Slovakia
• General country description
• A. First pillar: implementation of CAP reforms (2003)
• B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures during 2007-2013
• C. Vision for the CAP beyond 2013: a short overview of the debate (at Member State level) on future CAP reform
• D. Literature, sources, references
• The comparative analysis provides a compact overview of CAP implementation across all 27 Member States and their visions of the future of the CAP
General country discription
Slovak republic |
Comparison with EU-25 |
Population, 2005 (*1,000,000): 5.4 |
1.2% of population in EU-25 |
Population density, 2003 (inh./km2): 110 |
118 in EU-25 |
GDP/capita, 2005 (PPS): 12,700 |
54% of GDP/capita in EU-25 |
Share agriculture in total employment, 2002 (%): 5 |
5% in EU-25 |
Share Utilized Agricultural Area in total land area, 2003 (%): 46 |
46% in EU-25 in 1998 |
Average farm size, 2005 (ha): 143 |
19 in EU-15 |
Number of farms, 2005 (*1000): 12.9 |
0.2% of farms in EU-25 |
Source: own calculations based on Eurostat
Distribution of farming types, 2005 (% of total)
Source: own calculations based on Eurostat
EU funding for the Single Payment Scheme (SPS)
and the second pillar, 2007-2013
Funding according to CAP budget including Bulgaria and Romania.
Sources: Agra Europe (2007); CEU (2006); EC (2007a)
A. First pillar: implementation CAP reform (2003)
A.1 Single Payment Scheme
Model
Implementation in 2009. SAPS (EC, 2007b)Coupling measures: seperate sugar payments (EC, 2007b)
Reason for selection
No information
A.2 EU budget for Single Payment Scheme (SPS) per year (National ceiling) 2005-2013
Source: 2005: EC (2006); 2006-2013: CEU (2006) and Agra Europe (2007)
Tradability of SPS
No information
A.3 Cross-compliance: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC)
(Source IEEP, 2005;)
Selected standards of the GAEC
Issue |
Standards |
Summary of farmers’ obligations |
Soil erosion |
minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions |
No cultivation on slopes >12%. suitable measures to prevent wind and water erosion, o.a. plant agricultural and protective green, relief contour line agri-technology, protective crop rotation, non-ploughing technology |
soil organic matter |
standards for crop rotation where applicable |
do not endanger ecological stability |
|
arable stubble management |
no burning |
Protection of permanent pasture |
|
Farmers have to ask permission to plough up permanent pastures, maintenance by mowing, grazing or mulching |
minimum level of maintenance |
retention of landscape features |
if possible |
|
avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land |
destroy weeds and prevent invasion of tress and shrubs |
Slovak Republic pays attention to all issues of GAEC. SK is exceptional by the large attention to control of standards on all issues.
Reason for selection of cross compliance standards
No information
A.4 Further reform of market regulations
No information
B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures 2007-2013
B.1 Programme level and approval
There is one national RDP. The Rural Development Committee (consisting of representatives of the 27 Member States) has approved the RDP for the Slovak Republic on 21 November 2007.
B.2 Distribution of public budget over the axes (%)1)
axis 1: competitiveness |
axis 2: environment and land management |
axis 3: rural economy |
Axis 4: Leader |
33 |
49 |
14 |
3 |
1) Figures excluding Technical Assistance
Source: Own calculations based on Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva SR (2007)
B.3 Integration of Leader in axes 1, 2 and 3
Leader contributes to Axis 3 (Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva SR, 2007).
B.4 Local Action Groups (LAGs)
It is intended to create 25 LAGs, covering 12,000 km2 (Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva SR, 2007).
B.5 RDP budget 2007-2013 (million euros)
total public budget |
% co-financing EAFRD1) |
EAFRD budget |
Contribution private sector |
Total costs |
National top-ups |
2562.6 |
77 |
1969.4 |
838.1 |
3400.7 |
0 |
1) % of co-financing may vary per axis Source: Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva SR (2007)
B.6 Less Favoured Areas
In 2005, 50% of the Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) (1,226,000 ha) was classified as Less Favoured Area (LFA) (CEU, 2005).
B.7 Drivers of RDP strategy
No information
C. Vision on the CAP beyond 2013*
C.1 Stages in the development of the CAP debate
Is there a debate about the CAP beyond 2013?
No, there is hardly any debate. The attitude towards the CAP is mainly affected by the current political parties in the government. A maximum financial benefit from the CAP is aimed at. Another objective is equal treatment of old and new Member States.
C2 Key issues in the debate
No information
* Info provided by Patricia M.B. de Vries, Dutch Agricultural Attaché
D. Literature, sources, references
- Agra Europe (2007), "Threat of SFP cuts rises as NMS accede", Agra Europe Weekly, January 12
- Council of the European Union (CEU) (2005), Proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - redefinition of intermediate less-favoured areas, Brussels, Working Party on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development, working document (7971/05), 15 April
- Council of the European Union (CEU) (2006), Council Regulation 1782/2003 (consolidated version - August 5, 2006), Annex VIII and VIIIa, Brussels
- European Commission (EC) (2006), 35th Financial Report on the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee section, 2005 Financial Year, SEC(2006)1152
- European Commission (EC) (2007a), EU support for rural development 2007-2013; Pre-allocated funding under Heading 2 "Natural Resources" of the Financial Framework, Brussels: European Commission
- European Commission (EC) (2007b), Overview of the implementation of direct payments under the CAP in Member States Version November2007, EC, DG for Agriculture and Rural Development
- IREAS Institute for Structural policy (2004), Cross-Compliance in Central and Eastern European Countries
- Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva SR (2007), Návrh Programu rozvoja vidieka SR 2007 – 2013, version 20 November 2007