local crops; (iii) Animal species at risk, targeted at preserving native species (iv) Mountain
pasture; wetlands, grasslands and meadows and specific holdings, for example those located in
environmental sensitive areas; and, (v) Organic farming and environmentally friendly practices.
Some RDPs apply only single eligibility criteria for use of the measure, whilst others have opted for a
more complex framework, using multiple criteria. The most frequent type of target beneficiary is farmers
(identified in 54 RDPs, including agricultural entrepreneurs, land owners, livestock breeders etc).
Measure 121: Modernisation of agricultural holdings
In 27 RDPs (4 MS in total: FR, IT, ES, CZ) this measure is explicitly linked with mountain areas and
mountain farming activities. 15% of the RDPs indicate specific priority for mountain farmers/holding,
including also specific priorities for sectors that are relevant and/or exclusive to mountain areas. In
practical terms this usually translates in a higher level of payment granted to these subjects.
The application of differentiated payment criteria and levels is applied by the majority of the RDPs (69%)
which explicitly set different payment criteria and level according to the location of the holdings (e.g.:
LFA/non LFA areas). These different payment parameters include different min/max eligible amounts, %
of total investment supported, etc. In a few cases, the measure is completely implemented in mountain
areas (e.g. IT-Trento).The levels of payment (expressed in terms of % of total eligible investment cost)
vary between RDPs, ranging from 45% to 75%. Usually the percentages applied for mountain area
holdings are 5 to 10% points higher compared to the percentages in non-mountainous areas.
4% 15% 8%
Implemented only in Mas
4%
S pecific sub-measures/actions
Differnet payment levels
S pecific target for MAs
69%
Measure 112: Setting up of young farmers
In 21 RDPs this measure is explicitly linked to mountain farming areas. The majority of the RDPs (14 out
of 21) set different payment levels depending on farm location, where the support for farms in mountain
areas (and other LFA areas as well) is higher than the reference payment level (on average, +10%).
When this mechanism is not applied, RDPs indicate that consideration should be given to giving priority
to young farmers setting up in mountain areas in the selection of the applications (in particular, this
applies in several Spanish RDP).
Measure 311: Diversification into non-agricultural activities
This measure is directly linked to the support of mountain areas in 19 RDPs (among which 16 Italian
RDPs, FR-Reunion, Navarra and Cataluña for Spain). In practically all cases, the link is provided by an
explicit targeting to mountain areas or areas where mountains are relevant such as disadvantaged areas
and LFA that suffer of depopulation.
This targeting action has been translated to ensuring a priority for the actions to be carried out in these
areas or even more through an exclusive application of the measure. This means that either farmers on
other areas are excluded for the support, or the farmers in mountain areas are given priority during the
selection of the projects.
From the economic support point of view, in those cases in which priority is given to mountain areas,
farmers (or farmers’ family members) can receive a higher % of total investment expenditures supported
(e.g. 50% in LFA areas against the 40% in other areas or 45% in disadvantaged areas against the 35%).
When the measure is exclusively applied in mountain areas the support percentage varies from 30% to
75% according to different factors such as area, type of farmer (e.g. young farmer), type of project.
2.2.3 Other measures which could apply to mountain areas
The analysis undertaken on 62 RDPs indicates that many other RDP measures are considered to have a
relevant role in supporting mountain areas even if no explicit reference is made about mountain farming
in the RDPs. 30 measures considered relevant to mountain areas have been identified at least once in the
analysed RDPs, with measure 214 being identified in 40 RDPs. Other measures of Axis 2 considered to be
of particular relevance are measure 216 and the forestry-related measures 226 and 227 2 .
The importance of the forestry sector is confirmed by the high frequency of measure 122 as being
relevant to mountain areas in Axis 1. In this axis the other most relevant measures are the ones related
to investments (121 and 123) together with the measure on cooperation for the development of new
product, processes and technologies. Among Axis 3 measures, measure 313 is relevant in mountain areas
in many RDPs, followed by measures 311.
In certain MS, for example, Romania, Italy, Sweden 6 or 7 different measures have been identified as
being of relevance to mountain areas, 5 in Spain and France.
2 Where a measure does not have any sub-measure, it can explicitly make reference to mountain areas or not.
However, where a measure has several discrete sub-measures, one or more sub-measures may make explicit reference to mountain areas and other sub-measures may also apply to mountain aeres. Thus, Measure 214 explicitly mentioned mountain areas in 35 RDPs and implicitly in 40 RDPs.
The main body of the results from the RDP screenings are summarized in Annex 2.
2.3 Italian and Spanish National Summaries
2.3.1 Italian national summary results
Over 54% of Italy is defined as mountain areas, clustered into three main zones, namely: the Alps in the
North; the Apennine in the Centre; and several internal mountains in the regions of Southern Italy. The
Italian NSP highlights some of the major problems affecting these mountain areas. In particular, it cites:
• The lack of adequate strategic forestry planning and management;
• The strong fragmentation of property in mountain areas;
• The increased abandonment of mountain areas and of mountain farming/pastoral activities, that
leads to a spontaneous return to nature/forest landscape patterns, with diminishing biodiversity
values;
• The high soil vulnerability and fire risk of many mountain areas.
In order to address these issues, the NSP proposes certain interventions mainly focused on maintaining
farming activities in LFAs, preservation of biodiversity (particularly high value agro-forestry systems) and
restoration of natural habitats. However, when comparing the NSP with the twenty-one RDPs it is clear
that the NSP does not provide a sufficiently elaborated framework for addressing the problems of
mountain areas/farming in Italy. And indeed none of the RDPs (with the exception of those classified
entirely as mountainous) provide a strategic analysis or integrated programme for such areas. However,
in broad terms, the content of the large majority of the RDPs addresses the key issues highlighted by the
NSP, trying to avoid/reduce the abandonment of mountain areas and of mountain farming, and the lack
of adequate/proper strategic forestry planning and management. This has been achieved predominantly
through funding of Measure 211. Almost all the Italian RDPs have used Measure 211 as a major tool for
addressing mountain farming/issues, with fairly similar eligibility and payment criteria, apart from the
Regions entirely classified as mountainous that adopted a more sophisticated approach for both aspects
(e.g. adopting a complex more payment formula, allowing them to take into account a wider range of
factors).
However, the analysis of the funding of Measure 211 and of the other measures directly addressing
mountain farming shows relevant differences between regions/areas. The budget allocated to Measure
211 varies from 0,7% in Puglia to 21,9% in Valle d’Aosta and Trento, while the RDP budget spent on all
the relevant measures varies from 4,8% (Sicilia) to 89,5% (Trento). Northern regions (Piemonte,
Lombardia, Veneto, Trento, Bolzano, Aosta) devoted far larger resources to mountain-related measures,
whereas most other Regions allocated only minor amounts to this sector (both in terms of funds spent
on Measure 211 and on all other mountain-relevant measures), non-withstanding the high presence of
mountain areas in their territory.
