Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 04. 12. 1997 COM(97) 620 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2078/92 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside }fj /'il • £u ^ $ | | || - fc^'' 1 V" K C« l «* A', *?''*< i ' "^ »» J lJJ 1-4 « 1. 1 1 • 'f*"« j Preface All farming operations produce effects on the rural environment. The traditional European landscape and associated biodiversity is to a large extent the result of many centuries of agricultural production. Equally important is the contribution of agriculture to the maintenance of rural society. If the countryside is to continue to develop as a living and vibrant environment, the farming sector will play an essential role, both as a significant economic activity in rural areas and as the most important form of land use. Much farming activity is directly beneficial to the natural environment, whether in maintaining the countryside or, especially in the case of extensive pastures, in preserving valuable and often threatened semi-natural habitats. However, not all farming produces positive impacts on the environment and some agriculture, especially some intensive production techniques brought in over recent decades, is responsible for damage including soil degradation, pollution and over-use of water and reductions in biodiversity. To an extent, systems of agriculture beneficial to the environment can be promoted through codes of practice, backed up where necessary by legal restrictions. However, within the scope of acceptable practice, farmers may need to respond to economic pressures to intensify good land, to under-utilize marginal land or otherwise adopt farming practices which reduce environmental benefits. Few farmers are able to maintain or adjust to environmentally beneficial techniques where these would lead to diminished income. For this reason, payments from public funds for farmers who incur costs or forego income under agreements to benefit the environment has long been advocated. The agri-environment regulation, Council Regulation No (EEC) 2078/92, provides for programmes to encourage farmers to carry out environmentally beneficial activities on their land. By recognizing the costs of such activities, the programmes are also intended to contribute to the income of farmers who provide the environmental service. The agri-environment regulation accompanied the reforms of the common agricultural policy which were begun in May 1992 with the changes agreed to several of the most significant market regimes. Article 10 of the agri-environment regulation requires the Commission to produce a report on the implementation of the regulation and submit this report within three years to the Council and to the Parliament. While some of the early programmes came into force in 1993, most were not approved until 1994, and a few, notably those in the three new Member States, were only approved in 1995. The first part of the report describes the operation of the agri-environment regulation. The second part explains how it fits in with the common agricultural policy and other Community policy instruments. The third part comprises an account of implementation up to 1997. The final part of the report draws out some conclusions in the light of implementation so far and presents a number of recommendations consistent with the increasing emphasis placed on agri-environment programmes in the AGENDA 2000 document. However, this report is not an evaluation and does not aim to provide a detailed analysis of the impact of the various agri-environment programmes. Table of Contents I OPERATION OF THE AGRI-ENVIRONMENT REGULATION 1. 1 CAP reform and the agri-environment regulation 1. 2 Agri-environment measures 1. 3 Premium levels and Community financial contribution 1. 4 Tendering 1. 5 Environmental capital works 1. 6 State aids 1. 7 Farmers' obligations 1. 8 Approvals procedure 1. 9 Implementing rules 1. 10 Agri-environment programmes 2. EC POLICY FRAMEWORK 2. 1 Interaction with common market organisations 2. 2 Structural policies, cohesion and employment 2. 3 International agreements 2. 4 Environment policy 2. 5 Genetic resources, research 2. 6 Animal welfare and hunting 3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UP TO J997 3. 1 The initial phase: programme approvals 3. 2 Budget estimates and EAGGF provision 3. 3 Total programme budget 3. 4 Implementation data 3. 5 Monitoring, evaluation and follow up by the Commission 3. 6 Assessment of measures by category 3. 7 Developments in programme management and administration 4. CONCLUSIONS 4. 1 Outstanding issues 4. 2 Reflections on possible amendments 4. 3 Future developments ANNEX : Programme approval and amendment decisions 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 10 10 10 11 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 17 19 22 25 25 28 31 33 1. O P É R A T I ON OF T HE A G R I - E N V I R O N M E NT R E G U L A T I ON 1. 1 CAP reform and the agri-environment regulation Table 1. 1: (c) protection and effects of agriculture; to extensive grassland; milk products, and to encourage farmers (a) use of fanning practices which reduce the polluting Specific objectives of agri-environment measures, Article l(a)-(g). (b) extensification of fanning and conversion of arable land • In May 1992 agreement was reached in the Council of Ministers to reform several of the most significant market regimes of the common agricultural policy (CAP), including tobacco. The aims arable crops, beef, sheep, milk and of the reforms were to bring production into line with real market developments, to use budgetary c resources more effectively, to produce in an environmentally sensitive way, and to ensure ample supplies of high quality food at lower prices for consumers1. In addition to the changes to the markets regimes three measures were introduced to accompany the reforms: forestry, and early agri-environment, agri-environment retirement. regulation2 establishes an aid scheme with three overall aims3: to accompany ' the changes under market organisation rules; to contribute to the achievement of the Community's policy objectives regarding agriculture and the to environment; and providing an appropriate income for fanners who deliver the environmental benefits. (b) extensive crop and forage production: to change to more extensive fonns of crop production, including forage production (by methods other than those covered by (a) above), to maintain extensive production methods, or lo convert arable land into extensive grassland: (a) low-input and organic farming: to reduce substantially the use of fertilisers and plant protection products, to keep the reductions already made, to introduce or continue with organic fanning: (d) upkeep of abandoned fannland and woodlands; (e) long-tenn environmental set-aside ; (f) land management for public access; (g) education and training. the environment, improvement of countryside, landscape, natural resources, and soil and genetic diversity; Agri-environment measures, Article 2(l)(a)-(g). (c) extensification of livestock production: to reduce the proportion of sheep and cattle per forage area; to contribute introduced land management Table 1. 2: The (d) other environmental fanning practices: to use other practices compatible with the protection of the resources, as well as environment and natural maintenance of the countryside and the landscape, or to rear animals of local breeds in danger of extinction; (e) upkeep of abandoned land: to maintain abandoned 1. 2 Agri-environment measures (0 Article 1 of the regulation provides for the seven specific objectives which agri-environment measures may be designed to achieve (Table 1. 1). These aims are given effect through measures for land management (Table 1. 2) and for training and demonstration projects, set out in Articles 2 and 6. The training measures, which are optional on Member States, should concern farming or forestry practices fannland and woodland in good condition; long-term set aside: to set aside fannland for at least 20 years and use it for environmental purposes, in particular for biotope reserves, natural parks, or protection of hydrological systems; public access: lo allow walkers on to private farmland (g) 1 Commission press release 21. 05. 92. 2 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, OJ No L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 85, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2772/95. idem. Article 1. 3 beneficial to the environment4. Additional measures may be introduced specifically to provide for training courses, traineeships and demonstration projects5. 1. 3 Premium levels and Community financial contribution category of expenditure Table 1. 3: Maximum in a scheme. part-financing from EAGGF. levels of premia eligible Payments under the programmes are calculated in relation to the obligations taken on by the farmer6. Premia are based on costs incurred and income foregone, less any additional income or savings resulting In from participation addition, an incentive element may be added where necessary; incentives must be justified on the basis of objective criteria and normally not exceed 20% of net income foregone and costs7. Thus, premia as be compensation for the costs of delivering environmental public goods and cannot be regarded as subsidies in an economic sense. original max. rates (ECU/ha) max, rates 1996 regarded should 210/LU removed 422. 6 301. 9 181. 1 sheep crops 250 350 150 and or 253. 6/LU removed from (ECU/ha. ) for annual annual crops for which a premium per hectare is the market granted under regulations governing the crops in question other pasture annual crops and pasture, if the farmer has given one or more of the undertakings in (b), Article 2 (l)(a) and together with an undertaking in Article 2(l)(d). each cattle livestock unit by which a herd is reduced. each endangered breed reared specialized olive groves citrus fruits other perennial crops and wine upkeep of abandoned land cultivation and propagation of useful plants adapted to conditions local and genetic by threatened erosion land set aside expenditure courses livestock unit of an incurred on 100/LU reared 120. 8/LU reared 400 100JD 700 250 250 483 1208 845. 3 , 301. 9 301. 9 600 2500/ptnon/coune 724. 5 3019 /ptno^couire Upper limits for premia part-financed from Community funds are laid down in the regulation8. These amounts, which were amended in November 1995 in the light of exchange movements9, are set out in Table 1. 3. Community finance is provided from the Guarantee section of the EAGGF10 at the rate of 75% in Objective 1 regions and 50%» elsewhere; the other 25% or 50% is provided by the Member State. 1. 4 Tendering The possibility of inviting applications for agri-environment agreements by calls for tender has been discussed by various interested parties. There is no prohibition on this type of process in the agri-environment regulation, provided the conditions of grant are respected. In particular a ceiling on the premia would be needed to avoid that the tendering process resulted in premia which exceeded the maximum allowed for agri-environment measures. idem. Article 2(2). idem. Article 6. idem. Article 5. Regulation (EC) No 746/96, Article 9. Regulation 2078/92, Articles 4 and 6. Regulation (EC) No 2772/95 OJ No L 288, 1. 12. 1995, p. 35, rectified by Regulation (EC) No 1962/96 of 11. 10. 1996, OJ No L 259, 12. 10. 1996, p. 7. EAGGF: European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. 10 1. 5 Environmental capital works Capital works or investments are not included within the co-financed part of an agri-environment programme. These may be supported under the terms and conditions of the relevant structural funds programme. In particular, environmental farm improvement grants for capital works may be approved under the investment aid regulation11 and part- financed by the Community. 1. 6 State aids In addition to the above, which are the measures eligible for part-financing from Community funds, a Member State may implement State aided agri-environment measures under conditions which differ from those provided for in the regulation, or which exceed the maximum ceilings for part-financing from Community funds12. The State aids must comply with the objectives of the regulation and the rules on State aid s "it out in Articles 92-94 of the Treaty of Rome, which, among other matters requires that the aids are notified to the Commission and approved. State aids for capital items are approved subject to the relevant provisions of the investment aid regulation. 1. 