User's manual
The main body of this project consists of a series of fact sheets providing CAP related information for each EU Member State. Descriptions of how the CAP Reforms of 2003 have been implemented and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) has been used at Member State level form the bulk each of the fact sheets.
For every Member State a general country description is provided as a background for the readers own interpretation of the implementation details.
Each fact sheets consists of three parts:
A. First pillar: implementation CAP reforms of 2003;
B. Second pillar: proposed implementation of RDP measures during 2007-2013;
C. Vision for the CAP beyond 2013: an overview of the debate at Member State level on the future role of the CAP;
D. Literature, sources, references.
Comparative analysis
As an instrument for the user of the fact sheets a comparative analysis of the different topics is given. At the end of this analysis you find some tables with information for all Member States.
General country description
The general country description presents some key statistics. First a brief socio-economic impression is given by presenting figures on population; population density; GDP per capita; the agricultural sectors share of total employment (primary agriculture only), Utilized Agricultural Area as a proportion of total land area; average farm size and the number of farms. These figures are provided in a single table alongside details of the EU-25 average for each characteristic. Note that the EU-25 figure has been used since neither Bulgaria nor Romania were members of the EU in 2005.
The second table presents a description of farming types in ten categories, according to the Eurostat methodology. Data are also from 2005.
The figures in the first two tables are based on Eurostat data. Data comes from national sources, but can still differ considerably from the actual national statistics. For example, the number of farms can show variations of up to 400% because of differences in the definitions of what constitutes a farm. Contributors from certain countries have provided us with national statistics and strongly recommended using these in the fact sheets instead of Eurostat data, because they felt it more appropriate to present the data using the definitions used by their national statistical authority. These cases, involving differences between national and Eurostat data, are described in footnotes.
The levels of EU funding available for Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and the second pillar during the period 2007-2013 are set out both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total EU funding for the SPS and second pillar combined. On every fact sheet these figures are compared with the figures for the EU-27.
Figures for the proposed level of spend on SPS do not include any allowance for coupled payments. In some countries such as Portugal and Spain the spend on coupled payments was up to four times greater than that on the SPS. However, in Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and UK all payments are totally decoupled. It should be noted, however, that Member States also benefit from market intervention and export subsidies that can vary considerably between one part of the EU and another.
A. First pillar: implementation CAP reform (2003)
A.1 Single Payment Scheme
This section describes how the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) has been implemented in each Member State. A range of different models have been selected (historic, static hybrid, dynamic hybrid, regional and Single Area Payment Scheme - although the latter is only available in the NEU-12, excluding Malta and Slovenia). The existence of any remaining partially coupled payments is also described.
The differing reasons for selecting a particular model include:
• using historic distribution of payments in order to prevent negative income effects;
• partial coupling in order to maintain certain types of production;
• partial coupling in order to prevent land abandonment;
• preventing a large administrative burden or;
• other, e.g. providing a better rationale for the provision of farm payments in the long term.
Each Member State may also have other reasons for choosing a particular model.
A.2 EU budget for Single Payment Scheme
This section shows the annual budget for the SPS for 2005-2013 per Member State, as well as the share of the EU-27 budget reserved for the SPS.The proportion of farms receiving SPS in that Member State is listed, and some comments are made on the tradability of SPS entitlements.
A.3 Cross-compliance: Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)
This section deals with Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), which is a nationally defined component part of the cross-compliance system. It describes the individual GAEC standards selected in each Member State as well the reasons underling the choices made.
A.4 Further reform of market regulations
As part of the ongoing process of reform, the European Commission also presented proposals for the wine sector (July 2007), the fruit and vegetables sector (January 2007) and on simplification of the Common Market Organisations (CMOs). Where individual Member States have specific concerns about these further reform proposals, these are reflected in this section.
B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures 2007-2013
Rural development policy during the programming period 2007-2013 is guided by Council Regulation 1698/2005. Each Member State has to prepare a National Strategy and a Rural Development Programme (RDP), both of which need approval from the European Commission and the Rural Development Committee (consisting of representatives of the 27 Member States). Rural development policy measures within the second pillar of the CAP are grouped under four axes. The first three of these can be viewed as reflecting the three Ps of sustainable development (profit, planet, and people):
• increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector;
• supporting land management and improving the environment and;
• improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic activities;
• the Leader axis is designed to encourage the implementation of local development strategies.
B.1 Description of RDPs
This section explains whether there is one RDP per Member State or whether there are a number of regional RDPs. Some countries have a hybrid structure. For instance, Finland, France and Portugal have one RDP for the mainland and one or more RDPs for islands or overseas territories. By contrast, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom all have regional RDPs. This section also describes whether the individual RDPs have yet been approved by the Commission.
B.2 Emphasis within axes 1, 2, 3 and 4
This section shows the distribution of public (both EU + national) budgets across the four RDP axes. Calculations are based on the combined budget for the four axes, but excluding allocations for technical assistance. In some countries the budget for either Axis 3 or Axis 4 appears as zero: in such cases either the Axis 3 measures are funded through Axis 4 or the budget for the Leader programme is included in the budgets for Axes 1-3.
B.3 Leader
This section describes the focus of the Leader programme (Axis 4). In most countries Leader contributes mainly to the delivery of the Axis 3 measures.
B.4 Local Action Groups (LAGs)
This section presents the situation regarding Local Action Groups (LAGs), which are established as part of delivering the Leader axis. The number of LAGs per Member State, their geographical distribution and any changes by comparison with the previous period (2000-2006) are described.
B.5 RDP budget
This section gives an overview of the total budget for each RDP, made up of the total public contribution from the EU (EAFRD) as well as national government allocations and any contributions from the private sector. For some countries there are also national top-ups in the form of additional payments or state aids (See Article 89 of the Rural Development Regulation). In many countries total funding for rural development policy is much larger than suggested by RDP budgets. For instance, in the Netherlands rural development is also promoted and funded through several national programmes.
B.6 Less Favoured Areas (LFAs)
This section describes the share of the Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) that is designated as LFA. These measures are delivered under Axis 2 and are designed to promote the sustainable use of agricultural land by compensating farmers for farming in areas that disadvantaged in agricultural terms.. There are several categories of LFA: mountain areas; areas with other handicaps; areas with specific handicaps and areas with environmental restrictions due to the presence of Natura 2000 designations .
B.7 Drivers of RDP Strategy
This section describes the key drivers underlying the choices made in individual RDPs. In some countries such as the Netherlands, the RDP is written in such as way that it fits into an existing national policy . In other countries the RDP is used to set additional priorities over and above those expressed in existing national policy.
C. Vision for the CAP beyond 2013
The last part of each fact sheet identifies key issues in the debates now developing in individual Member States on the future role of the CAP after 2013.
C.1 Stages in the development of a CAP debate
In some countries the debate has not yet stated whereas in others it is well advanced.
C.2 Key issues in the debate
• Components and role of the CAP;
• Organization of the CAP (first and second pillar);
• Financing of the CAP
C.3 Types of involvement in the debate
This section describes which actors are involved in discussions on the future of the CAP. These usually include national and regional governments, farmers’ organisations, environmental and development NGOs, research institutes etc.
D. Literature, sources, references
This section lists all of the sources used, including official documents and publications, the internet etc.