The RDPs approach to solving the problems highlighted by the Italian NSP is usually two-sided, namely:
(i) Support for diversification-oriented measures, namely Measure 311 (Diversification into nonagricultural
activities), used in 17 RDPs; Measure 313 (Incentives for Tourism activities), used in 12
RDPs; Measure 321 (Basic services for rural economy and population), used in 11 RDPs; Measure 323 (Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage), used in 11 RDPs; and (ii) Support for Forestryimprovement,
namely Measure 125 (Infrastructures linked to the development of farm and forestry) used
in 10 RDPs; Measure 121 (Modernisation of agricultural holdings); Measure 214 (Agri-Environment
payments); and Measure 226 (Restoration of forestry potential and preventive interventions). Other
measures that indirectly or potentially address mountain farming/issues include: Measure 122 (Economic
Exploitation of forestry); Measure 123 (Increase in the added value of farm and forestry produce);
Measure 124 (Cooperation for the development of new products / processes); Measure 216 (Nonproductive
investments); Measure 221 (First afforestation of agricultural land); & Measure 227 (Support
to non-productive investments in forestry areas).
2.3.2 Spanish national summary results
Spain is a country well known for its wide plains but it also includes a significant portion of mountain
areas (42,6 % according to Eurostat, 2000), mainly located along its Northern borders (Pais Basco,
Asturias, Cantabria). In overall terms, the RDPs appear to be highly consistent with the NSP framework
developed for Spain. The NSP highlights a wide range of challenges in mountain areas including
demographic change; land abandonment; soil erosion; remoteness/accessibility; lack of competitiveness;
risk of fire and deforestation. It also highlights certain opportunities that exist in certain mountain areas
including protection of landscapes and traditional animal husbandry. It also elaborates the proposed
policy responses, including the need to support handicapped/disadvantaged areas, ensure environmental
protection and sustainability and protection of forests. Significantly, it specifically stresses the importance
of two measures in support of mountain areas, namely Measure 112 (Setting up of young farmers) and
Measure 114 (Use of advisory services by farmers and forest holders). For both of these measures the
main eligibility criteria is defined as the location in handicapped/disadvantaged areas. This detailed
strategic framework appears to have been transferred into most RDP frameworks. However, when
analysing individual measures, and their relative weight of funding within RDPs, a more complex picture
emerges.
Concerning the implementation of Measure 211, all regions adopted a mixed approach, in terms of
eligibility criteria, based on a wide number of factors, often applying a rather sophisticated formula,
aimed at promoting improved targeting to those most in need of such support. This approach partially
explains why the funding allocations for this measure are relatively low in all the RDPs (compared to
some other MS – e.g. Italy), varying from 0,8 (Andalucia) to 13,% of overall budget (Cantabria), with the
highest levels usually found in regions with higher presence of mountain territory.
The higher use of other measures, usually horizontal (e.g. 214, 112, 121, 114, 221) which on average,
exceed the relative amount of designated mountain areas in each region, appear to reflect a broader
strategic approach adopted by Spain that seeks to support mountain areas primarily through investment
in modernising of existing farming/forestry practices, rather than promoting rural/farm diversification
towards other income sources (e.g. tourism). This approach appears to offer a marked contrast in the
approach adopted by other Mediterranean countries (e.g. Italy) which have tended to favour farm/rural
diversification.
The actual use, impact and overall effectiveness of supporting mountain areas through the use of such
measures is not fully clear, based on the current desk based research, requiring more detailed analysis to
understand the relative merits of this approach over other strategies.
2.4 Monitoring data summary
EAGGF Guarantee section monitoring data for EU-25 for the years 2002-2006 was analysed in order to
understand the importance and nature of the support to mountain areas during this previous
programming period. As EAGGF Guidance data are not considered, only the information provided for early
retirement, LFA, areas with environmental restrictions, agri-environment and animal welfare and
afforestation of agricultural land measures are complete. The MS with mountain areas considered in the
analysis 3 are AT, BG, CZ, CY, DE, GR, ES, FI 4 , FR, IT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, and SE.
The analysis reveals that just under 30% of total EAGGF Guarantee expenditure, approximately €1.3 bn
p.a., was allocated to mountain LFA areas in EU-25. The share allocated to mountain areas in the new
MS was lower than in EU-15. In those MS with designated mountain areas, on average 33% of EAGGF-
Guarantee expenditure was allocated to those areas. In absolute terms FR and IT spent the most in
mountain areas (annual expenditure averaging €460 and €360 million respectively), followed by FI, ES
and AT. AT and SL allocated over two thirds of public expenditure to mountain areas.
Over half of the EAGGF Guarantee expenditure to mountain areas was channeled through the LFA and
agri-environment and animal welfare measures. Excluding the LFA measure, the following measures had
the largest proportion of their expenditure allocated to mountain areas: (i) Other forestry measures
(43%); (ii) Setting-up of young farmers (30%); (iii) Investments in agricultural holdings (26%); (iv) Agrienvironment
and animal welfare (24%).
A comparison of average expenditure per approved application between non LFA areas and mountain
areas shows different results according to the measure being considered. For investment and Art 33
measures, expenditure per application is typically higher in non-LFA areas. In particular, the average
‘investment in agricultural holdings’ applications were 42% higher in non-LFA measures, than in mountain
areas. Conversely, investments in the forestry sector were 49% higher in mountain areas.
3 Selected as per the definition given in Reg. (EC) 1257/99 Art.16 -20)
Draft submitted to DG AGRI on 09/10/09 8
National Strategic Plans (NSPs) Screening Results
Scope: The NSPs of the 16 MS with delimited mountain LFAs were reviewed.
Overall consistency / strength of links between the NSPs and RDPs: The screening results reveal a high correlation between the NSP and RDP’s in 4 Member States (i.e. clear identification of the problems/constraints addressed and link with relevant RD measures); A medium correlation in 7 Member States ((i.e. identification of some problems/constraints which are addressed /linked with selection of some relevant RD measures) and a low correlation in 6 Member States (i.e. identification of some problems/constraints but weaker link with selection of RD measures).
Explicit references to mountain areas: 14 of the 16 NSP’s contain explicit references to mountain areas, mainly related to the economic, social, infrastructure and environmental challenges in rural areas. Common issues highlighted in most NSP’s include the general demographic decline in mountain areas; remoteness and accessibility problems; degradation of land and landscapes (erosion and deforestation); Lack of farm competitiveness and scale issues; and the overall trends and diversity of mountain areas.
Indirect references to mountain areas: Indirect references are included in all 16 NSPs. References of significance in mountain areas tend to focus upon: Strategic priorities and /or actions to assist disadvantaged/handicapped areas; counter the depopulation of mountain areas; improving the economic, social and economic opportunities in mountain areas; protecting the biodiversity; enhancing the rural heritage; and promotion of more integrated rural and territorial development. The main results from the NSP screening are summarized in the following two tables:
Table 1: Screening of mountain farming in NSPs 2007-2013
Screening questions Narrative summary of screening results for 15 NSPs
1.1 Does the NSP 14 NSP’s make direct reference to mountain areas/farming contain any explicit 2 NSPs make no direct reference to mountain areas/farming (i.e. Poland & reference to mountain Finland) areas/mountain farming? For those NSPs that make direct reference to mountain areas, they can be
grouped as follows, based on the nature of their direct references:
Group 1 NSPs which highlight only the main problems in mountain areas (6): Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden.
Group 2 NSPs that highlight both the positive and negative dynamics of mountain areas/ farms (6): Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
NSPs that highlight both the positive and negative dynamics of mountain Group 3 areas/farms and provide indications of the policy responses to be developed
(2): France and Portugal.
1st most frequently
referenced negative 12 NSPs cite ‘demographic changes and land abandonment’ as one of the issues/problems most significant problem to be addressed in mountain areas.
2nd most frequently
referenced negative 11 NSPs cite ‘remoteness’ and ‘accessibility’ as significant problems to be issues/problems addressed in mountain areas.