7 Farmers' obligations None of the measures for which premia are paid are currently the subject of compulsory obligations on farmers, although implementation of the programmes is obligatory at the level of the Member States. Farmers may choose whether to continue to exercise their normal farming decisions or to accept the conditions and restrictions set out in an agri- environment scheme. For those who do commit themselves to the programmes, the obligations must be observed for the period set out in the programme, which must be at least five years. In the case of long-term set-aside, the minimum obligation is for 20 years. Only in exceptional cases, such as force majeure or where it would otherwise be unreasonable to insist on continuation, may farmers end their participation early. The regulation makes provision for the inclusion of mandatory measures implementing Community environmental obligations13. However, no application of this provision has been approved and the Commission has not been presented with any circumstances in which support for compulsory measures would be justified. 1. 8 Approvals procedure Each Member State prepares and puts forward one or more draft programmes to the Commission for approval. A programme proposal includes, among other matters, a description of the geography and farming in the area concerned, a description of the proposed objectives, conditions for the grant of aid, and expenditure estimates14. The Commission examines the programme to ensure its conformity with the agri-environment regulation and consistency with existing agricultural programmes, market regimes, and other Community policies. Member States also notify the relevant national administrative 11 Regulation (EC) No 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures of 20. 5. 1997, OJ No L 142, 2. 6. 1997, p. l. 12 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Article 10. 13 14 idem. Article 4(5). idem. Article 3. 6 provisions and supply data to satisfy the Commission that the budgetary estimates, financial control mechanisms and administration are adequate. The programmes are approved by the Commission following the 'management committee' procedure, which includes consultation of the Member States, meeting in the STAR Committee15, on the basis of a Commission Working Document describing the programme and a draft decision text. 1. 9 Implementing rules The Commission has adopted two sets of implementing rules, the first covered procedures for financial monitoring16 and was adopted in 1994. The second Commission implementing regulation17, adopted in 1996, dealt with a wide variety of implementation issues and incorporated the 1994 regulation. In particular, the implementing regulation clarified Member States' obligations with regard to monitoring impacts, evaluation, verifications, systems of penalties, changes to agreements and avoiding double payments. Commission approval practice with regard linear features, abandoned land, environmental set aside, courses and demonstration projects and calculation of premia were also covered. 18 to extensive farming, 1. 10 Agri-environment programmes 1. 10. 1 Zonal and national implementation Programmes should in principle be implemented through zonal programmes throughout the territory of the Member States19. Programmes may comprise all of the land use measures in the scheme, except where there is sufficient justification for restricting the programmes to measures in line with the specific characteristics of an area. In addition, each zonal programme must reflect the diversity of environmental situations, natural conditions, and agricultural structures and the main types of farming practised. The programmes must also respect Community environment policy. The zonal programmes may be supplemented by a national scheme applicable everywhere ('horizontally'), providing for one or more of the measures. The distinction between zonal and national programmes has been interpreted in different ways in the Member States. 127 programmes had been approved by the Commission by June 1997. Most programmes have in addition been amended, some on several occasions. In total the Commission has taken 265 approval or amendment decisions. The programmes are listed in the Annex in bold type; the amendments are indicated by 'mod' (modification). The programmes adopted are extremely diverse in nature, a fact which makes comparisons between Member State programmes possible only to a limited extent, while tools for such comparative analysis are not yet available. 15 STAR: Committee on agricultural structures and rural development. 16 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1405/94, OJ L 154, 21. 6. 1994, p. 12. 17 Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/96, OJ L 102, 25. 4. 1996, p. 19, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 435/97 of 6. 3. 1997, OJL 67, 7. 3. 1997, p. 2. 18 The issues and reasons justifying the adoption of the regulation were set out in STAR Working Document VI/8670/95, which was the basis of discussions prior to the drafting of the regulation. 19 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Article 3. 7 1. 10. 2 Diversity in implementation Within each Member State, programmes have been prepared at national or regional and local level, depending on the degree of administrative decentralisation as well as on the environmental diversity of the territory. Emphasis on the different environmental objectives of the programmes varies widely among Member States, both as a function of the environmental awareness of farmers and of the environmental characteristics and needs of the Member States. Programmes which contain measures generally applicable throughout the Member State are found in Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. In most other Member States, programmes contain a mix of measures applicable throughout the territory and regionally (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Spain, the United Kingdom). In Germany and Italy almost all programmes are regionalized. However, within many programmes, national and regional, some or all measures are targeted on environmental zones and designed to meet particular local objectives. The Commission has not received any proposal for programmes spanning Member State boundaries where similar agri-environment conditions exist on both sides of the border. Member States have also chosen different ways of combining the measures available under the agri-environment regulation within their programmes. In a few Member State programmes, the distinct measures available correspond exactly to those set out in Article 2(1) of the agri-environment regulation. In other programmes, however, integrated measures have been elaborated, drawing on a number of different headings in Article 2(1) without treating them separately. In total the Member State programmes comprise over 2200 distinct measures. 1. 10. 3 Broad categories of measures within Member State programmes Table 1. 4: Categories of agri-environment measure. In order to compare programmes across the EU they may be divided into similar sub-categories. For the measures listed in Articles 2 and 6 of the agri-environment regulation, three broad categories are evident: environmentally-beneficial pro ductive land management; and training and demon stration projects. These are in Table 1. 4. farming; non-productive listed 1. Environmentally-beneficial productive fanning (a) (b) (c) organic farming farming non-organic environmental improvements maintenance existing of intensity systems with low- Non-productive land management (20-year set aside, maintenance of abandoned land, landscape features, public access etc. ) 3. Training and demonstration projects of the agri- emphasis The main environment programmes in all Member States, with the exception of the Netherlands, is on the first category: over 80% of programme expenditure across the EU is budgeted for the support of environmentally-beneficial productive farming. For a more complete comparison of the programmes this category has been sub-divided according to the intensity and nature of the environmental obligations. It should be underlined that, given the different conceptualisation behind each programme, divisions between categories should be treated with caution and must be regarded as estimates. Table 1. 5 shows the approximate percentage breakdown for average programme expenditures, based on programmes approved by March 1996. Figure 1. 5 illustrates the division within each Type of measure / % funding B Dk D El E F Irl I NL L Ôs P Fin S UK EU-15 1(a) organic 20% 24% 1% 14% 4% 3% 2% 23% 2% 1% 17% 4% 5% 15% 2% 8% 1(b) farming with environmental improvements 1(c) maintenance of low intensity systems 58% 46% 56% 35% 35% 15% 49% 43% 32% 39% 59% 18% 42% 6% 53% 41% 5% 16% 21% 0% 15% 79% 21% 22% 0% 56% 21% 68% 42% 7 1% 30% 35% 2 non-productive land management 14% 14% 21% 50% 42% 3% 24% 10% 0% 3% 3% 6% 7% 1% 14% 14% 3 training and demonstration projects 3% 0% 1% 0% 4% 1% 4% 2% 66% 0% 0% 4% 5% 7% 0% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 1. 5: Estimated proportion of budgeted spending in each Member State (1996 programmes), by category of measure. ,—lype-of-roeasures • 1(a) organic Q 1(b) faming Wth environmental knprovements D 1(c) maintenance of low intensity s ystems B 2 non-productive land management • 3 training and démonstration projects Figure 1. 5 Member State budget, showing the diverse approaches to implementation taken across its the European Union. For example, the Netherlands has chosen implementation on demonstration and awakening projects. In several Member States, notably Finland, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and some Lander in Germany, substantial measures exist to maintain existing extensive practices, while this type of measure is absent from the programmes in Greece. Implementation in each Member State up to 1997 will be the subject of a Working Document to be presented to the STAR Committee. to focus 2. EC POLICY FRAMEWORK The sections which follow illustrate how the agri-environment programmes are linked to other CAP measures, wider Community policy, and how environmental objectives form a part of the overall CAP. 2. 1 Interaction with common market organisations While environmental measures have been included in structural programmes for many years, agri-environment programmes are closely linked with the market regimes of the CAP, and in particular with their reform in 1992. Payments are drawn from the guarantee section of the EAGGF and the programme is a compulsory one for all Member States. An express aim of the agri-environment regulation is to accompany, or contribute to the achievement of, the reforms of the CAP. In the framework of the market regimes, positive environmental effects have become more evident in several sectors as a result of changes in support systems and the promotion of environmental conditions to the grant of some premia. However, market regimes in so far as they promote production can encourage farmers to adopt practices which exert pressures on the environment. Particular examples are aid for silage cereals and other premia which reduce the attraction of maintaining extensive grazing. These issues have been explored in the Commission publication, Agriculture and the Environment'20, which underlines that in a sustainable system of production, environmental costs and benefits should be fully integrated into any assessment of economic efficiency. The most recent development has been in the fruit and vegetable regime, which requires producer groups to implement agri-environment measures21 and specific reference is made to the aims of the agri-environment regulation (Table 1. 1 above). The effect of these measures in the market sector could be to reduce the application of agri-environment programmes under Regulation 2078/92. The Commission is seeking to ensure consistency between the national application of the fruit and vegetable measures and relevant agri-environment measures, and to ensure that general principles relating to public payments for environmental outputs are followed. Agri-environment undertakings raise the environmental profile for the relevant production activities, for which the farmer may also receive market support. Thus the agri-environment measures can contribute to the improvement of the environmental impact of farming supported under the market regimes. This effect is particularly marked in the case of agreements covering the whole of a farm's production. 2. 2 Structural policies, cohesion and employment The contribution of structural programmes and measures (Objectives 1, 5(b) and 6 regional programmes, to environmental objectives is described in Agriculture and environment'22. Objective 5(a) the Objective 5(a) measures and LEADER projects and networks) 20 'Agriculture and Environment', A. Cammarata, CAP Working Notes Series, European Commission, Luxembourg, 1997, ISBN 92-827-3942-2. 21 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2200/96 of 28. 10. 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, OJL 297, 21. 11. 1996, p. 1, Article 15(4). 22 See footnote 20. 