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

Comparison with EU-25

Population, 2005 (*1,000,000): 9.0

2.0% of population in EU-25

Population density, 2003 (inh./km2): 22

118 in EU-25

GDP/capita, 2005 (PPS): 27,700

118% of GDP/capita in EU-25

Share agriculture in total employment, 2002 (%): 1.8

5% in EU-25

Share Utilized Agricultural Area in total land area, 2003 (%): 8

46% in EU-25 in 1998

Average farm size, 2005 (ha): 42

19 in EU-15

Number of farms, 2005 (*1000): 75,8 (over 2 ha)

1.0% 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


SPS static hybrid moving (EC, 2007b)

Coupling measures

Complete decoupling, except for special male bovine premium (75% coupled). Article 69 application ( 0.45% of the total ceiling), dairy premium in 2005.

Reason for selection

Partly coupling in order to maintain certain types of production.

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)

Share of the farms that receive SPS of the total number of farms (% of total)

83 000 farms received SPs that is 109% of the farms as some units - below 2 ha - are not considered farms, but meet the requirements to receive SPs.

Tradability of SPS

Single payments are tradable within regions.

A.3 Cross-compliance: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC)

(Source: IEEP, 2005;)

Selected standards of the GAEC

Comment (IEEP)

soil erosion

Minimum soil cover

Any land taken out of production or set aside must maintain a green cover

protection of permanent pastures


prevent a drop of more than 10% compared to 2003. Authorization required to convert pp

minimum level of maintenance

minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes

at least 1 LU/ha once a year on permanent pasture. PP is characterized by tree growth and often on rocky and wet ground with high biodiversity value.


avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land



EXTRA: agricultural land no longer in use

comparable to measures that apply to all set-aside land: maintain green cover. Specific guidelines available.


EXTRA: environmental conditions

restriction on levels used of fertilizer and manure in defined periods of the year


Sweden emphasis on the minimum level of maintenance.

Reason for selection of cross compliance standards

It was recognised that the requirements do not adequately reflect the priority environmental problems. For example, the soil erosion issues raised by Annex IV are not an especially large problem in Sweden. Nevertheless, the Swedish Board of Agriculture asked the EC whether the issues and standards in Annex IV should be seen as a set of minimum rules that must be covered by Swedish cross compliance. The Swedish Board had the impression that the European Commission agreed that Annex IV could be read as an example list. Concurrently, the agriculture ministry concluded that the rules for cross compliance should not be dissimilar to current demands, especially those already in place for set-aside, and that permanent pasture should always be maintained by grazing animals.

A.4 Further reform of market regulations


The present structural crisis in the European Union wine sector and the chronic market imbalance show that the common market organisation (CMO) for wine must be fundamentally reformed. Decreasing demand for European wine due to changed consumer preferences, health consciousness and more competition from third countries have resulted in increasing wine stocks. The surplus is transferred to distillation and used as bio-ethanol for fuel and industrial uses at a considerable cost to the public economy.

Simplification of complex rules of the current CMO is necessary. The rules for European winemaking methods need to be reviewed in order to make them more flexible and competitive. The present quota system and the planting restrictions must be removed leading to an overall reduction of budget expenditure. Improved competitive conditions can only be achieved by an increased market orientation In the long run the CMO should be abolished.

The Swedish proposal for a reform in the wine sector can be summarised as follows:

This proposal leads to an overall reduction of budget expenditures, and an increased margin to the Brussels ceiling. This could contribute to delaying the need for the mechanism for financial discipline and thus avoid an increased administrative burden and uncertainty in allocation of direct payments.

Fruit and vegetables

Swedish position well known. Decision made in Agricultural Council meeting in June 2007. Complete decoupling of processing of fruit and vegetables within 4 years for tomatoes and within 5 years for permanent crops (citrus). Role of producer organisation strengthened, especially in crisis prevention and -management.

Decoupling of other products, like tobacco, hop etc.

The long term objective is a fully market oriented production without subsidies. Elimination of the constraints on production is an important step to improve EU competitiveness as well as to achieve simplification. All remaining production aid, production quotas as well as processing aid schemes, within the CMO for (tobacco), cotton, fibre plants, dried fodder, potato starch should be phased out in order to achieve 100% decoupling. In this process the budgetary perspective is of significant importance and the opportunity of substantial budget cuts should be exploited.

Simplification into one market regulation

Swedish position well known. Decision made in Agricultural Council meeting in June.


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 Sweden on 23 May 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





1) Figures excluding Technical Assistance
Source: Own calculations based on Jordbruksdepartementet (2007)

B.3 Integration of Leader in axes 1, 2 and 3

Leader contributes to Axes 1 and 2 and especially to Axis 3. In addition, co-funding on a local level and the bottom-up approach are seen as strengths of Leader.

B.4 Local Action Groups (LAGs)

It is intended to reach about 50% of the rural population at the end of 2007 and about 75% at the end of 2008. In 2000-2006 there were 12 areas / LAGs, serving about 485,000 people, which is about 20% of the rural population (2004). The planned indicative number of LAGs for the period 2007-2013 is 60.

B.5 RDP budget 2007-2013 (million euros)

total public budget

% co-financing EAFRD1)

EAFRD budget

Contribution private sector

Total costs

National top-ups







1) % of co-financing may vary per axis
Source: Jordbruksdepartementet (2007)

B.6 Less Favoured Areas

In 2005 1,600,000 ha was designed as Less Favoured Areas (LFA) (44% of UAA) (CEU, 2005).

B.7 Drivers of RDP strategy

Fit within national policy.

National initiatives are not named specifically in the RDP, but there are relations with the Swedish national environmental goals* and the national policies on tourism, lapp culture/nature, training, renewable energy and broadband development.

* Information provided by Gun Rudquist, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.


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?

Yes, there is a debate, in which the 'non-paper' on Swedish views on the future of the CAP and the Health Check (Swedish Ministry of Agriculture et al., 2007) acts as a kind of catalyst. A working group is involved in this debate, composed by delegates from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Swedish Board of Agriculture and the Swedish Institute for Food and Agricultural Economics, a reference-group composed by farmers' organizations and NGOs and a contact group from the Parliament Committee of Environment and Agriculture.

C. 2 Key issues in the debate

Components and role of the CAP (Swedish Ministry of Agriculture et al., 2007)

Organization of the CAP (1st and 2nd pillar)

Financing of the CAP (Agra Europe, 2007)

* IInformation provided by Gun Rudquist, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and by Helena Vängby and Camilla Lehorst, Swedish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs.

D. Literature, sources, references

Please send us your reaction