3rd most frequently
referenced negative 8 NSPs cite ‘soil erosion’ as a significant problem to be addressed in issues / problems mountain areas.
4th most frequently
referenced negative 7 NSPs cite ‘farm scale/lack of competitiveness’ as a significant problem to issues / problems be addressed in mountain areas.
5th most frequently
referenced negative 5 NSPs cite ‘deforestation’ as a significant problem to be addressed in issues / problems mountain areas.
6th most frequently
referenced negative 2 NSPs cite ‘dependence upon public funding’ as a significant problem to be issues / problems addressed in mountain areas.
st
1 most frequently
referenced positive 10 NSPs cite ‘protection of landscapes’ as a significant opportunity to be issues / opportunity addressed in mountain areas.
nd
2 most frequently
referenced positive 8 NSPs cite ‘tourism’ and/or ‘agro-tourism’ as a significant opportunity to be issues / opportunity addressed in mountain areas.
rd
3 most frequently 7 NSPs cite ‘diversification’ as a significant opportunity to be addressed in referenced positive mountain areas. issue /opportunity
th
4 most frequently 5 NSPs cite ‘livestock’ and/or ‘animal husbandry’ as a significant opportunity referenced positive to be addressed in mountain areas. issue /opportunity
referenced positive addressed in mountain areas. issue /opportunity
Draft submitted to DG AGRI on 09/10/09 10
1.2 Are there (other) All NSP’s screened with the exception of Poland, make references to elements in the NSP particular aspects in their strategy that could be of relevance to mountain which could be areas/ farms. particularly relevant Indirect / implicit references of particular relevance to mountain areas / for mountain areas? farming cited in the screened NSPs include:
Support to Less favored / disadvantaged / handicapped areas: Element 1 References in 15 NSPs. Highlighting the problems and needs linked to
accessibility, productive capacity of the land and scale of farming etc.
Environmental protection/Biodiversity: References in 11 NSPs.
Element 2 Including the need to promote sustainable use and access to resources in mountain areas; protection against over use and damage through tourism;
protection of biodiversity; protection against soil erosion; fire protection etc.
Quality of life: References in 4 NSPs. Including the need to improve Element 3 access to remote rural areas (particularly in mountain areas); improved
access to services (health, education) in mountain areas;
Animal husbandry: References in 1 NSP. Including the opportunity to Element 4 promote certain livestock (reindeer in Sweden) and certain breeds in
mountain areas/farms.
Tourism: References in 4 NSPs. Citing the need to promote the tourist Element 5 potential of certain regions with natural advantages (e.g. skiing, climbing,
hiking, rafting etc).
Table 2: NSP screening results by MS
Explicit references to
No Member state Explicit Most frequently mentioned Indirect references to mountain farming / issues of reference mountain farming/ mountain Most frequently referenced negative issues/
areas problems positive issues/ opportunities particular relevance to mountain areas
s s s s s e /
t o t
o / k s s -
s u
e
e t
o
n n
s u
e it ie n c
c e s u
e it ie ic d t ro f n F / d l
s s o
g ta it h h
)
ig
re s u
e s
L g e
d
n c
e e s il it y
n e
c p h e n n / l a
c
ti o in g e
s ti o / s s u
e s
fe p
e
e n n f li
fe
l d ry a
s /h
m
Member state Yes/ No re s /
i s
s /
is rt u n
o li c y
ra l
a n m s io
n e e
n e
s ta n
c e
u n
d
/ A s m o
n o
a p a a
l c k is it ie
n d
ry
to u
n
re t
is
fe m re
s /
is rt u n n e
re rt t
o
a n ta a p a s m
fe m ic
c ti
o
o a a n ri s
m S P w 's
p p o m p p
o p o n
s
s p o
g g e / d o n ro o te s s
ib
c a
le
o f ti ti
v
re u ri c
ti if ic im
v a
n te ty
o u e
r a
re
f N d
iu
R D
P e
b le R e b le R e
fe
b le m c
e s p e n d
e
li c
f
ri s
m
to te b
a n a
l
n d s c e rs A
n
li v
e s p o rt
e c
t
le p
o
a d
v
n d a
re
ir o
n
P ro u a
li A n
im
h u
s b T
O th k
o /m
w
A :
R e d o a n
d
re D e m c h a
n
a b
a n S o il
e
R e a
c m
D e
fo
P ro la
p ro B
:
p ro a n
d o
C : p ro a n F a
rm
c o D
e p
e
p u
b
T o
u
D iv h
u s d it io
A d /
o p d ir
In /
re S u
p
d is h
a
E n
v Q
L in (l o
1 Austria Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 1 Medium
2 Bulgaria Yes 1 1 Yes 1 Medium
3 Cyprus Yes 1 1 1 Yes 1 Low
4 Czech Rep Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 Low
5 France Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 High
6 Germany Yes 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 Low
7 Greece Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 Medium
8 Italy Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 Medium
9 Poland No No Low
10 Portugal Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 High
11 Romania Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 1 High
12 Slovakia Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 Medium
13 Slovenia Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 1 Low
14 Spain Yes 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 High
15 Sweden Yes 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 1 Medium
16 Finland No 1 1 1 Yes 1 1 Low
Draft submitted to DG AGRI on 09/10/09 12
Rural Development Plans (RDPs) Screening Results
-
1.Summary of LFA measure
The following elaborations are based on the analysis undertaken for 61 RDPs (17 MS). 49 RDPs apply Measure 211, while 11 RDPs (CY, CZ, ES-Murcia, ES-Asturias, PL, PT-Continente, PT-
Madeira, SE, SL, SK, FI-Continental) apply measure 211 and measure 212 together.
The holding size criteria has been applied in most RDPs (56), thus becoming the most common mechanism to improve targeting of the measure support. The general trend followed by the RDPs is to establish holding size criteria, combined with altitude/ slope criteria, with varying degrees of complexity. The sophistication of the criteria tends to be directly linked to country and regional objectives and funding allocations, which will guide targeting of support to either broader or more focused groups of potential beneficiaries in mountain areas.
MS Measure(s) applied N° of criteria
ES 211 4 SL 211 + 212 4 CY 211 + 212 4 SK 211 + 212 3 SE 211 + 212 3 PT 211 + 212 3 PL 211 + 212 3 DE 211 3 CZ 211 + 212 3 BG 211 3 AT 211 3 IT 211 3 RO 211 2 GR 211 2 FR 211 2
NB: Two Spanish RDPs applied measures 211 and 212 jointly,
N° of eligibility criteria used in measure 211 by MS
N° of criteria
0 1 2 3 4 5
AT
BG
CY
CZ
DE
ES
FI
FR
GR
IT
PL
PT
RO
SE
SK
SL
Types of payment criteria applied in Measure 211
50 45
45
40 37
35
s 30
f R
D P 25
21
° o 18
N 20
15 11
10
5
0 Livestock Units (LU) Type of Area size Localisation Other farming/cultivation
-
2.Other measures explicitly addressing the needs of mountain areas/mountain farming
The following analysis is based on the data provided in 61 RDPs fiches (16 MS) excluding UK-
Scotland (specific information on the Scottish RDP is provided separately, if relevant).
RDP measures (other than measure 211) explicitly addressing mountain areas
40
35 35
30 27
25
( n
) 21
c y 20 19
q u
e n 17
16
14 14 15 F re 15 14
13
11 12
13
10 8 9
10 8
7 5
5 3 4 3 3 4 4
2 2 2 1
0
RDP Measures
A consistent number of measures across the 61 examined RDPs provide specific references to the support of mountain areas/mountain farming. Not all of them show the same importance if we consider the frequency with which they have been chosen to tackle specific mountain issues.