10 originally incorporated some agri-environmental measures, such as premia for extensification and long-term set aside for environmental purposes. These were replaced by the equivalent measures in the agri-environment regulation. However, of the continuing Objective 5(a) measures, two in particular have an impact on the relation between agriculture and the environment: aid for farmers in mountain, and other less-favoured areas to compensate for permanent natural handicaps to farming (compensatory allowances); and investment aid to improve the natural environment. The aim of compensatory allowances is to support agriculture in less-favoured areas, where it is necessary to protect the countryside, by compensating for natural handicaps to farming. The less-favoured farming areas correspond to a large extent to those areas where environmentally valuable systems of low-intensity agriculture are practised. Investment programmes may be devised with the intention of meeting the capital needs of agri-environment schemes. In some cases the success of agri-environment measures depends on capital investment, in other cases, the dividing line between capital investments and activities eligible for support under the agri-environment regulation is difficult to draw. Investment aids, under Objective 5(a) measures and Objective 1 and 6 programmes, cover a far wider range than the agri-environment programme and coordination between the types of programming can present difficulties. The approval and implementation of rural development and agri-environment programmes are subject to different procedures, dates, and criteria which further reduce the potential for matching capital and agri-environment aids. Regional programmes generally, including Objective 5(b), may include agri-environment actions, in particular measures to protect natural zones and traditional landscapes. In line with practice under the Structural Funds, the Community contribution to agri-environment programmes is higher for Objective 1 regions whose development is lagging behind (75% EAGGF) than for other regions (50% EAGGF). Concerning the cohesive effect of the programmes, the preliminary evidence shows that the larger programmes tend to be available to fanners outside Objective 1 regions, which may indicate that authorities in Objective 1 experience more difficulties in operating programmes or with funding the 25% national contribution. The Committee of the Regions23 expressed the concern that, since agri-environment programmes support reductions in intensive farming that lower employment may result. However, this is not borne out by the few studies which have been carried out which show a neutral or positive effect on employment, particularly where the agri-environment undertakings require improved management of agricultural land. 2. 3 International agreements Implementation of the agri-environment regulation contributes to the fulfillment of the European Union's obligations under Agenda 21', which was agreed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The Convention of Biological Diversity requires the signatories to prepare national plans for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. 23 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'The regional consequences of CAP reform", CoR 17/96, 19. 2. 1996, p. 7 11 Following the reforms in 1992, the instruments of the CAP, including the accompanying measures, comprised part of the Community's commitments under the Uruguay Round Agreement reached in 1993. Under this agreement, the EU is committed to limiting its aggregate level of support based on yield. Environmental payments are classified in the 'green box' and exempt from quantitative limitations. In the context of discussions in the OECD, the environmental benefits of agriculture were the subject of a seminar held in Helsinki24 in 1996. Several Member States of the EU presented their agri-environment programmes as country case studies and the European Commission presented two papers25 on the Community perspective, one on the operation of the regulation and one by independent experts on the dependency of much of European biodiversity on the continuation of certain extensive systems of farming. In the conclusion to the seminar, the participants agreed that agricultural activities have both beneficial and harmful effects on the environment and the policy challenge is to reduce the harmful effects and enhance the beneficial effects; and that agri-environmental objectives, including the maintenance of landscape, are unlikely to be achieved by agricultural policy reform alone: they require specific environmental policy measures. No single policy solution would be appropriate: a wide array of approaches are available, ranging from voluntary approaches, dissemination of results of research, education and training, to regulatory measures and financial incentives and disincentives to farmers. In addition the seminar recognized that in so far as environmental benefits are dependent on the continuation of agriculture, the opportunities for the total decoupling of support from production are limited. However, fanners should only be paid for the provision of environmental services which the market cannot deliver where their farming activities go beyond a reference level, such as that of good agricultural practice in the region concerned. The seminar also concluded that policy instruments need to be transparent, targeted, tailored to specific environmental situations, carefully monitored for compliance and efficient implementation and evaluated against defined objectives. 2. 4 Environment policy Agri-environment programmes and measures reflect closely the agricultural aims of the Community fifth environmental action programme26, including that of promoting sustainability in farming methods. In the Commission's progress report on the implementation of the fifth environmental action programme27, emphasis is placed on the need to integrate environmental conditions into agriculture policy in general28. Concerning the agri-environment programmes, the report concludes that an evaluation methodology should be established and, subject to effective implementation in the Member States, an extension of the measures should be considered. 24 OECD Seminar on the Environmental Benefits from Sustainable Agriculture, Helsinki, Finland, 10-13 September 1996. 25 OECD:COM/AGR/ENV/EPOC/596/112. 26 COM (92)23, 27. 3. 1992. 27 10/1/96, COM(95)624 final. The Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision on the progress report commits the Community to a policy of further integration of environmental requirements into agriculture policy. 28 The Treaty of Rome, Article 130r, provides that environment protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies. 12 The Directive on the protection of wild birds and their habitats29 introduced measures to protect certain species of bird, such as the establishment of special protection zones. Under the Habitats Directive, Member States establish sites of special interest for biodiversity which together will form a coherent European ecological network, NATURA 2000'. For those habitats which comprise traditionally-farmed environments, agri-environment measures such as reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers, setting-aside field boundaries and scheduling farm activities can be applied. In addition the measure for environmental set-aside may be used to create wilderness habitats, such as wetlands. Under the Nitrates Directive30, Member States designate vulnerable zones based on water sampling results and establish mandatory action plans, usually comprising restrictions on farm activities31. In addition codes of good practice are promoted. In several Member States additional measures to reduce the effects of leaching, including flooding land, conversion of arable land to pasture and reducing or ceasing the use of nitrate fertilizer, have been implemented under the agri-environment programmes. The Commission has proposed a framework water directive32, bringing together all aspects of water policy, with a view to coordinating measures to be taken within river basins. Many agri-environment programmes already address water quality issues. 2. 5 Genetic resources, research Programmes include measures to rear animals of local farm breeds in danger of extinction, to protect genetic plant resources in agriculture and to promote biodiversity of plant and animal species. The agriculture and fisheries research programme (FAIR) of the Community's fourth agriculture-environment framework programme interactions33. Genetic resources supported under agri-environment programmes and relevant research projects and other studies funded by the Community will be the subject of Working Documents to be presented to the STAR Committee. (1994-1998) research covers for 2. 6 Animal welfare and hunting Agri-environment programmes cannot be used to support activities which would contravene Community standards of animal welfare. Although, no areas of conflict have arisen during the first years of implementation, includes in all decisions approving agri-environment programmes the condition that approval of programmes is without prejudice to Community rules on animal welfare. In relation to wild fauna, programmes designed specifically to develop hunting and shooting areas are not eligible for support. the Commission 29 Directive 79/409 of 2. 4. 1979, OJ L 103 2. 5. 1979, p. l. This scheme was included within the more comprehensive Directive 92/43 of 21. 5. 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJL 206 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. 30 Directive 91/676 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources of 12. 12. 1991, OJL 375 31. 12. 1991, p. l. 31 In particular the application of manure is limited to 170 KgN/ha. 32 COM(96)59 final, 21. 02. 1996, 'European Community Water Policy'. 33 Section 4. 1. 2, 1996 Work Programme, Agriculture and fisheries research. 13 3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UP TO 1997 3. 1 The initial phase: programme approvals The agri-environment regulation set a deadline of July 1993 by which time programmes should have been sent to the Commission for approval. Most programmes were received by or soon after this date and, by the end of 1993, the Commission had completed an overview of all notified programmes. In most cases the content of programmes and the budgetary estimates had to be adjusted to conform more closely to the provisions of the agri-environment regulation. As a result of the initial delays only 16 programmes were approved in 1993, but 83 new programmes and amendments were approved in 1994 and 59 in 1995. By the end of 1996, agri-environment programmes had been launched in all Member States with the exception of Luxembourg, where implementation had been considerably delayed. 3. 2 Budget estimates and EAGGF provision Initial estimates of programme budgets for the first 5 years (1993-97) were extremely high - 2XA times the Commission's estimate in 1991 at the time of the adoption of the agri-environment regulation. Following initial discussions with Member States, and then as Table 3. 1: programmes were approved and implemented, the amounts were revised downwards as shown in Table 3. 1. Evolution of EAGGF budget estimate Estimate 1993-97 (EU-12) ECU million Commission estimate, December 1991 2256 ' 5830 forecasts, programme Initial December 1993 For the new Member States, amounts were recorded in a declaration to the Treaty of Accession totaling ECU 1529 million for the period 1995-97. Table 3. 2(a) compares the estimates, the amounts retained in approved programmes with the likely out-turn. The most substantial short-falls have been in those Member States and regions for which agri-environment programmes were a new departure, such as parts of Italy, Spain and Greece. In Member States which had previous experience of managing programmes, such as Austria, Finland, Germany and France the programmes were more rapidly implemented. Expenditure for EU 12 has fallen short of budget in each year up to 1996 (Table 3. 2(b)). For EU15 there was a substantial underspend in 1995 owing to the late Budget in approved programmes, October 1995 Likely out-tum (1997 estimated) Revised forecasts, July 1994 3670 3915 2455 Table 3. 2(a) (1) based on initial Member State estimations (2) at Dec. 1996 (3) 1997 estimate (4) 1995-97 implementation of the programmes in the new Member States. First payments in these countries were not made until 1996, in which financial period two years' expenditure for Austria and Finland were recorded, and expenditure for EU15 slightly exceeded the budget. In 1997, two years' expenditure was made for Italian programmes, and the latest estimates point to an overshoot of the budget for EU15 of about ECU 350 million. 3. 3 Total programme budget Agri-environment programmes are part-financed by the Community (EAGGF, guarantee section) at the rate of 75% in Objective 1 regions or 50% in other regions. The balance of the co-financible programme is paid by the Member State or the region. Table 3. 3 illustrates the total programme out-turn for each Member State (1997 is estimated) showing the parts Total coflnanclble (ECU expenditure ' million) Member State B Dk D El E F Irt I NL L P UK Os Fin S EU15 EAGGF 3 19 918 11 125 509 163 432 25 4 148 98 806 399 126 3787 Out-turn Member State 3 19 376 4 42 509 54 282 24 4 49 94 746 399 126 2458 Total 38 1294 15 167 1018 217 714 49 9 197 192 1553 798 252 6244 -5 g * * Figure 1 3 ( b) P r o p o r t i on p r id by EAGGF • MemMrSta» • EAGGF m , H , M , M Member State D EAGGF B Utrrtm State Figure 3. 