Commission working document - DG VI

State of application of regulation (EEC) no. 2078/92: Evaluation of Agri-environment Programmes

Summary

Concerning the relationship between farming and the environment (Part I) :

1. The European farmed landscape is the product of farming over centuries. Biodiversity and the traditional landscape depend on certain farming practices;
2. Some agriculture, particularly intensive systems, is the source of pressure on the environment, including water pollution and abstraction, soil degradation and loss of nature value;
3. Driving forces result in intensification, marginalisation, concentration and specialisation of farming, all of which further imbalance the agriculture–environment relationship; policy responses include application of compulsory regulation to ensure minimum standards and promotion of agri-environment programmes to secure environmental services;
4. Agri-environment programmes ask farmers to undertake environmental activities and pay any income losses and costs. The programmes apply to 900.000 farms (excluding D) and 27 million ha, or 20% of EU farmland, although application is considerably more widespread in five Member States. Expenditure for EU-12 has risen from ECU 0.1 billion in 1993 to an estimated ECU 1.2 billion in 1998 (ECU 1.7 billion for EU-15). This represents about 4% EAGGF, Guarantee expenditure.

Concerning evaluation processes (Part II) :

1. The Commission has taken steps, including adoption of the Commission Implementing Regulation, to ensure that agri-environment programmes are evaluated by Member States. The aims are to determine the environmental, agricultural and socio-economic impacts and to lead to programme development;
2. Member States have on the whole responded well and adopted an evaluation culture within programme management. Despite the preliminary nature of much monitoring data, over 160 reports have been supplied to the Commission;
3. ‘Reference levels’ of normal practice and ‘target levels’ of desired activity should be distinguished. Programmes are designed to attain, or maintain, the latter;
4. Measuring impacts presents difficulties, particularly site-specific environmental effects. Indicators appropriate to individual programmes and zones must be selected and conclusions drawn must be scientifically valid;
5. Monetary evaluation provides an interesting view on the societal worth of programmes, but remains an imprecise method;
6. Agricultural effects need to be analysed to assess what derives from agri-environment programmes and what derives from other driving forces;
7. Socio-economic studies focus on farm income effects; surveys of farmer attitudes are interesting, but may not relate well to agronomic calculations of income foregone and costs incurred, which is the basis for setting payment levels;
8. Analysis of programme implementation should look both at programme impacts and effectiveness of administration.

Concerning the impact of measures (Part III) :

1. Highly positive results are recorded for reduced input measures, especially organic farming, nature protection measures and maintenance of landscapes; some difficulties arose with extensification, set-aside for 20 years, and public access, resulting in low take up;
2. Input reduction measures include formal integrated production methods, controlled by an authorised body; specific reductions per farm according to soil type and following a soil analysis; precise application of fertiliser according to the changing needs of the plants. Results from programmes show substantial reductions in overall use where programmes are applied widely. Effects on production are varied; effects on income show a need for better targeting of payment levels according to different regions, sector, etc.;
3. Organic production methods show high environmental benefits and increases in farm labour (which should translate into higher employment); some regions have shown very high levels of increase in area under organic production (but some start from a very low base). Problems in distribution and marketing are reported in some areas;
4. Measures to convert arable land to grassland, assure mixed farming and a more sustainable rotation show better preservation of segetal vegetation, and soil quality. Arable conversion to extensive grass shows improvement in landscape quality in one region, while not enough data exists on reduction of N-leaching;
5. Fire prevention measures show limited results as data runs are too short; but considerable evidence of positive results shown from erosion prevention measures (such as mulch seeding) and N-leaching reduction measures, such as green-cover crops;
6. Evidence of impacts on nature areas is positive, but qualified by the difficulties of data gathering and identification of significant results; results include reintroducing former systems of farming familiar to older farmers; reports confirm that nature management frequently requires grazing of low-intensity pastures;
7. Extensification of livestock measure has not been successful in several regions, one reason may be that the measures is not paid sufficiently;
8. Maintenance of extensive systems essential feature in many parts of the EU; report notes failure to apply measure in certain important zones;
9. Considerable advantages identified in relation to a holistic approach to conservation of a ‘landscape system’, including landscape features. In some areas a need to include historical features within schemes is shown;
10. While 20-years may be too long for the environmental set aside measure, positive results are evident for some nature areas. Little evaluation for maintenance of abandoned land measures exists;
11. Public access provision is important, but should be managed in a more strategic manner;
12. Training and extension services can be essential to assure the success of measures;
13. Effects on farm incomes are diverse. Measures with too-low payment levels show low take up; in some regions substantial effects on farm income shown. Need to focus payments on regions is shown in the case of measures available across different land types and sectors;
14. Application on highly profitable land is not satisfactory in the absence of sufficiently high premia. Greater use of targeting is generally suggested to ensure appropriateness of payments;
15. Other socio-economic impacts include increased employment and changing attitudes;

Concerning the administration of programmes (Part IV) :

1. Programmes have followed different regional designs, some focused on environmental zones, some available throughout the region. No uniform pattern is identifiable;
2. Programmes in several Member States should be extended, before they can be said to apply ‘throughout the territory’ as required;
3. An optimal approach would include both ‘deep and targeted’ measures available to a few farmers and ‘wide, but limited’ measures to enable all farmers to participate in the process;
4. Evaluation has become a management tool in many regions. The most successful evaluations are those which concern programmes having clear and specific objectives – an essential prerequisite to indicator selection;
5. Payments need to be reassessed periodically to avoid over- and under-compensation and coherence with other policies;
6. With diverse measures, control difficulties are evident;
7. In general, programmes are amended quite frequently, reflecting the innovative and experimental nature of programmes.

In conclusion (Part V) :

1. Substantial environmental benefits from programmes are shown, particularly for N reduction and nature protection;
2. At 4% of CAP Guarantee spending, they represent good value for money;
3. The establishment of an ‘evaluation culture’ in programme management is a success in many cases;
4. Implementation data shows that application in some regions and Member States needs to be increased;
5. A ‘landscape system’ approach to agri-environment is to be recommended;
6. Selection of indicators and analysis must be undertaken on a sound basis, despite the complexities of agriculture-environment interactions;
7. In many programmes, the identification of objectives needs to be more specific;
8. Agri-environment policy is needed because of a market failure to take account of the environmental consequences of farming.

[ Agriculture ] - [ Agri-environment programmes ]