Measure 214 appears to have the highest connection with mountain farming having been targeted to it in 35 RDPs (in UK-Scotland, the measure also shows a connection with the regional specific LFA areas). Apart from this measure, Axis 2 shows a relevant connection with the topic principally concerning forestry measures (221- first afforestation of agricultural land, 226 – restoring forestry potential and prevention actions, 223 – first afforestation of non-agricultural land).
Axis 1 measures are generally the most related to mountain areas. Several measures (122, 125, 114, 123) have a connection with mountain areas at least in 14 -17 RDPs; Measure 121 – modernisation of agricultural holdings (27 RDPs) and Measure 112 – setting up of young farmers (21 RDPs) are the two measures most frequently targeting mountain areas after measure 214.
Among Axis 3 measures, the highest connection with mountain farming is particularly evident for measure 311 –diversification into non-agricultural activities (19 RDPs). Axis 4 measures were, in most of the cases, generically indicated as addressing mountain issues but without any further reference to specific measures/actions. This is due to specific priority criteria in selecting or targeting LAG and their actions in LFA areas (explicitly or de facto including mountain areas).
MS vary in terms of the number of explicitly targeted measures to mountain areas. In terms of number of measures identified, Italy and Spain (on average) show the highest number of measures (7) followed by Portugal (6).
Average number of measures explicitly addressing mountain areas by MS
8
7
7 7
6 6
s 5
re su
e a 4
o f
m
N ° 3 3 3 3
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
AT BG CY CZ FI FR DE IT GR PT PL RO SK SL ES SE UK
NB: five Spanish RDPs and one French RDP mention also 'Axis 4 ' measures in general (not counted in the chart). For MS with regionalised RDPs, the average number of measures is considered
Axis 1 investment measures 121, 122 and 112
The objective of measure 121 (modernisation of agricultural holdings) is to increase the competitiveness of the agricultural sector through productivity of physical capital. The support is given through tangible and intangible investments in agricultural holdings.
The analysis shows that in 27 RDPs (4 MS in total: FR, IT, ES, CZ) this measure is explicitly linked with mountain areas and mountain farming activities. The references made to mountain areas can be generally grouped as presented in the chart below.
15% of the RDPs indicate specific priority for mountain farmers/holding, including also specific priorities for sectors that are relevant and/or exclusive to mountain areas. In practical terms this usually translates in a higher level of payment granted to these subjects.
The application of differentiated payment criteria and levels is applied by the majority of the RDPs (69%) which explicitly set different payment criteria and level according to the location of the holdings (e.g.: LFA/non LFA areas). These different payment parameters include different min/max eligible amounts, % of total investment supported, etc. The majority of the Spanish RDPs, for example, have adopted a similar approach in defining the support intensity by increasing of a 10% the rate of support to the investments (in general up to the 60% of the eligible cost). Outside Spain, also CZ and FR-Hexagone apply the same criterion.
4% 15% 8%
Implemented only in Mas
4%
S pecific sub-measures/actions
Differnet payment levels
S pecific target for MAs
Priority for MAs
69%
Other direct applicability to mountain areas is due to the presence of specific submeasures/actions that are targeted to typical mountain farming systems or cultivations. In Corse, for example, three specific actions are implemented within the measures that aim to:
A. support immaterial and material investments for creation or modernisation of farm buildings, with increased aid level in mountain area;
B. support the installation or rehabilitation of important perennial cultures for mountain areas (forage cultivation, chestnut, olive, and other traditional fruit tree orchards, .etc.);
C. support the modernisation of equipment, which is essential for farms in mountain areas most being in backwardness with regard to equipments.
In the Italian province of Bolzano, action ‘B’ of measure 121 is specifically targeted to support building of shelters/frames to protect agricultural machinery in mountain areas.
In a few cases, the measure is completely implemented in mountain areas (e.g.: IT-Trento) or it presents a not better identified ‘target for beneficiaries in MAs’ which is related to a specific output indicator.
The levels of payment (expressed in terms of % of total eligible investment cost) vary between RDPs, ranging from 45% to 75%. As mentioned already, usually these percentages applied for mountain area holdings are 5 to 10% points higher compared to the percentages in nonmountainous areas.
The two main criteria identified for measure 121 are also the most used for Measure 122 (Improvement of the economic values of forests) the aim of which is to support the diversification of the forestry production and the marketing of the forestry products while maintaining sustainable management practices.
The measure explicitly address mountain areas in 17 RDPs (in FR, IT, ES) and in 8 of them higher levels of support are granted to forestry in mountain LFA. In Corse, for example, the measure shows to provide a very important support for the development of mountain areas, where forestry is in backwardness. The support is conditioned to the respect of established rules, plans and good practices at regional level according to the national law for the forests (public and private). In the majority of the other cases, which practically refers to several Italian RDPs, the intervention is circumscribed in rural areas where the presence of mountains is relevant (areas C and D according to the national classification). This approach in the Italian case is confirmed by some explicit statement in the measure objective about the improvement of MAs conditions and their economic development.
The intensity of the support given to the forestry investments in LFA areas is generally 10% higher then the reference level (on average, 60% of eligible expenditure against the 40-50% in non-LFA areas).
The same condition usually applies also to measure 112 (setting up of young farmers) where the majority of the RDPs (14 out of 21) have set different payment levels depending on farm location where the support for farms in mountain areas (and other LFA areas as well) is higher than the reference payment level (on average, +10%). When this mechanism is not applied, RDPs have at least to consider to give priority to young farmers setting up in mountain areas in the selection of the applications (in particular, this applies to several Spanish RDP).
Measure 125: Improving and developing infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry
Measure 125 aims to improve the infrastructure related to the development of the agricultural and forestry sector in order to enhance their competitiveness. The actions supported range from the improvement of access to farm and forest lands to water management and energy supply.
From the analysis of the 16 RDPs (4 MS in total: IT, PT, RO, ES) that explicitly or de facto target the measure at mountain areas, it is clear that there is a priority to restructure and develop the physical potential of disadvantaged areas; in several cases this is confirmed by a statement of specific operational objectives within the measure description. In the majority of the cases the Measure, specific sub-measures or even single specific actions (e.g. creation of water points in mountains in Italy-Marche, development of collective systems of irrigated plots in Portugal Madeira, action for drought prevention in Italy-Bolzano) show targeting on these types of areas, among which mountain areas are relevant.
The link with mountain areas can be established through delimitation of the intervention (often referred to the national classification of rural areas, as in the case of the Italian RDPs), by giving priority to interventions in mountain areas or to specific sectors - as forestry – that are relevant in mountain areas.
Even more explicitly, some RDPs (in Spain in particular) have clearly defined different levels of support (both in terms of intensity/% of supported expenditure and expenditure limits) that ensure a higher intervention for mountain areas also with some differences according, for example, to the size of the municipality. In general, the range of support in terms of % of supported expenditure varies between 30% and 100%.
Measure 214: Agri-environment payments
Measure 214 aims at implementing Axis 2 objectives such as biodiversity preservation, quantitative and qualitative conservation of water resources, increase of biomass production and of environmentally friendly practices. Moreover, Measure 214 is complementary to measures of Axis 1, aimed at encouraging the use of organic and integrated agricultural production systems.