3(a) Table 3. 3 : Member State and EAGGF contributions (cofinancible expenditure) out-turn 1993-97 (est) contributed by Community and national funds for the period up to 1997. Five Member States account for 86% of the expenditure, corresponding to the programmes which have had widest application. The development of EAGGF expenditure is shown in Table 3. 4. It is evident from this table that programmes in Germany, Spain, France, Portugal and the UK became operational EVOLUTION OF EAGGF EXPENDITURE EAGGF part only : million ECU 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ECU million Total up to 1997 600 37 8 67 2 123 14 73 10 123 231 3 223 16 106 19 54 39 20 485 2 6 232 2 33 119 43 42 8 541 40 257 43 26 1391 2 9 304 10 54 144 100 336 4 12 264 58 143 83 36 1556 3 19 918 11 125 509 163 432 4 25 805 148 399 126 98 3786 Member State B <- B Figure 3. 4 Member State B Dk D El E F Irl I L NL Ôs P Fin S UK EU 15 Table 3. 4 reasonably quickly. For most Member States there was a delay of two or more years before programmes were in place. The process of developing new programmes has not come to an end. In Denmark programmes were redesigned and relaunched in 1997 and significant new programmes are under development or have been launched in the UK, Greece and Sweden. 15 1996 and 1997 were the first full years of application for most Member States. The estimated expenditure for 1997 is given in Table 3. 5, which shows substantial implementation in most Member States. Figures are also shown in Table 3. 5 for the total proportion of EAGGF (guarantee) expenditure spent on agri-environment programmes. Comparison shows that on Figure 3. 5(a) Table 3. 5(b) and Figure 3. 5(b) average, 3. 6% of guarantee expenditure was accounted for under the programmes. The proportion is substantially higher in the new Member States ranging from 7% in Sweden to 22% in Austria. Despite the high figures in a few Member States expenditure on agri-environment programmes represents only 1. 6-1. 8% of the total EU budget, as shown in Table 3. 6. ECU billion out-turn estimate 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 Division of budget R. 2078/92 2% Total EC budget 67,760 65,929 73,555 85,094 87,651 of which EAGGF (guarantee) 34,590 32,970 34,503 39,108 41,233 of which agri-environment 123 231 485 1,391 1,557 agri-environment as % of total budget 0. 18% 0. 35% 0. 66% 1. 63% 1. 78% Table 3. 6 3. 4 Implementation data EAGGF EM | | g| f i ll (guarantee) 44% I rest of budget 54% j By the mid-point in the 1997 budget year, 1. 35 million agreements had been signed with farmers, covering 17% of all holdings and persons employed in agriculture in the EU. Number I Member State Total no. employed in participants agriculture (ASEU 1996) '000 ÎÔ2 114 1197 780 1119 1080 140 1489 6 243 267 507 156 124 533 7857 number 1 242 8 193 554 836 1 839 29 599 177 695 23 855 63 841 1 922 5 854 180 000 125 479 91 509 68 969 21 482 | 1356 315 | * 7995dala; " 1996data; "'estimated Table 3. 7 Number of participants at 15. 4. 1997 % 1% 7% 46% 0% 3% 16% 17% 4% 32% 2% 67% 25% 59% 56% 4% 17% B Dk D El* E F Irl I** L NL ôs*** P Fin S UK EU15 Figure 3. 7 16 Table 3. 7 shows a break-down by Member State. In Austria the programme reached nearly 70% of those employed in agriculture and around 50% in Finland, Germany and Sweden. Agreements covered 22. 3 million hectares, or 17% of the utilized agricultural area (UAA) of the EU. The most widespread programmes were in Austria, Luxembourg and Finland (over 70% UAA). Coverage was over 30% of UAA in Sweden and Germany (Table 3. 8). The level of premia per hectare averaged 117 ECU per ha, with most average premia falling in the range 60-150 ECU/ha (Figure 3. 8(b)). Figures for Greece and Italy are not available. Take up (hectares) 3takeup1997 -take up 1997 as % UAA P UK Member Stat* ^ T - ^ - T -* BOH 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Average premia UAA (Utilized agricultural area) (ASEU 1996) estimate of % UAA within 2078 '000 ha 1 366 2 715 17 344 5 741 25 092 30 277 4 444 17 294 127 1 981 3 449 3 981 2 605 3 438 15 852 135 706 % 1% 3% 37% 0% 2% 19% 18% 6% 7 6% 2% 72% 15% 77% 45% 8% 17% Figure 3. 8(b) Figure 3. 8(a) Member State B Dk D El* E F Irl I" L NL us P Fin S UK Total cofinancible expenditure 1997,est ECU million 3 17 428 13 72 287 134 560 9 23 509 77 285 166 70 A v e r afe payment per £ Total take-up at 15. 4. 1997 ,. (only area ™ payments) •000 ha 17 94 6353 12 532 5725 801 977 97 31 2500 606 2000 1561 1322 ECU/ha 84 186 89 n/a 81 42 147 n/a 90 260 140 137 124 156 55 2652 22628 'data 1995; "data 1996. Further detail of the implementation in the Member States will be the subject of a Working Document which the Commission intends to present to the £TAR committee. From the outline data presented it is clear that some Member States make very substantial use of the opportunities under the regulation, while in others implementation, is at low levels or restricted to certain areas. Low implementation may reflect difficulties for Member States or regions to secure the national contribution to funding. A similarly diverse picture is evident within Member States for those programmes which have been managed on a regional basis. 3. 5 Monitoring, evaluation and follow up by the Commission The possible impacts of the land management measures fall into three categories covering the three aims of the agri-environment regulation: impacts on the environment; on agricultural production; and socio-economic impacts. For the measures concerning public access and training and demonstration projects, different criteria are needed. The Commission drew up a guide to monitoring and evaluation in 1995 identifying all the areas which needed to be analyzed and this was presented to Member States in the STAR Committee as a Working 17 Document34. Tin's document lists all the elements which need to be considered in planning evaluations and presents basic principles, such as the need to establish base-line data. Following adoption of the implementing regulation, which includes a provision setting out the obligations on the Member States to monitor and evaluate programmes35, the Commission received details of monitoring and evaluation strategies for all Member States except Luxembourg and Portugal. By October 1997, official evaluation reports had been received in respect of some programmes in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Most evaluation reports broadly correspond to the criteria set out by the Commission in 1995. The results will be set out in more detail, together with addresses where the reports may be obtained, in a further STAR Working Document. However, some of the main conclusions reached are set out below, bearing in mind that the evaluation process for most programmes is at an early stage. Concerning differences in programme implementation, these are due to a variety of factors, including the presence of pre-existing agri-environmental policies, the perception of the viability of measures, regional or local agricultural and environmental conditions, and budgetary restrictions and consequent choices made at the national level. The reports conclude that premia levels are function of the degree of targeting of a measure, the agricultural activity concerned, the degree of constraints imposed, level of active participation expected or desired, physical conditions, production costs, regional priorities and the availability of national matching funds. Concerning the effectiveness of programme application, previous administrative experience and the provision of adequate information are identified as key factors in successful programmes. Growth in rates of up-take suggests an adoption path very similar to the classical one for innovations: innovators then early adopters and in some cases reaching the stage of the advance majority. This is not surprising since in most cases agri- environment programmes require the farmer to introduce technical innovations. Despite their importance, information and training have received generally scarce attention from Member States, with the notable exceptions of the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent Sweden. Effects of schemes on the farmer's income under the CMO regimes or other schemes such as the agri-forestry programmes can be decisive factors in limiting adoption if farmers are not persuaded that the agri-environment payment adequately covers their losses. This factor concerns in particular compensatory payments for arable crops and payments under beef and sheep regimes which are based on headage payment and thus encourage production within the limits set out in the CMO. Agri-environment programmes are also adversely influenced by concern that in foregoing arable cultivation the farmer might lose the possibility of access to payments should a new base area or fully decoupled payments be introduced; for dairy production agri-environmental take-up is limited by concerns over the future of the unused quota. Concerning new schemes, competition with afforestation programmes has been identified in some regions. The evaluation reports also highlight the difficulties and expense of scientific monitoring, absences in base-line data and difficulties in the use of indicators. Concerning the development 34 Working Document VI/3872/97, which consolidated previous Working Documents. 35 Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/96, Article 16. 18 ^ _ _ ^ ^ _ _ __ of indicators, the Commission is contributing to work within the EU and in international fora, particularly in the OECD. Work on indicators covers a vast range of areas, including in particular the following six aspects: discharge of nutrients into eco-systems and waters; discharge of plant protection products into eco-systems and waters; effects on climate change and global warming; deterioration in the biodiversity of wild flora and fauna; changes in cultivated landscape; development of genetic resources (domestic fauna and plant varieties). In order to follow the progress of the implementation and evaluation of the agri-environment programmes, the Commission holds regular bilateral meetings with the Member States. In this way the Commission had early knowledge of the development of programmes, problems with implementation and of the high number of amendments to programmes which Member States began to submit soon after adoption. 3. 6 Assessment of measures by category36 3. 6. 1 Environmentally-beneficial productive farming ; organic farming (1) In some Member States the consumer demand for organic produce has expanded enormously in recent years. The benefits to the environment where normal farming systems convert to organic production are extremely high, for example in terms of the EU there are well-established ceasing the use of pesticides. Throughout organisations which monitor organic farms, maintain standards, and promote organic produce in line with the provisions of the Council regulation on organic standards37. Evaluation reports highlight the proven environmental benefits on soil and water quality and on biodiversity. Profitability is dependent on market possibilities and size of premia. Given the volatility of organic markets, it is difficult to predict effects on income. The Commission intends to present a Working Document to the STAR committee on support for organic farming. non-organic farming with environmental improvements (2) Adjustments to farming practices supported in Member State programmes include reducing inputs, strict scheduling of farm activities, leaving strips beside fields free of spray, undersowing grass in crops, reducing stocking density, causing the periodic flooding of low-lying land, etc. These and similar techniques may reduce substantially the stress on the environment and, if well managed, can result in an increase in biodiversity and reductions in pesticide use and nutrient loss. This type of measure may require extra work and result in reduced levels of production. Integrated farming techniques, provided they comprise low levels of chemical inputs, are increasingly widespread and schemes are supported under agri-environment programmes. As with organic production, organizations are being established to monitor production and control standards. However the lack of common standards and consequent proliferation of labels in some places has led to uncertainty for consumers and others. 36 Categories described at Section 1. 10. 37 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ No L 198, 22. 7. 1991, p. l. 19 Evaluation reports highlight the complex variety of measures applied in the different programmes. Environmental benefits are shown in respect of water quality, the reduction of erosion, the preservation of the agricultural landscape especially in the case of perennial crops and conservation of biotic resources. Monitoring water quality is shown to be problematical as positive effects may take many years to be realised. This suggests that relevant programmes need to be continued for decades in order to be effective. It is also frequently impossible to attribute environmental benefits to the actions of an individual farmer. In some regions, with fertile soils or with many livestock units per farm, there has been a low take-up of environmentally beneficial measures which limit production capacity. In these areas the environmental threats may be severe and the effectiveness of current approaches may be questioned. Management agreements in sensitive zones aimed at promoting biodiversity seem to achieve high value positive effects, and take-up has been high where the authorities have been able to target promotional and information activities and where the agreements do not require big changes in applied farm technologies. In cases where greater changes to farm procedures are needed with the active involvement of farmers as 'guardians of the countryside', the level of the premium can be a key element in determining the level of take-up. Concerning preservation of genetic resources, the programmes show a clear positive effect on genetic resources while there is no effect on market balance. The measure for preservation of useful plants threatened by genetic erosion has not been applied to a sufficient extent for conclusions to be drawn. maintenance of existing low-intensity systems (3) The environmental obligations may be fairly light, comprising the maintenance of traditional farming methods, maintenance of the landscape, low levels of inputs, low levels of stocking density and, in the case of grassland, a prohibition on ploughing or disturbing natural features on the land. The premium per hectare is correspondingly low, reflecting the extensive nature of the farming. In marginal areas, however, where a substantial effort is required of farmers to stay on the land, and where traditional low-intensity systems are necessary for the continued protection of the environment and maintenance of high natural- value sites, this type of measure can be a valuable instrument to help maintain the environment and the traditional fanned landscape. Similar programmes exist, for example under the structural funds, designed to maintain agriculture in disadvantaged farming areas38. The evaluation reports show that measures for the promotion and maintenance of extensive grassland have had a significant impact in several countries by preventing intensification, underuse or abandonment. It is usually based on the limitation of livestock/land ratio and on restrictions on the use of nitrogen fertilisers. Environmental benefits include the reduction of erosion, the preservation of the pastoral landscape and conservation of biotic resources. The measure has a higher impact on market balance when it takes the form of conversion of arable land into extensive grassland. In some Member States some reduction in production has been estimated. The measure should provide an environmental benefit to society, i. e. the farmer should provide positive externalities. 38 eg. Compensatory allowances under objective 5(a) of the structural funds; see section 2. 2. 20 3. 6. 2 Non-productive land management (maintenance of abandoned land, environmental set-aside, landscape features, public access) Measures which promote the conservation or restoration of habitats or biotopes, for example through permanent flooding of land, normally entail very significant reductions in, or the complete cessation of, production. There may, however, be a substantial amount of work to be done on the land under the terms of the farmer's undertaking. It is very unlikely that such habitats would be created without public land purchase or the type of agreements available under' agri-environment programmes. In the same way, a substantial effort is required of farmers who undertake to clear abandoned land of scrub in order to guard against fire hazards or who keep up stone walls, terracing, hedges, ponds, wells, and farming landscape features which may be essential to guard against erosion. Concerning 20-year set aside, all agricultural activity is normally disallowed. However, where the control of unwanted undergrowth is specified, the most desirable method of doing this may be to use grazing animals for a short period of a few days, and subject to strict controls. Few programmes have been developed to promote public access39. In one case, it became clear that farmers expected compensation to be calculated as a function of disturbance, particularly near to urban centres. Calculations based on income foregone and costs incurred are not always seen as the most suitable basis by farmers. Evaluation reports show that the long-term set-aside measure is usually limited to particular areas in order to achieve specific objectives in nature conservation. The 20 years length can limit potential take-up. As the measure can be very important for conservation purposes, it is important to study how to increase participation. Analysis of past experience for Member States suggests that the rigidity of the 20-year agreement is a dissuasive factor and more significant than the level of premium in determining take-up. Different mechanisms suggested include premia which are indexed linked or allow farmers to leave agreements after a shorter period than the full 20 years. Evaluations of the measures for upkeep of abandoned farmland and woodland illustrate that this measure can give a positive contribution to conservation (erosion, landscape) while securing the role of farmers as providers of these services. The measures have no impact on market balance. Level of premium need to cover the costs sustained by farmers. 3. 6. 3 Training and demonstration projects Training is provided at various levels. For individual farmers, courses focus on the measures in the national programme and specific issues related to the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the landscape. Training is also given in some cases to experts who draw up farm plans, advise farmers, or train others. Demonstration projects are normally closely linked to the themes of the national agri-environmental programme and focused on the promotion of appropriate production methods, knowledge and technology. 39 Some Member States have a general right of public access to farmland enshrined in their domestic law. 21 3. 6. 4 Integrated and whole-farm plans Programmes in a few Member States adopt an integrated approach to implementation of the measures. For example, in one case, all aspects of the farm are analysed and a series of measures comprising farming methods, creation of habitats, conservation of landscape features, and training for the farmer are agreed. The success of these programmes will depend on the quality of the planning and expert advice from advisors. Concerning whole farm agreements, one interim evaluation report has concluded that all agri-environment agreements should be based on undertakings applying to the whole farm. 3. 7 Developments in programme management and administration 3. 7. 1 Level of take up In many programmes, but by no means all, the levels of take-up have been substantially below initial estimates. The Commission has identified six main reasons, as summarised Table 3. 9: Reasons for low take up. (a) initial difficulties and the resulting delays experienced in the start-up phase of the programme may have discouraged some farmers. Most programmes have been approved and are now in operation and farmers can see that the programmes are established and the opportunities deserve serious consideration; (b) estimates of take up provided to the Commission by some Member States may have been over-optimistic; (c) levels of compensation for costs and income foregone may be considered by some fanners to be insufficient and/or incentive payments may be considered too low for some measures; (d) unavailability of matching funding from national or regional sources; (e) farmers may be reluctant to bind themselves into contracts for 5 years or more; (f) lack of adequate publicity and insufficient promotion af schemes. in Table 3. 9. Against this, a few Member States and regions have experienced very high levels of take up, in some cases beyond the budgetary capacity of the programmes. Divergencies between high and low levels of take up have resulted in an overall imbalance between Member States and between regions. The Commission has sought to encourage implementation in those Member States where it has been insufficient and to limit spending beyond the agreed financial ceilings. 3. 7. 2 Land tenure Particular difficulties have arisen in the case of leased land and traditional land tenure systems, such as common-held land or land on renewable leases, technically terminable at one year's notice. For leased land, the lessor is required to ensure agreements can be carried out for the agreement period. However, some measures and some programmes have been withheld from farmers unable to meet the conditions of grant by reason of the land tenure arrangements. 3. 7. 3 Control measures and penalties The agri-environment programmes have presented considerable difficulties for checking the performance of undertakings. Many environmental land management measures require activities to be undertaken at different times of the year. Unlike systems of control for the market regimes, where one visit to a farm is needed for verification purposes, for the agri-environment programmes several visits may be required to check the full range of undertakings given. As far as possible, the systems for the control of 22 programmes and penalties for wrongful payment have been adapted to the integrated control and administration system40. 3. 7. 4 Calculation of premia and maximum co-fmancible amounts Premia are in principle payable for undertakings which go beyond a minimum standard on the basis of net income foregone, costs incurred and the need to provide an incentive. Thus premia neither contain an income element nor can they be considered as being subsidies. The Commission seeks to ensure that premia are held within the criteria, both to be in line with the provisions of the agri-environment regulation and to ensure that programmes retain their 'green box1 status. The regulation sets ceilings on the amounts to be reimbursed41 according to land use. However, in the case of mixed farms, farms which practice rotation, or farms with varied environmental features, the application of different maximum amounts for different fields can become confusing. 3. 7. 5 Extensification In some programmes, measures designed to achieve extensification by paying per livestock unit removed have been less successful than equivalent stock removal measures which pay a per hectare rate for environmental stock management. A particular difficulty with the measure including payment per livestock unit removed is that separate land management measures may be excluded or the maximum premia halved42. 3. 7. 6 Landscape and historical features Several Member States have included proposals to support the maintenance and creation of farm features such as terracing, hedgerows, stone walls, ponds, single trees, and so on. Justifications advanced have included protection of amenity value (especially the visual aspect), promotion of biodiversity, preservation of ancient boundaries, and cultural heritage. The Commission has accepted the maintenance of these features in co- financed programmes, usually as ancillary measures to the main environmental land management of farmland or combined with the condition that farmers must adhere to good agricultural practice on the adjacent fields. Archaeological sites have normally been excluded on the ground of insufficient environmental justification. Some historical remains, however, particularly earth works, can be argued to both be part of the landscape and require changes to, or limitations on, farm practice for their preservation. 3. 7. 7 Endangered breeds and crop varieties In approving programmes to support the rearing of endangered farm animals, the Commission has established a list of eligible breeds43 of equidae, cattle, sheep and goats. In addition minimum eligibility criteria have been established. Requests have been made to develop the criteria and to extend the measure to other breeds. Some Member States have also proposed measures to support the growing of threatened crop 40 Regulation 746/96, Articles 19 and 20. 41 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Article 4. 42 43 STAR Working Documents VI/5104/92 and VI/3879/94. 23 idem. Article 4(3) varieties, and the Commission has accepted measures for individual local crop varieties clearly in danger of extinction. 3. 7. 