Measure 214 is the most frequently used among the other measures explicitly addressing the
needs of mountain areas. According to the results of the screening it is included in 35 RDPs 5 .
When reviewing the applied measure eligibility criteria, type of intervention, aid level and type of beneficiaries, the analysis reveals a highly varied approach adopted by Member States. As far as eligibility criteria are concerned, 5 main types emerge, namely: (i) Environmental sensitive areas, which include Nature 2000 and vulnerable areas; (ii) Specific crops, when the measure has been applied to support a particular kind of crop (e.g. rye, wheat, barley) including endangered local crops; (iii) Animal species at risk, targeted at preserving native species (e.g. for Spain-Navarra bovines Betiz y Casta Navarra and others); (iv) Mountain pasture; wetlands, grasslands and meadows and specific holdings, for example those located in environmental sensitive areas; and, (v) Organic farming and environmentally friendly practices.
The analysis below shows a degree of variety in the eligibility criteria used for Measure 214. Overall the frequency of use of the five main eligibility criteria defined above is proportionately quite equal, with slightly less frequent use of criteria for specific holdings (used in 12 RDPs) and wetlands, grasslands, meadows (used in 19 RDPs). Moreover, the Member States RDPs exhibit quite a mixed approach in the choice of the eligibility criteria in countries such as: Czech Republic, France – Reunion, Germany – NW, Italia –Piemonte, Portugal – Madeira, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain – Baleares – Navarra – Pais Vasco opting for a simple approach using just 1 main eligibility criteria. Whereas for RDPs in countries such as: France – Hexagone, Italia – Emilia Romagna – Friuli Venezia Giulia – Trento, Spain – Andalucia – Catalunya – Murcia, and UK – Scotland, more complex frameworks were established, opting for the use of 5 eligibility criteria.
5 In Sweden, the Mountain Pasture criterion “is included as one of 9 land types for the first specific action. As well as contributing to the halt in biodiversity loss by 2010, a further aim is to maintain the biodiversity and cultural values at 230 mountain holdings”. (Sweden RDP fiche).
In France Hexagone, the Environmental sensitive areas (Natura 2000, vulnerable areas etc.) criterion is selected because “Many environmentally sensitive areas (permanent grasslands, high nature value farmlands, particular habitats, …) subject to measure 214 are located in mountain areas” (France – Hexagone RDP fiche).
Frequency of eligibility criteria used in M 214
Environmental sensitive areas (Natura 2000, vulnerable areas etc.)
Specific crops (including crops at risk)
35 34 Animal species at risk
12 Mountain Pasture
25
19 Wetlands, grasslands,
meadows 25 31
Specific holdings (ex. located in environmental sensitive areas)
Organic farming and environmental friendly practice
By analysing the type of intervention and the aid level, Organic farming and environmental friendly practices is the most frequent intervention (in 46 RDPs), followed by Protection of endangered species (in 18 RDPs) and Specific crops (in 15 RDPs), whilst the minimum years of farming is used only in 2 RDPs (Italia – Bolzano and Emilia Romagna). The different types of direct payment related to Measure 214 can be grouped as follows: according to eligibility criteria (France Hexagon does it for stocking density); according to crop/livestock units/other land use (e.g. Basilicata maximum € 450/ha for vineyards); according to mountain pastures with and without herdsman (Slovenia); for mountain cut meadows (Slovakia 128.88 EUR/ha). The table below provides three examples of specific payment levels for mountain beneficiaries in Italy – Veneto and Bolzano, and in Germany – Bavaria. Payment levels in general are variable ranging from under €100/ha to over €300/ha.
Examples of specific payment levels for mountain beneficiaries – Measure 214
Italia – Veneto Italia – Bolzano Germany – Bavaria
Action 1 - Maintenance of The amount of aid must be Ensure a proper stable meadows in non EUR 360/ha for mountain management of grazing in vulnerable areas (incl. meadows. the mountain, supervision by mountains): regular staff: In mountain areas: EUR 1. Per ha light meadow 217/ha. 90 euro/ha.
-
2.Per meadow/alps at least 675 euro.
-
3.Per herdsman max. 2750 euro.
Action 2 - Maintenance of Supervision without regular stable meadows in vulnerable staff: areas (incl. mountains): 1. Per ha light meadow In mountain areas: EUR 45 euro7ha 171/ha. 2. Per meadow/alpen at
least 335 euro - max. 1375 euro.
Action 3 - Maintenance of pastures and meadowpastures in mountain areas:
In mountain areas: EUR
85/ha
2/3 of financial resources are dedicated to mountain areas.
The analysis shows that the most frequent type of beneficiary is 'Farmers' (in 54 RDPs), which includes agricultural entrepreneurs, land owners, livestock breeders, bee breeders etc. The other two types of beneficiary are: types of holdings (regional, agricultural etc.), wetland administrative bodies and managers of forest areas. France - Hexagon applies Measure 214 to all the 3 types of beneficiaries, Italia - Emilia Romagna to farmers and holdings, Portugal - Mainland to farmers and wetland administrative bodies, managers of forest areas, while all the other MS apply the measure to only 1 type of beneficiary, namely farmers.
Frequency of type of intervention in M 214
50 46
45
40
35
30
25
20 18
15 15
10
5 2
0
Organic farming and Protection of Minimum years of Specific crops environmental friendly endangered species farming
practices
Certain nuances can been seen when looking more closely at some specific examples for certain RDPs. For example in Portugal (Madeira) they have introduced specific eligibility criteria for conservation of typical kinds of stone walls; In Spain (Andalusia) the RDP placed emphasis on chestnut tree management; And in Scotland they have specific requirements for promoting Muirburn and Heather production.
Frequency of type of beneficiaries in M 214
4 2 Farmers (including agricultural entrepreneurs, land owners,
livestock breeders etc.)
Types of holdings (Regional, agricultural etc.)
Wetland administrative bodies,
managers of forest areas
54
Axis 2 forestry measures 221 and 226
The main aim of measure 226 (restoring forestry potential and introducing preventionactions) and measure 221 (first afforestation of agricultural land), is to contribute to Axis 2 objetives thourgh the protection of the environement, the prevention of natural hazards, the preservation of the environmental and economic role of forests.
13 RDPs (4 MS: FR, IT, Pt, SK) have specifically targeted measure 226 or specific submeasures/actions at mountain areas or at areas in which mountains assume a relevant role or, in general, at disadvantaged areas. The way in which the link with these areas is provided can be represented by a delimitation of the national/regional territory in which the measure can be applied (territorial targeting, often referring to the national classification for rural areas, e.g. Italian RDPs) or through a priority of the interventions. This criteria has been applied also in measure 221, but in a lower extent (3 RDPs out of 15).
In a few cases, the link with mountain areas is weaker. In one case, for example, ‘mountain authorities’ are listed among the potential beneficiaries of the measures (no further detail is given) while in another RDP (IT-Toscana), the measure description generically highlights the need of ‘preventing landslide nearby mountain creeks’.
Among the beneficiaries who can have access to the measure land owners (also in association), local authorities and public bodies are considered. In general the public support rate for the measure is set at 100% of the expenditures, but in the majority of cases this percentage can be reached only by public bodies or authorities while the support rate for privates is usually lower (70%-80%).
For measure 221, the approach followed in the most of the cases (9 RDPs) has been to guarantee higher level of support to MAs/LFA with an average increase of 10% of the basic rate of support (usually 70-80%).