8 2 0-year set aside and management of abandoned land The 20-year undertaking has proved to be unpopular with farmers, although for certain environmental objectives 20 years is needed. Some Member States have established 5- year set-aside by citing other measures in the regulation or combining measures with set-aside options under the arable regime. However, market set-aside, does not cover pasture and the conditions of use may not be optimal from an environmental perspective. In limited circumstances, the maintenance of abandoned land may be undertaken by non-farmers44. Concerning maintenance of abandoned woodland, the Commission has sought to prevent the measure being used in circumstances where local authorities have the responsibility for up keep or where the owner is available to assume responsibility for the woodland. 3. 7. 9 Training and demonstration projects Most Member States have included measures or programmes for training of farmers and demonstration projects. Since many agri-environment agreements require farmers to implement new techniques or understand complex environmental processes and balanced systems of production, the training measures, which are optional on Member States under the regulation, may be seen as essential' to the success of certain programmes. The Commission intends to present Working Documents to the STAR Committee on training and demonstration projects. 3. 7. 10 Non-premia measures Many measures could be envisaged to promote agri-environment techniques which do not involve premia payments although there may be organisational expenses. Examples include farm and local area planning, provision of advice on the farm environment or natural history, self-help groups, etc. An enormous amount of data is available about environmental processes and farming systems. However, allowing farmers access to the information and enabling them to acquire the knowledge calls for a greater imaginative effort than the publication of booklets summarising codes of good agricultural practice. New technology provides opportunities for delivering information and providing training needed for farmers to be able to manage their environment effectively and to understand the processes involved. 44 Regulation 2078/92. Article 5(l)(c) and Regulation 746/96, Article 6. 24 4. CONCLUSIONS 4. 1 Outstanding issues 4. 1. 1 Justifying support for existing extensive systems In the case of agri-environment measures which support existing extensive systems, the extent of the environmental impact must be under continual scrutiny. Such measures should be focused on zones where real farming difficulties exist as a result of the declining profitability of traditional farming systems which are environmentally valuable and where abandonment of the land use or the decline in pasture management (or, in some cases, intensification) would be the logical economic choice. In marginal farming regions, where the threat to the environment is posed by a tendency to abandon or to reduce pasture management, the costs calculation must take these economic realities into account. In these areas the environmental justifications for continuing a particular type of extensive agriculture are compelling, underlining the importance of appropriate measures to secure the future of this farming. In other areas, farmers receiving premia must also be shown to make real efforts which benefit the environment and, where following necessary, consideration must be given independent evaluation. to strengthening measures The minimum standard of acceptable agricultural practice which farmers should follow without receiving premia is not uniform across the EU. It differs between Member States and between regions according to state of advancement of agriculture, and local, socio-economic, and environmental factors. It is not a static concept even within one region and will develop over time. In some Member States the application of codes of 'good agricultural practice' is compulsory; in others they are voluntary. As farming standards develop, so should the measures contained within the agri-environment programmes which are intended to go beyond the application of minimum standards. However, the level must be practically feasible in the light of conditions prevailing in the region concerned. In relation to 'income foregone', the calculation must be based on the reasonable income which the farmer does not receive as a result of the undertaking. This should exclude calculations for a method of production or land use which the farmer would have been unlikely to implement. 4. 1. 2 Targeting Some of the agri-environment measures having significant benefit for the environment require farmers to forego a considerable level of income, for example by giving up productive farming on certain parcels of land altogether. It follows that, given normal public budgetary constraints, these measures are better targeted on small areas (and fully funded) than available too widely with the result that premia are too low or the measure is simply not implemented due to a lack of matching funds. Agri-environment measures should only be available in an area in so far as the environmental conditions addressed are common throughout the area. Highly detailed obligations specific to one type of land and farming tradition will of necessity be most limited in geographical application. Measures which apply in a uniform way across an 25 entire region or Member State or, possibly, across several Member States, should only cover environmental circumstances or objectives common to the larger zone. 4. 1. 3 Regionalization and responsibility The formulation, implementation and evaluation of agri-environment programmes should remain primarily the responsibility of the national or regional authorities. They have the necessary knowledge, data, resources and commitment to establish programmes best suited to the local circumstances and which will command local support. The development, implementation and evaluation of programmes should be the subject of a broad consultation at local or regional level, including environmental and farming organisations. Through such a process measures can be targeted on regional priorities, such as the need to reduce nutrient leaching, preserve natural habitats designated under NATURA 2000 or guard against fire and erosion risk. However, it should be recognised that a regionalized approach based on administrative units does not always lead to appropriate solutions from the point of view of environmental geography. For example, where a single agri-environment need spans a regional border, such as the need to reduce nitrate run-off into a single river system, a strong argument can be made to encourage regional authorities to co-operate closely and present consistent or at least compatible measures to address the common problem. In addition, there are some types of measures, for example basic support for existing low intensity systems, or premia for almost identical organic production systems, where regional differences would be hard to justify and a regional approach may even result in anomalies. These measures are better suited to a national or trans-national approach. 4. 1. 4 Tendering While no proposals to award agreements on the basis of tender calls have yet been made, a few Member States have expressed interest in this procedure. Tendering would be unlikely to deliver better value in relation to certain agri-environment obligations, particularly where agreements need to be developed with farmers individually. However, for suitable measures, tendering would offer the prospect of a more rational means of approving agri-environment expenditure. 4. 1. 5 Diverse sources of funding The Community now supports environmental activities, to be carried out by farmers, not only through the agri-environment programmes, but also by means of the forestry and early retirement programmes, Objectives 1, 6 and 5b programmes, the LEADER programme, investments under Objective 5a, and in some cases, through the markets regimes. In addition, Member States which have the available national resources are able to operate extensive systems of State aided measures and top-ups to co-financed measures. These diverse sources of funding must be well co-ordinated if anomalies are to be avoided in future. AGENDA 2000 contains proposals to rationalise all measures into integrated regional programmes, in which it will be essential to ensure that the environmental aims are clearly identified and retained and not diluted as a result of the programming process. AGENDA 2000 also proposes for the development of the Compensatory allowances scheme to become a basic instrument to maintain and promote low input farming 26 systems. Compensatory allowances provide a basis to support farmers subject to farming handicaps. 4. 1. 6 Horizontal application AGENDA 2000 proposes to continue the application of agri-environment programmes throughout the territory of Member States. Within the new Objectives 1 and 2 areas, the programmes will be preserved together with other elements of regional programmes. Outside these areas, agri-environmental programmes will form part of the same legal framework as other rural policies. Where an agri-environmental zone crosses a regional boundary, the programming process will need to be respected in the different areas. 4. 1. 7 Funding AGENDA 2000 gives an indicative expenditure for the three accompanying measures of ECU 2. 8 billion in the year 2000. Growth in expenditure is expected to come from those Member States where implementation has been low so far and programme developments throughout the EU. Since expenditure is and, under AGENDA 2000, will remain under the guarantee section of the EAGGF, accurate forward estimates of expenditure are essential. The Commission has received in the past some particularly optimistic forecasts of expenditure which made the budgetary process difficult. The Commission will continue to look for improvement in forecasting using all means at its disposition. 4. 1. 8 Interaction with markets regimes Although a number of market regimes include agri-environment measures, or conditions relating to environmental practice, there remain substantial economic pressures to intensify and maximise revenue. Changes to markets regimes which alleviate pressure on the environment are likely to have a more general environmental impact than agri-environment measures, which are usually applied on a limited area. Where such changes impact on running agri-environment programmes, the latter must be adapted to the revised economic circumstances. 4. 1. 9 Evaluation and monitoring The EU lacks sufficient base-line data of the environmental state of its farmland. Where agri-environment programmes are applied a particular effort is needed to carry out the necessary monitoring. The expense of this work can be considerable and strong arguments exist for a part of Community expenditure to be made available for evaluation and monitoring. 4. 1. 10 Clear objectives support The agri-environment regulation should remain a vehicle for improving and maintaining the quality of the rural environment. Direct income aids should be clearly distinguished from for agri-environment activities, which primarily must deliver environmental benefits through compensating agreement-holders who use their factors of production to this end. In addition to the overall objectives, precise objectives need to be specified within programmes in order to improve transparency and form the basis 27 __ of sound evaluation strategies. Thus 'protection of water quality' needs to become specified targets for reductions in N and P levels; 'maintenance of an arable habitat' should be expressed in terms of the identified plants and insects and other fauna which are intended to benefit. 4. 1. 11 Five-year obligation The minimum obligation for an agri-environment measure is 5 years or, in the case of long-term set-aside, 20 years. The Commission has adopted a flexible approach and approved early termination of undertakings for reasons of force majeure and in other reasonable circumstances where the holding is transferred. The principle should remain that 5 years is a minimum period for the serious application of agri-environment measures. At the end of the agreement period, there is a danger that the farmer will choose not to renew the agreement and change to more profitable systems of farming. In some cases this may result in a serious loss of the environmental value built up or preserved over the agreement period. In exceptional cases there may be an argument for using compulsory national measures to conserve the environment. However, a voluntary scheme such as the agri-environment programmes is not an appropriate instrument by which to implement compulsory measures, and this important limitation on the effectiveness of the measures needs to be recognised. 4. 1. 12 Whole-farm agreement The practice in many programmes to require participating farmers to take on a whole- farm agreement has much to recommend it. At a minimum an agreement-holder should not be able to negate environmental gains on one part of his farm through intensification on another part. 4. 2 Reflections on possible amendments in view of the outstanding A number of aspects of the agri-environment regulation have been identified for possible amendment in programme management discussed above. While reflections on proposals arising from AGENDA 2000 are not yet complete, these points are nevertheless presented to the European Parliament and the Council for consideration. issues and developments 4. 