Measure 311: Diversification into non-agricultural activities
Measure 311 and more in general measures under Axis 3 should contribute to the main priority of the creation of employment opportunities in rural areas in non-agricultural activities and services. Measure 311 foresees support to members linked to farm holding who diversify in nonagricultural activities.
In this context the analysis shows that among the Axis 3 measures, measure 311 has been directly linked to the support of mountain areas in 19 RDPs (among which 16 Italian RDPs, FR- Reunion, Navarra and Cataluña for Spain). In practically all cases, this link is provided by an explicit targeting to mountain areas or areas where mountains are relevant such as disadvantaged areas and LFA that suffer of depopulation.
This targeting action has been translated to ensuring a priority for the actions to be carried out in these areas or even more through an exclusive application of the measure. This means that either farmers on other areas are excluded for the support, or the farmers in mountain areas are given priority during the selection of the projects.
From the economic support point of view, in those cases in which priority is given to mountain areas, farmers (or farmers’ family members) can receive a higher % of total investment expenditures supported (e.g. 50% in LFA areas against the 40% in other areas or 45% in disadvantaged areas against the 35%).
When the measure is exclusively applied in mountain areas the support percentage varies from 30% to 75% according to different factors as area, type of farmer (e.g. young farmer), type of project (simple/integrated project).
-
3.Other measures which could apply to mountain areas (no explicit reference in the RDPs)
RDP measures that could apply to mountain areas (62 RDPs)
42 40
40 38 36 34 32 30
28 26
n ) 26 y ( 24 22 e n c 22 q u 20
18
F re 16
14 14 14
14 13 12
12 10 10 8 8 8 7 7 6 5
6 5 5 5 4 2 2 3 3 3 3
4
2 1 1
2 2 3
0 111 112 114 121 122 123 124 125 126 131 132 133 213 214 215 216 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 311 312 313 321 322 323 341
RDP measure
The analysis undertaken on 62 RDPs indicates that several RDP measures are considered to have a relevant role in supporting mountain areas even if no explicit reference is made about mountain farming in the RDPs.
30 measures potentially relevant to mountain areas have been identified at least once in the
analysed RDPs, with measure 214 being identified in 40 different RDPs 6 . Other measures of Axis
2 have considered to have a particularly relevance are measure 216 and the forestry-related
measures 226 and 227 7 .
6 In Finland – Mainland, the Organic farming and environmentally friendly practices criterion is considered linked to MF
because “Land in mountain areas are likely to be highly suited to extensive organic production systems”. (Finland – Mainland RDP fiche).
In France – Corse, Specific crops (including crops at risk) is selected because “except citrus fruits, most eligible endangered traditional plant species and local varieties (chestnut, olive, fig, grapes, onions, aromatic plants) are characteristic of mountain farming systems in Corsica”; Animal species at risk because “most eligible endangered traditional animal species (donkey, horse, cattle, goat, pig, bee), are characteristic of mountain livestock breeding systems in Corsica”; Wetlands, grasslands and meadows because “extensive use of grasslands is common to the whole mountain area”. (France – Corse RDP fiche).
7 Where a measure does not have any sub-measure, it can explicitly make reference to mountain areas or not, i.e. be
included in the analysis of section 2 or section 3. However, where a measure has several discrete sub-measures, one or more sub-measures may make explicit reference to mountain areas and other sub-measures may not do so but may also apply to mountain areas. Thus, such measure may be included in the analyses of both section 2 and section 3. For examples, Measure 214 is explicitly applied to mountain areas in 35 RDPs and implicitly in 40 RDPs.
The importance of the forestry sector is confirmed by the high frequency of measure 122 in Axis 1. In this axis the other most relevant measures are the ones related to investments (121 and 123) together with the measure on cooperation for the development of new product, processes and technologies. Among Axis 3 measures, measure 313 on encouragement of tourism activities is considered to have relevance in mountain areas in the largest number of RDPs, followed by measures 311 – diversification of agricultural activities and 323 – conservation and upgrading of cultural heritage.
In 11 out of the 16 MS considered in the analysis, at least one measure that could be relevant for mountain areas has been identified even if no specific reference is made in the related RDPs. In certain MS, for example, Romania, Italy, Sweden 6/7 different measures have been identified, 5 in Spain and France indicating that in these countries a further analysis could be undertaken in order to establish an eventual link between a strategy for mountain areas and the potential
support given by the implementation of the RDPs measures identified 8 .
N° of RDP measures that could apply to muntain areas by MS
8 7
7 6 6 6
s 6 5 5
u re 5 4 4
e a
s 4 3 3 3
f m 3
2 2 2
N °
o 2 1 1
1
0 AT BG CY CZ DE ES FI FR GR IT PL PT RO SE SL SK
NB: for the MS with regionalised programmes (ES, IT, FR, FL, PT) an average number of measures has been considered.
8 For the RDPs that refer to regions entirely classified as ‘mountain areas’, each measure can potentially be appplied (i.e.
be relevant) for mountain areas. These cases (as, for example, FR-Corse or IT-Trento) are not interested by the analysis related to Qn 2.3 of the RDP fiches.
Overview of 2002-2006 monitoring data
-
1.Introduction and limitations of the analysis
The analysis below is based on monitoring data provided for the years 2002 to 2006 and referring to the EU-25 Member States (i.e. excluding Romania and Bulgaria). The data that relates to the 2000-2006 programming period for Rural Development Policy are partially uncompleted since the operations financed under the EAGGF – Guidance section are not considered. In this regard, only the information provided for measures d, e.1, e.2, f and h (accompanying measures) is complete since these measures are funded solely under the EAGGF – Guarantee section.
2000-2006 RDP Measures
Code Title Reg. (EC) 1257/99 a investments in agricultural holdings Art. 4-7 b setting-up of young farmers Art. 8 c Training Art. 9 d early retirement Art. 10-12 e.1 less-favoured areas Art. 13-20 e.2 areas with environmental restrictions Art. 13-20 f agri-environment and animal welfare Art. 22-24 g improving processing and marketing of agricultural products Art. 25-28 h afforestation of agricultural land (establishment costs) Art. 31 i other forestry measures (i.1&i.2) Art. 30, 32 j to w promoting the adaptation and development of rural areas Art. 33
When referred to in the charts and tables, ‘MS with mountain areas’ are specified as follows.
MS with areas designated as Mountain Areas
(According to definition given in Reg. (EC) 1257/99 Art.16 -20)
For EU-15: Germany (DE), Greece (GR), Spain (ES), Finland 9 (FI), France (FR), Italy (IT),
Austria (AT), Portugal (PT), Sweden (SE).
For EU-10: Bulgaria (BG) Czech Republic (CZ), Cyprus (CY), Romania (RO), Slovenia (SL),
Slovakia (SK), Poland (PL)
(Bulgaria and Romania are not considered in the analysis)
Draft submitted to DG AGRI on 09/10/09 26
-
2.EAGGF expenditure allocated to mountain areas
To provide an overview of the allocation of the public expenditure committed to the Mountain
areas (according to the definition given by Articles 16 to 20 of the Reg (CE). n° 1257/99) the
2002-2006 monitoring data have been aggregated for all the MS (EU15 + EU10).
Total EA GGF-Guarantee expenditure committed by type of area
LFA - specific handicaps
7%
Non LFA areas 33%
LFA - Other 31%
LFA - Mountain 29%
Total EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure Total EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure
committed by type of area - EU15 committed by type of area - EU10
LFA - specific
handicaps LFA - specific
6% handicaps 9%
Non LFA areas
Non LFA 21%
LFA - Other areas
29% 36% LFA -
LFA - Other Mountain
LFA - 50%
20%
Mountain 29%
• The share of the of the total EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure allocated to LFA areas in the EU 25 during the past programming period is 67%, of which the 43% (29% of the total)
has been allocated to mountain areas.