2. 1 Distinguishing between types of environmental measure in of the framework AGENDA 2000 describes the possibility of developing the compensatory allowance scheme as a more environmental instrument, which would complement the measures the agri-environment programmes. The undertaken agri-environment regulation should emphasise, as suggested in AGENDA 2000, environmental services which call for an extra effort on the part of the farmer, such as organic farming, maintenance of semi-natural habitats, traditional orchards and hedgerows, continuation of alpine cattle keeping, upkeep of wetlands, and other far- reaching measures in different regions of the EU. In addition, AGENDA 2000 notes that a high level of commitment is needed where a measure results in a significant loss of yield, such as buffer strips. 28 A more precise legal framework is needed for the non-land management measures. Projects for public access, demonstration farms and training need specific financial arrangements and justification criteria. 4. 2. 2 Capital works and other investments For reasons of coherence, each agri-environment programme to which a farmer may subscribe should incorporate all relevant agri-environment measures, such as capital works and processing investments. The current position, where these are often not co ordinated with agri-environment programmes, needs to be improved. In many programmes, environmental capital items are State aided and approved separately from agri-environment programmes under the terms of the investment aid regulation. 4. 2. 3 Part-financible prem ia The calculation of premia must be strictly limited to income foregone measured against a reference level of farm practice, costs incurred and the need to provide an incentive. Basic premia in particular need to be justified on this basis in the context of the objectives of the programmes and the environmental standards and conditions faced by farmers in the regions concerned. Levels of premia must be commensurate with the income from a competing land use, including any market premium or other relevant income source. A review of the system of part-financible premia may be appropriate. 4. 2. 4 Adjusting rates of part-financing from the EAGGF The Commission has received recommendations for increasing the levels of part- financing and modulating impact of programmes or measures. The possibility of increasing part-financing rates is raised in AGENDA 2000 in the context of strengthening programmes. Any increase in part- financing rates should be combined with improved targeting and objective setting, and effective monitoring and evaluation. 'O the rate according the environmental to 4. 2. 5 L ivestock removal The measure for extensification of livestock under Article 2(l)(c) should be reviewed and possibly developed as an explicit measure addressing extensive livestock farming and in particular the management of low-intensity pasture systems. 4. 2. 6 Landscape and historical features The case for supporting non-productive landscape features in isolation of undertakings given on the productive part of the land is difficult to justify. However, cultural and historical landscape features, particularly those linked to biodiversity, which accompany farming activities should be included within the scope of the agri-environment regulation. 4. 2. 7 Long term set aside The 20-year obligation should be reviewed to determine whether a shorter period may be justified. Limited use of grazing animals to control weeds and undergrowth should be subject to clear control criteria. Alternative environmental land uses, for example the creation of lakes and to provide public access, should be investigated. However, public 29 schemes for land purchase, which may be essential to conserve environmental value, should not come under the scope of the agri-environment programmes. 4. 2. 8 Promotion of training measures training courses within Member States should be encouraged agri-environment programmes. The training element, which is currently optional on Member States, could become part of the range of measures obligatory on Member States. to provide 4. 2. 9 Non-premia measures In the context of integrated programming, agri-environment measures should be fully associated with non-premia measures designed to achieve the same ends, such as awareness raising, technical environmental assessments, medium and long term planning and facilitating farmers to understand the environmental potential of their land. 4. 2. 10 Finance for monitoring and evaluation The Commission is receptive to the argument that a Community contribution to the costs of scientific monitoring and evaluation may be warranted. Costs will vary depending on the nature and size of the programme, but a sufficient amount of expenditure should be allocated in order to produce useful and thorough data. 4. 2. 11 Observatory of environmentally beneficial agriculture The interaction of agriculture and the environment in general and the impact of the agri-environment programmes in particular are already subjects for a considerable quantity of research. At the same time questions remain concerning the environmental, agricultural and socio-economic impacts of some programmes and some approaches, and will be the subject of future enquiry. In order to follow-up, co-ordinate where necessary, and, above all bring early results and analysis to the attention of the Commission, the Member States and appropriate non-governmental organisations, the establishment of an observatory may be justified. Such a body should be required to facilitate the transfer of findings throughout the EU, to identify particularly successful measures and programmes, to contribute to the development of indicators for measuring agri-environment processes, to identify areas where research lacunae exist, and the Commission. In only five years, the agri-environment approach has developed from being an innovation introduced to accompany the reform of the CAP to becoming a central part for the future Community farming and rural policy. For this reason alone, the provision of effective and relevant research data at the European level is essential. in agri-environmental data supplied to help ensure comparability to 4. 2. 12 Summary of Commission initiatives The Commission intends to bring forward Working Documents and present them to the STAR Committee covering the following detailed aspects of implementation of agri- environment programmes: - implementation in the Member States; - support for organic farming; 30 - support for maintaining genetic resources; - evaluation studies and Community-funded research and studies; - training and demonstration projects. The Commission will continue to encourage Member States: - - - - to make the best use of existing opportunities for integrating agri-environment programme with structural fund programmes; to develop non-premia programmes for disseminating information to farmers; to implement fully those programmes which are behind schedule; to monitor and evaluate programmes and develop them in the light of the results of evaluations. The Commission will consider bringing forward several proposals for the adjustment of the provisions of Regulation 2078/92, including: - an improved legal framework for the non-land management measures; - a review of the system of maximum part-financible premia; - a review of the measure to reduce stock numbers to focus on low-intensity pasture management; - a review of criteria for incorporation of capital investments and landscape and historical farmland features within programmes; - a review of the measure for environmental set aside; - possibilities for the provision for part-financing from Community funds of monitoring and evaluation costs; - review of Community part-financing rates - any amendments which may result from discussions following the presentation of the Working Documents mentioned above. In addition, in the context of AGENDA 2000 the Commission will bring forward a proposal regional and zonal programmes. Finally the Commission will investigate ways and means and terms of reference for establishing an observatory of environmentally beneficial agriculture. to strengthen agri-environment measures within 4. 3 Future developments * Recognition of the role of farmers as protectors of the environment and stewards of the countryside is now established policy of the Community. The perspective is of an active rural economy where farmers, in addition to their responsibilities as food producers, take on the role of 'rural entrepreneurs' providing services to the local community, including the provision of environmental public goods/ The successful implementation of policies such as the agri-environment programme constitute a substantial part of the EU's obligations under AGENDA 21. In the foreseeable future, there is likely to be continued pressure on price support policies resulting from the international trading environment and the imperative to retain European 31 competitiveness on global markets. Without specific agri-environment measures, the unique agricultural heritage of Europe, the result of centuries of sustainable farming, would be severely threatened by continued intensification or by abandonment. The same considerations apply beyond the EU and the agri-environment regulation has aroused considerable interest in the countries of central and eastern Europe where similar programmes are under development in at least two countries. In both halves of Europe, the association of certain low-intensity farm systems with high levels of biodiversity show that decoupling of environmental benefits from production is only possible to an extent. AGENDA 2000 confirms the place of agri-environment programmes within the new rural development policy. The instrument must be strengthened, both in terms of the quality of the programmes and in financial terms. In addition, actions covered by some current agri- environment programmes will be complemented by the compensatory allowances scheme developed as a basic instrument to support low-input farming. The proposals contained in AGENDA 2000, in line with the direction of reform of the common agricultural policy set out in 1992, and the Commission strategy paper on eastern enlargement presented to the Madrid European Council in 1995, would result in support for farming, being further decoupled from production and focused on direct expenditure, including payments for rural services. This type of expenditure is far more visible to the general public than price support mechanisms and, in so far as it is paid for the provision of environmental services under agri-environment programmes, the public will want to know that the expenditure is justified. If agri-environment measures continue to operate with public support, and particularly as they are intended to become more significant financially throughout the EU, «it will be necessary to demonstrate the genuine environmental impact of the programmes. For these reasons the evaluation of the measures continues to be a priority in order to make available reliable data with which to assess the effectiveness and impact of the programmes. Programme approval and amendment decisions Annex MS Programme f motf • MMndnwnJ tfeclilon) N° STAR W k D oc STAR N* Decision Date Decision MS Programme fmotf • amandnwnl decision) N ' S T AR W k D oc STAR N* Decision Date Decision B 0 D 0 D 0 D D D 0 0 D D 0 D D D D D 0 D D D D D 0 D D D 0 D D 0 D D D D 0 D 0 D D D D D D 0 D D D D D D D D Dk DK Die Dk Dk Dk Dk Dk Dk Dk Dk E E E E E E E e E E E El EJ a 0 Prog. Agri-Environnemertt 94. 4841 25. 07. 94 94. 2937 17. 11. 1994 Baden-Wurttemberg i 93. 6830 29. 09. 93 93. 2841 19. 10. 1993 Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 1 96. 3774 26. 03. 96 96. 0731 16,4,1996 Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 2 96. 8692 27. 11. 96 96. 3865 30. 12. 1996 Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 3 97. 3825 21. 03. 97 97,0702 15. 4. 1997 Baden-Wurttemberg 1 95. 8965 27. 02. 96 96. 0506 26,3. 1996 Bayern 1 Kulap Bayem 1 Kulap mod 1 Bayem I Kulap mod 2 Bayern 1 contracte Bayem mod. Berlin Berlin m o di Brandenburg 1 Brandenburg 1 mod 1 Brandenburg 1 Brandenburg II mod 1 Bremen Bremen mod 1 Freietaat Sachsen Freistaat Sachsen mod 1 Freistaat Sachsen mod 2 Hamburg Hamburg mod 1 Heesen Hessen mod 1 Mecklenburg Vor pomme rn 93. 6805 22. 07. 93 93. 2539 22. 9. 1993 95. 6261 26. 10. 95 95. 3101 15. 12. 1995 96. 6147 24. 07. 96 96. 2126 16. 8. 1996 95. 6279 23. 11. 95 96. 0003 12. 1. 1996 96. 8284 29. 10. 96 96,2885 19. 12. 1996 94. 7680 23. 11. 94 95. 3805 11. 1. 1995 96. 8286 29. 10. 96 96,3858 30. 12. 1996 93. 7436 29. 09. 93 93. 2840 19. 10. 1993 96. 8272 94. 8086 96. 3886 94. 8088 96. 8700 93. 6825 29. 10. 96 96,3869 30. 12. 1996 23. 11. 94 95. 0023 20. 2. 1995 24. 07. 96 96. 2130 14. 8. 1996 23. 11. 94 95. 3806 11. 1. 1995 27. 11. 96 96. 3861 30. 12. 1996 22. 07. 93 93. 2538 22. 9. 1993 95. 8679 13. 12. 95 96. 0223 27. 