• The share allocated to mountain areas in the new Member states (2004-2006 data)
is lower than in the EU15 (20%) but the LFA areas share of the overall expenditure is 79%.
• The break-down by measure shows that, apart from measure e.1 dedicated to LFA, Measure (i) – other forestry measures allocate the biggest share of public expenditure to
mountain areas (43%), followed by Measure (b) – setting-up of young farmers (30%),
Measure (a) – investments in agricultural holdings (26%) and Measure (f) – agri-environment
and animal welfare (24%).
Total EA GGF-Guarantee expenditure committed per measure by type of area (2002-2006)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% a b c d g h i j - w f e.1 e.2 Tot al (art .33)
Non LFA areas LFA - Mount ain LFA - Ot her LFA - specific handicaps
• The weight of the expenditure allocated to the LFA areas in general and that allocated to Mountain areas does not change significantly when taking in consideration only the MS with designated mountain areas.
Total EA GGF-Guarantee expenditure committed by type of area
(MS with mountain areas)
LFA - specific handicaps
7%
Non LFA areas 32%
LFA - Other 28%
LFA - Mountain 33%
Total EAGFF-Guarantee expenditure Total EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure committed by type of area - EU15 committed by type of area - EU10 (MS with mountain areas) (MS with mountain areas)
LFA - specific Non LFA
handicaps LFA - specific 7% handicaps
areas
11% 11%
Non LFA
LFA - Other areas LFA -
26% 34% Mountain
27%
LFA - Other
LFA - 51%
Mountain
33%
Tota l EAGGF-Guarantee ex penditure com m itted by Total EAGGF-Gua rante e expenditure com mitte d by
ty pe of area type of a rea
Accom panying me asures (d, e , f, h) Othe r me asures
LFA - specific LFA - specific handicaps handicaps 8% 5%
Non LFA areas
20% LFA - Other
20%
LFA - Other Non LFA areas
39% 54%
LFA - Mountain
LFA - Mount ain 21%
33%
Total EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure Total EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure
committed by type of area - FI committed by type of area - UK
Non LFA
areas LFA - specific LFA - specific 0% handicaps
handicaps 0% 24%
Non LFA areas
LFA - 36%
Mountain
LFA - Other 55% LFA - Other
21% 61% LFA -
Mountain 3%
To t al EA GGF-Guarant ee expendit ure commit t ed per measure by t ype o f area (2002-2006)
MS wit h mo unt ain areas
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% a b c d g h i j - w f e.1 e.2 Total (art.33)
Non LFA areas LFA - Mountain LFA - Other LFA - specific handicaps T o tal EA GGF -Guarantee expenditure co mmitted per measure by type o f area (2002-2006)
M S with mo untain areas - EU15
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
a b c d g h i j - w f e.1 e.2 T o tal
No n LFA areas LFA - M o unt ain LFA - Ot her LFA - sp ecif ic hand icap s
T o tal EA GGF -Guarantee expenditure co mmitted per measure by type o f area (2002-2006)
M S with mo untain areas - EU10
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
a b c d g h i j - w f e.1 e.2 T o tal
No n LFA areas LFA - M o unt ain LFA - Ot her LFA - sp ecif ic hand icap s
• The total EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure committed to mountain areas by measure shows that more of the half of public expenditure (54%) has been channelled through
measures (e.1) and (f).
• However, measure (a) together with the measures under former Article 33 (j to w)
contributes a further 25% of the expenditure allocated to mountain areas.
Tot al EA GGF-Guarant ee expendit ure allocat ed t o
LFA - Mount ain areas by measure (2002-2006)
e.2
0% a
13%
e.1 b 28% 4%
c 1% d 3%
g 8%
h 2%
i 3%
f
26% j - w (art.33) 12%
-
2.MS expenditure in Mountain areas
Total EA GGF-GUarantee expenditure for LFA by country (2002-2006)
4.000.000 €
3.500.000 €
3.000.000 €
2.500.000 €
2.000.000 €
1.500.000 €
1.000.000 €
500.000 €
0 € E K Z Y
A T
E
B D K S R D E F
I
F R G IE IT
L T E
L U N P S U C E
E
C L V L
T U T L L H M P S S
K
LFA - Mount ain LFA - Other LFA - specific handicaps
All Measures
2002-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
10.000.000 € 80%
9.000.000 € 70%
67% 8.000.000 €
59% 60%
7.000.000 € 56% 55%
51% 50%
s ) 6.000.000 € u ro 43% E 5.000.000 €
42% 40%
38%
(' 0 0 0
4.000.000 € 33% 33% 31% 29% 30% 27%
3.000.000 € 20% 20%
2.000.000 €
10% 1.000.000 €
6% 7%
2% 0 € 0%
T E S I R R T E Z 5 A D E F F G IT P S
Y L L K 5 0 C C P S S -1 -1 -2
U U U E E E
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
Total - Measures d, e1, e2, f, h 2002-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
7.000.000,00 € 100%
88% 90% 6.000.000,00 €
80%
5.000.000,00 € 70%
67% ) 60%
s 4.000.000,00 € 59% ro 55% u 54%
55%
E 50%
0
0
0 3.000.000,00 € 42% 42%
(' 41% 40% 38% 39%
29%
2.000.000,00 € 29% 30%
23% 23% 20%
1.000.000,00 € 10%
9% 2%
0,00 € 0%
T E S I R R E Z Y L L 5 0 5 A D E F F IT
T
G P S C C P
K S S -1 -1 -2
U U U E E E
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
• Considering all the measures, in absolute values, FR (2,3 billions EUR) and IT (1,8 billions
EUR), have spent the most on Mountain areas, followed by FI, ES and AT.
• SL shows the highest share of total public expenditure allocated to mountain areas
(67%) following by SK, FI, AT and PT whose shares range from 50% to 60%;
• On average, 33% of the EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure in the EU25 has been allocated to mountain areas.
• When measures d, e1, e2, f and h are considered, AT shows the highest share of total
EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for mountain areas (88%).
• Among the new Member states, SL and SK also have a high share (67% and 55%
respectively).
The following charts provide further details regarding specific measures (only MS where the
measures are implemented are considered).
Measure a. investment in agricultural holdings (art. 4-7) 2002-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
1.200.000,00 € 70%
62%
1.000.000,00 € 60%
50%
800.000,00 € 47%
s ) 40%
u ro 600.000,00 €
34%
0 E 33% (' 0
0 30% 28% 29% 29%
400.000,00 € 20%
200.000,00 € 10%
4% 2%
0,00 € 0% 0% 0% 0% A T DE ES FI FR IT SE CY SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure Measure b. setting-up of young farmers (art.8)
2002-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
400.000,00 € 60%
55% 350.000,00 €
50%
300.000,00 €
40% 250.000,00 €
s ) 36% u ro 32% 32% 32%
E 200.000,00 € 30%
0 0 (' 0
150.000,00 € 20%
100.000,00 € 16%
10% 50.000,00 €
3% 2% 0,00 € 0% 0% 0% 0%
A T DE ES FI FR IT SE CY EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
Measure c. training (art. 9) 2002-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
25.000,00 € 50%
45% 43%
20.000,00 € 40%
35% 33%
s ) 15.000,00 € 30% u ro
E 25%
(' 0 0 0
10.000,00 € 20% 19%
15%
5.000,00 € 10% 10% 9% 10%
5% 3%
0,00 € 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% A T DE ES FI FR IT SE SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
Measure d. early retirement
2002-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
200.000,00 € 60%
56% 180.000,00 €
50% 160.000,00 €
44% 44% 140.000,00 €
40% ) 120.000,00 € s
u ro E 100.000,00 € 30% 0 0
(' 0 80.000,00 €
21% 21% 21% 20% 20%
60.000,00 €
40.000,00 € 10% 10%
20.000,00 € 6%
0,00 € 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
DE ES FR GR IT PT CZ CY PL SL EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
Measure e.1 less-favoured areas (art. 13-20) 2004-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
4.500.000,00 € 100%
4.000.000,00 € 88% 90%
84%
3.500.000,00 € 80% 78%
76%
71% 70%
3.000.000,00 € 68%
62%
s ) 60% 2.500.000,00 € 56% 57% 54% 55%
u ro E 47% 49% 50%
0 2.000.000,00 €
0 0
(' 40% 1.500.000,00 €
30% 27%
1.000.000,00 € 24%
20%
500.000,00 € 13% 10%
2% 0,00 € 0%
A T DE ES FI FR GR IT PT SE CZ CY PL SL SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure Measure e.2 areas w ith environmental restrictions (art. 13-20) 2004-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
1.200,00 € 120%
1.000,00 € 100% 96%
90%
800,00 € 80%
s )
u ro 63% 600,00 € 60%
0 E (' 0
0
400,00 € 40%
200,00 € 20%
1% 4% 0,00 € 0% 1% 0%
DE ES CZ SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
Measure f. agri-environment and animal w elfare (art. 22-24) 2004-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas (abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
2.500.000,00 € 60%
55%
51% 50% 2.000.000,00 € 49%
46%
39% 40% s ) 1.500.000,00 € u ro 31% 31% 32%
29% 30%
0 E (' 0
0
25% 26%
1.000.000,00 €
20% 17%
500.000,00 € 10%
7%
0,00 € 0% 0% 0% DE ES FI FR GR IT PT SE CZ CY SL SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure Measure g.improving processing and marketing of agricultural products (art. 25-28)
2002-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
350.000,00 € 25%
23%
300.000,00 € 22% 20%
250.000,00 €
16%
s ) 15% 200.000,00 €
14%
u ro 14% 0 E
150.000,00 € 11%
(' 0
0 10%
100.000,00 €
5% 50.000,00 €
3% 2%
0,00 € 0% 0% 0% 0% A T DE ES FR IT SE CY SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
Measure h. afforestation of agricultural land (art. 31) (establishment costs)
2004-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
70.000,00 € 60%
60.000,00 € 50%
48%
50.000,00 €
39% 40%
s ) 40.000,00 € u ro
E 30%
0 0 30.000,00 € 26%
(' 0 23% 24% 23%
21%
19% 20%
20.000,00 €
10% 10.000,00 €
3%
0,00 € 1%
1%
0% 0% 0%
DE ES FR GR IT PT CZ CY PL SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure Measure i. other forestry measures (art. 30, 32) (i.1&i.2)
2004-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
450.000,00 € 80%
75%
400.000,00 € 70%
350.000,00 € 60%
300.000,00 € 54%
51% 50% 50%
s ) 47% 47% 250.000,00 €
u ro
E 40%
0 0 200.000,00 € 35% (' 0
30% 150.000,00 €
20% 100.000,00 €
50.000,00 € 10%
6%
0,00 € 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% A T DE ES FI FR IT SE CY SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure % of Total expenditure
Measure j - w. promoting the adaptation and development of rural areas (art.33)
2004-2006 EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure for Mountain areas
(abs olute value and s hare of total expenditure)
0,60 € 700000
53%
0,50 € 600000
46%
500000
0,40 € 40%
s ) 400000
u ro 0,30 €
0 E
26% 300000
(' 0
0
0,20 € 19% 19%
200000
0,10 € 11% 100000
3% 0,00 € 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
A T DE ES FI FR IT SE CY SK EU-15 EU-10 EU-25
MS
LFA - Mountain expenditure Series 2
-
3.Comparison of average expenditures between different types of area
Average expenditure per application approved by measure
400.000,00
341.684,79 350.000,00
320.988,67 329.186,51
300.000,00
250.000,00
200.000,00
150.000,00
100.000,00 19.895,48
11.986,71 4.283,44 8.095,11 7.448,56 39.180,28 50. 000,00 12.569,26 9.819,46 3.698,74
9.754,60 7.395,21 18.343, 59
24.951,57
13.948,71 12.722,91 2.166,10 5.971,26 11.112,00
0,00 a b c g h i j - w
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other Non LFA areas
The comparison of the average expenditure per appication between non LFA areas and mountain areas shows different results depending on the measure considered.
In the investment measures a, g, Art.33 measures and the afforestation measure, the average expenditure per application is usually higher in non LFA areas than in mountain areas. In particular, the average ‘investment in agricultural holdings’ in non LFA areas are 42% higher than the investments undertaken in mountain areas. conversely, investments in the forestry sector (measure i) are much higher in mountain areas (+49% compared to normal areas).
A verage expendit ure per holding support ed
3.000,00
2.500,00
2.000,00
1.500,00
1.000,00
500,00
0,00 e1 e2
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other Non LFA areas A verage expendit ure per ho lding suppo rt ed by year - Measure e2
3.000 € A verage expendit ure per holding support ed by year - Measure e1
2.735,1
3.500 € 2.500 €
2.899
3.000 € 2.820
2.769 1.958,4
1.881,1 2.000 €
2.500 €
1.500 €
1.277,1 1.985 2.000 €
1.027,0
1.000 € 1.377 950,8
1.028,7
1.500 € 736,9 749,4
1.103
1.000 € 500 €
500 € 0 € 2004 2005 2006
0 € LFA - Mountain LFA - Other Non LFA areas
2004 2005 2006
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other
Average expenditure per application approved by MS - measure a
80.000 €
70.000 €
60.000 €
50.000 €
40.000 €
30.000 €
20.000 €
10.000 €
0 € AT DE ES FI FR IT SE
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other Non LFA areas
Average expenditure per application approved by MS - measure g
5.000.000 €
4.500.000 €
4.000.000 €
3.500.000 €
3.000.000 €
2.500.000 €
2.000.000 €
1.500.000 €
1.000.000 €
500.000 €
0 € AT DE ES FR IT SE
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other Non LFA areas
Average expenditure per holding supported by MS - measure e1
35.000 €
30.000 €
25.000 €
20.000 €
15.000 €
10.000 €
5.000 €
0 € AT DE ES FI FR GR IT PT SE CZ CY HU PL SL SK
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other
Average expenditure per application approved by MS - measures j to w
100.000 €
90.000 €
80.000 €
70.000 €
60.000 €
50.000 €
40.000 €
30.000 €
20.000 €
10.000 €
0 € AT DE ES FI FR IT
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other Non LFA areas
Average expenditure per contract by MS - measure f
80.000 €
70.000 €
60.000 €
50.000 €
40.000 €
30.000 €
20.000 €
10.000 €
0 € DE ES FI FR IT PT SE UK CZ SL SK
LFA - Mountain LFA - Other Non LFA areas