2. 1996 96. 9161 17. 12. 96 96,4216 30. 12. 1996 94. 7684 23. 11. 94 95. 0021 20. 2. 1995 96. 8715 93. 6883 97. 3763 94. 7695 27. 11. 96 96,3862 30. 12. 1996 29. 09. 93 93. 2984 4. 11. 1993 25. 02. 97 97. 0701 2. 4. 1997 23. 11. 94 95. 0022 20. 2. 1995 Mecklenburg Vorpommem mod 1 96. 3885 26. 01. 96 96. 2120 7 8. 1 9 96 Mecklenburg-Vorpommem mod 2 96. 9163 17. 12. 96 96,4217 30. 12. 1996 Mecklenburg-Vorpommem mod 3 National Framework 97. 5213 94. 3815 27. 05. 97 97,1254 186. 1997 27. 09. 94 94. 2599 10. 10. 1994 National Framework mod 1 none 23. 11. 94 94. 3034 22. 12. 1994 National Framework mod 2 95. 6178 27. 09. 95 95. 2062 9. 11. 1995 National Framework mod 3 96. 6194 24. 07. 96 96. 2132 14. 8. 1996 National Framework mod 4 96. 8696 27. 11. 96 96,4212 30. 12. 1996 Niedersachsen 1 Niedersachsen II Niedersachsen II mod 1 Nordrhein-Westfalen Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 1 93. 9926 27. 09. 94 94. 2597 10. 10. 1994 95. 3777 22. 02. 95' 95. 0132 31. 3. 1995 97. 5197 27. 05. 97 97,1243 5. 6. 1997 94. 4840 96. 3758 27. 09. 94 94. 2598 11. 10. 1994 26. 01. 96 96. 0224 28. 3. 1996 Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 2 96. 6227 29. 10. 1996 96. 2882 6. 12. 1996 Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 3 96. 8694 27. 11. 96 96. 3966 30. 12. 1996 Rheinland-Pfalz 1 R h a i n l a n d - P f a l zl Rheinland-Pfalz mod 1 Rheinland-Pfalz mod 2 Saarland Saarland mod 1 Sachsen-Anhalt Sachsen-Anhalt mod 1 Sachsen Anhalt mod 2 Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein mod 1 Thuringen Thuringen mod 1 Amternee Amtemes mod 1 (rectif. ) AmtemeS mod 2 (746) (•» Environmental » Org»» Amtemés mod 3 (see EBF) EBF<E<*vw*nefttalVBeneficial Firmng)(« Organic. Antsf Environmental and Organic Environmental and Organic mod 1 93. 9928 27. 04. 94 93. 1309 17. 6. 1996 96. 3827 29. 05. 96 96. 1140 12. 7. 1996 96. 8698 96. 8999 94. 7682 96. 8274 94. 7207 96. 6182 96. 9165 94. 7205 97. 3760 93. 6872 95. 8980 96. 3783 none - - 97. 3758 94. 3787 96. 6179 27. 11. 96 96,2886 19. 12. 1996 17. 12. 96 97. 0138 192. 1997 22. 02. 95 96. 0131 31. 3. 1996 29. 10. 96 96,2891 20. 12. 1996 27. 09. 94 94. 2596 11. 10. 1994 24. 07. 96 96. 2131 14. 8. 1996 17. 12. 96 96,4218 30. 12. 1996 27. 08. 94 94. 2595 11. 10. 1994 28. 01. 97 97. 0136 18. 2. 1997 29 09. 93 93. 2985 5. 11. 1993 26. 01. 96 96. 0006 5. 2. 1996 27. 02. 96 96. 0730 16. 4. 1996 none 96. 1569 8. 7. 1996 - - - - 28. 1. 1997 24. 3. 1997 27. 03. 97 97. 0700 24. 3. 1997 08. 03. 94 94. 0967 26. 4. 1994 24. 07. 96 96. 2122 14. 8. 1996 Environmental and Organic mod 2 (+ Ami 96. 8985 17. 12. 96 97. 0122 28. 1. 1997 Environmental and Organic mod 3 {-> EBFI - - - 24. 3. 1997 Kurser/Demonstrationsprojekter 96. 7484 27. 11. 96 96. 3970 30. 12. 1996 Organic (-» EBF) - - - 24. 3. 1997 Programa agroambiental (• Mee-HoniIMI, 94. 8064 13. 12. 94 95. 0018 19. 1. 1995 Programa agroambiental mod 1 96. 9178 17. 12. 96 97. 0135 18. 2. 1997 Medidas Horizontale» 94. 4879 27. 09. 94 94. 2589 11. 10. 1994 Medidas Horizontales mod 1 (•» Png «gmam • - - - 19. 1. 1995 Castille-Leon 93. 6874 22. 07. 93 • 93. 2463 16. 9. 1993 Castile-Leon mod 1 (•» c m »u Mano» mod i> CaStile-LeOn mod 2 (•» Programa Agroambiental) - - - - - 25. 5. 1994 19. 1. 1995 Ca»Iille-La Mancha 92. 6734 27. 02. 93 93. 0686 29. 3. 1993 Castile-La Mancha mod 1 c ca<weAnonm none 24. 03. 94 94. 0548 25. 5. 1994 Castile-La Mancha mod 2 (-» prog, agroem»*» Paie Vaeco Agriculture biologique Long term «at aside Races menacées Thessalle - - - 19. 1. 1995 95. 8831 22. 02. 95 95. 0123 2. 3. 1995 95. 6114 29. 06. 95 95. 1391 26. 7. 1995 96. 3785 91. 3823 29. 05. 96 96. 1144 19. 7. 1996 21. 03. 97 97. 0551 28. 4. 1997 9 5 6 1 16 29 06. 95 95. 1392 26. 7. 1995 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 33 Cadre général 94. 3799 23. 02. 94 94. 0545 29. 4. 1994 Cadre général mod 2 c PM mon j) 94. 7651 27. 06. 94 94. 2593 13. 10. 1994 Cadre général mod 3 Cadre général mod 4 Cadre générai mod 5 Cadre général mod 6 Cadre général mod 7 PH - Prime à l'herbe P H m o dl PH m od 2 (•» Cadre Gen rnoB 3) A l s a ce Alsace mod 1 A q u i t a i ne Aquitaine mod 1 Aquitaine mod 2 Aquitaine mod 3 A u v e r g ne Auvergne mod 1 Auvergne mod 2 Basse Normandie Basse Normandie mod 1 Basse Normandie mod 2 B o u r g o g ne Bourgogne mod 1 Bourgogne mod 2 B r e t a g ne Bretagne mod 1 Centre Centre mod 1 Centre mod 2 94. 8082 23. 11. 94 94. 2943 6. 12. 1994 96. 6206 24. 07. 96 96. 2603 96. 6151 24. 07. 96 96. 3863 3. 10. 1996 30. 12. 1996 96. 8977 17. 12. 96 97. 0129 10. 2. 1997 divers 28. 01. 97 97. 1240 28. 5. 1997 93. 6844 22. 07. 93 93. 2464 94. 3829 25. 04. 94 94. 0544 - - - 16. 9. 1993 29. 4. 1994 13. 10. 1994 94. 3839 24 03. 94 94. 1274 21. 6. 1994 95. 6232 20. 07. 95 95. 1398 17. 8. 1995 94. 4882 27. 09. 94 94. 2496 6. 10. 1994 94. 8340 13. 12. 94 95. 0016 16. 1. 1995 95. 6181 27. 09. 95 95. 2058 24. 10. 1995 97. 3850 21. 03. 97 97. 0707 16. 4. 1997 94. 7201 27. 09. 94 94. 2591 13. 10. 1994 95. 3849 31. 05. 95 95. 1315 7. 7. 1995 97. 3818 21. 03. 97 97. 0722 16. 4. 1997 94. 3900 27. 04. 94 94. 1277 21. 6. 1994 95. 6111 20. 07. 95 95. 1671 17. 8. 1995 96. 8993 17. 12. 96 97. 0081 20. 1. 1997 94. 4752 27. 04. 94 94. 1278 21. 6. 1994 95. 3851 31. 05. 95 95. 1316 7. 7. 1995 96. 8705 27. 11. 96 97. 0126 10. 2. 1997 94. 4880 27. 09. 94 94. 2495 7. 10. 1994 95. 3853 31. 05. 95 95. 1317 7. 7. 1995 94. 7655 26. 10. 94 94. 2605 8. 11. 1994 95. 8992 13. 12. 95 95. 3445 20. 12. 1995 96. 8300 27. 11. 96 97. 0124 10. 2. 1997 Champagne A r d e n ne 94. 7203 27. 09. 94 94. 2592 13. 10. 1994 Champagne Ardenne mod 1 95. 3855 31. 05. 95 95. 1318 7. 7. 1995 Corse Corse mod 1 Franche Comté Franche Comté mod 1 Franche Comté mod 2 94. 8076 23. 11. 94 94. 2940 6. 12. 1994 96. 3823 26. 03. 96 96. 0729 10,4,1996 94. 3841 24. 03. 94 94. 0819 27. 5. 1994 94. 8095 23. 11. 94 94. 2946 6. 12. 1994 95. 6109 20. 07. 95 95. 1672 17. 8. 1995 Franche Comté mod 31 • HN I. um 2) 95. 6243 27. 09. 95 95. 2061 6. 11. 1995 Franche Comté mod 4 96. 8266 29. 10. 96 96. 3853 13. 1. 1997 G u a d e l o u pe Guadeloupe mod 1 Haute Normandie 94. 8078 23. 11. 94 94. 2941 6. 12. 1994 95. 8994 13. 12. 95 95. 3446 20. 12. 1995 94. 3898 27. 04. 94 94. 1276 21. 6. 1994 Haute Normandie mod 1 95. 6236 20. 07. 95 95. 1673 17. 8. 1995 Haute Normandie mod 2 (-»FC mou 3) Ile de France Ne de France mod 1 Ile de France mod 2 - - - 6. 11. 1995 94. 4884 25. 06. 94 94. 2497 6. 10. 1994 95. 6185 27. 09. 95 95. 2059 24. 10. 1995 96. 8991 17. 12. 96 97. 0128 10. 2. 1997 L a n g u e d oc R o u s s i l l on 94. 4899 27. 09. 94 94. 2590 13. 10. 1994 Languedoc Roussillon mod 1 95. 6294 23. 11. 95 95. 3107 19. 12. 1995 L i m o u s in Limousin mod 1 Limousin mod 21-» FC mon 3| Lorraine Lorraine m o di Midi Pyrénées Midi Pyrénées mod 1 Midi Pyrénées mod 2 Nord Pas de Calais 94. 7659 26. 10. 94 94. 2607 8. 11. 1994 95. 6155 20. 07. 95 95. 1674 - - - 17. 8. 1995 6. 11. 1995 94. 3843 24. 03. 94 94. 0820 27. 5. 1994 95. 3857 31. 05. 95 95. 1319 7. 7. 1995 94. 4754 23. 06. 94 94. 1878 3. 8. 1994 94. 8342 13. 12. 94 95. 0017 16. 1. 1995 95. 6106 20. 07. 95 95. 1675 17. 8. 1995 94. 3896 27. 04. 94 94. 1275 21. 6. 1994 Nord Pas de Calais mod 1 94. 8091 23. 11. 94 94. 2944 6. 12. 1994 Nord Pas de Calais mod 2 Nord Pas de Calais mod 3 Pays de la Loire Pays de la Loire mod 1 Pays de la Loire mod 2 Pays de la Loire mod 3 Picardie Picardie mod 1 Picardie mod 2 Picardie mod 3 95. 3859 31. 05. 95 95. 1320 7. 7. 1995 96. 8268 29. 10. 96 96. 3854 13. 1. 1997 94. 4825 23. 06. 94 94. 1879 3. 8. 1994 - 95. 6104 20. 07. 95 95. 1397 17. 8. 1995 95. 8996 13. 12. 95 95. 3447 20. 12. 1995 96. 8672 27. 11. 96 97. 0125 10. 2. 1997 94. 3846 24. 03. 94 94. 0821 27. 5. 1994 95. 3861 31. 05. 95 95. 1321 7. 7. 1995 95. 8998 13. 12. 95 95. 3448 20. 12. 1995 96. 8270 29. 10. 96 96. 3855 13. 1. 1997 Poitou C h a r e n t e» 94. 7657 26. 10. 94 94. 2606 8. 11. 1994 Poitou Charentes mod 1 95. 6187 27. 09. 95 95. 2060 24. 10. 1995 Provence A l p es Côte d ' A z ur 94. 8074 23. 11. 94 94. 2939 6. 12. 1994 Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur mod 1 95. 6189 23. 11. 95 95. 3108 19. 12. 1995 Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur mod 2 96. 8995 17. 12. 96 96. 3851 13. 1. 1997 R é u n i on R h ô ne A l p es Rhône Alpes mod 1 Rhône Alpes mod 2 Rhône A|pes mod 3 Rhône Alpes mod 4 94. 8081 23. 11. 94 94. 2942 6. 12. 1994 94. 3847 27. 04. 94 94. 0822 27. 5. 1994 - 23. 06. 94 94. 1880 3. 8. 1994 94. 8093 23. 11. 94 94. 2945 6. 12. 1994 95. 6191 23. 11. 95 95. 3109 19. 12. 1995 96. 8995 17. 12. 96 97. 0080 20. 1. 1197 Programme approval and amendment decisions Annex MS Programme f > »* • mn**** deewon) Id REPS 1(1 Reps m o di Irl id Reps mod 2 Reps mod 3 Fltosanltarl Formazion» Formazione mod 1 Abruzzo Abruzzomodl Basilicata Basilcata mod 1 Bolzano Bolzano Calabria Campania Emilia-Romagna Emii a-Romagna mod 1 Emiia-Romagna mod 2 Frlull-Venezia Giulia N4S T AR W k D oc 93. 9906 STAR N* Decision Date Decision 27. 01. 94 S4. 0549 29 4. 1994 95. 6174 27. 09. 95 95. 2057 19. 10. 1995 96. 6156 26. 06. 96 96. 1146 19. 7. 1996 97. 3861 27. 05. 97 97. 1244 4. 6. 1997 96. 8690 27. 11. 96 96. 3864 30. 12. 1996 95. 3781 22. 02. 95 95 0125 15. 3. 1995 96. 8279 29. 10. 97 96. 2878 25,11. 1996 94. 7669 97. 3814 26. 10. 94 95. 3039 10. 1. 1995 25. 02. 97 97. 0554 17. 3. 1997 94. 4776 23. 06. 97 94. 2491 6. 10. 1994 97. 3788 28. 01. 97 97. 0133 11. 2. 1997 93. 6895 29. 9. 1993 93. 3014 4. 11. 1993 94. 3830 26. 05. 94 94. 0830 15. 6. 1994 95. 3844 31. 05. 95 95. 1314 19. 7. 1995 96. 8686 28. 01. 97 97. 0141 5. 3. 1997 94. 4834 27. 09. 94 94. 2492 6. 10. 1994 96. 8961 17. 12. 96 97. 0093 29. 1. 1997 97. 5182 23. 04. 97 97. 1783 7. 7. 1997 93. 1475 27. 04. 94 94. 0825 3. 6. 1994 FriuJ-Venezia Giulia mod 1 97. 3810 25. 02. 97 97. 0729 20. 5. 1997 Lazio Laziomod 1 Llguria Liguria mod 1 Lombard ia Lombardia mod 1 Marche Marche mod 1 Molise Moïse mod 1 Piemonte Piemonte mod 1 Puglia Sardegna Sardegna mod 1 Sardegna mod 2 Sicilia Siciia mod 1 Sicilia mod 2 Toscana Toscana mod 1 Toscana mod 2 Trento Trento mod 1 Umbria Umbria mod 1 Umbria mod 2 Valle d'Aosta Vale d'Aosta mod 1 Vale d'Aosta mod 2 Veneto Veneto mod 1 94. 7661 96. 8965 26. 10. 94 94. 2949 9. 12. 1994 17. 12. 96 97. 0095 29. 1. 1997 94. 3869 25. 07. 94 94. 2488 5. 10. 1994 96. 8959 17. 12. 96 97. 0092 29. 1. 1997 94. 3854 26. 05. 94 94. 0826 8. 6. 1994 97. 3768 28. 01. 97 97. 0131 11. 2. 1997 94. 4848 27. 09. 94 94. 2604 13. 10. 1994 96. 6204 24. 07. 96 96. 2133 268. 1996 94. 7673 97. 3816 94. 8069 26. 10. 94 95. 3040 10. 1. 1995 25. 02. 97 97. 0553 17. 3. 1997 23. 11. 94 94. 2950 13. 12. 1994 97. 3770 28. 01. 97 97. 0132 12. 2. 1997 95. 6209 27. 09. 95 95. 2216 14. 11. 1995 94. 7671 95. 3820 23. 11. 94 95. 0024 15. 2. 1995 30. 03. 95 95. 0619 6. 7. 1995 96. 8963 17. 12. 96 97. 0094 29. 1. 1997 94. 7228 27. 09. 94 94. 2494 10. 10. 1994 95. 6253 • 13. 12. 95 96. 0008 30. 1. 1996 96. 8969 17. 12. 96- 97. 0097 29. 1. 1997 94. 4892 94. 7693 96 8971 94. 7226 27. 09. 94 94. 2600 10. 10. 1994 26. 10. 94 95. 0020 25. 1. 1995 17. 12. 96 97. 0098 29. 1. 1997 27. 09. 94 94. 2594 11. 10. 1994 96. 8955 17. 12. 96 97. 0090 29. 1. 1997 93. 9850 27. 01. 94 94. 1272 24. 6. 1994 96. 3762 26. 01. 96 96. 0505 22. 3. 1996 97. 8967 17. 12. 96 97. 0096 29. 1. 1007 93. 1471 25. 07. 94 94. 2493 10. 10. 1994 96. 8688 27. 11. 96 97. 0130 11. 2. 1997 97. 3767 28. 01. 97 97. 0552 17. 3. 1997 93. 1473 23. 02. 94 94. 0818 19. 5. 1994 96. 8957 17. 12. 96 97. 0091 29. 1. 1997 Agri-environnement 95. 3807 27. 04. 95 95. 0616 15. 5. 1995 L'e ntret. de l'esp. naturel 96. 6234 25. 09. 96 96. 2615 11. 10,1996 MA : Managment agreements. 93. 6825 26. 05. 93 93. 2826 15. 10. 1993 MA m o di MA mod 2 none 08. 03. 94 94. 0547 29. 4. 1994 94. 8337 22. 02. 95 95. 0124 8. 3. 1995 M A m Od 2 («plrnd3. pl mdl. pl md 1) 96. 8713 27. 11. 96 96. 3857 20. 12. 1996 P a rt 1 (bnlogracne randbouMr. voetped. optedrng) 94. 3830 24. 03. 94 94. 0543 29. 4. 1994 96. 6149 96. 7492 - 25. 07. 94 96. 2127 14. 8. 1996 29. 10. 96 96. 2875 22. 11. 1996 - - 20. 12. 1996 94. 4843 25. 07. 94 94. 1882 17. 8. 1994 - - - 20. 12. 1996 96. 3852 24. 04. 96 96. 0740 8. 5. 1996 - - - 20. 12. 1996 95. 6176 23. 11. 95 95. 3102 11. 12. 1995 96. 8707 27. 11. 96 96. 3860 30. 12. 1996 95. 3840 27. 04. 95 95. 0620 7. 6. 1995 96. 6236 25. 09. 96 96. 2604 • 7. 10. 1996 L L NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL OS OS OS OS OS Part 1 mod 1 Part 1 mod 2 Parti mod 3 (•»•** moo 2) P a rt 1 (uiteeruoOng) Part II mod 1 (-nwmodj) Part M (lamirtng) Part III mod 1 (-emmod2) ^iederosterreich Niederôsterreich mod 1 ÔPUL ÔPUL mod 1 Steiermark MS Programme (m»« • •AWM*»»* dechtion) P P P P P A c o r et C o n t i n e nt Continent modi Continent mod2 Madeira Rn Fin A l a nd F i n l a nd Mijloprogrammet Mijldprogrammet mod 1 Flerarig valodlng England-Cty. Steward England-Cty. Steward mod 1 England-Cty. Steward mod 2 England-Cry. Steward mod 3 England-ESA A c c e ss England-ESA Access mod 1i-»ESA»con«*a) England-ESA 1 Nl STAR"" W k D oc STAR N* Decision Date 94. 3883 27. 04. 94 94. 0824 3. 6. 1994 23. 02. 94 20. 07. 95 94. 0546 29. 4. 1994 95. 1676 17. 8. 1995 17. 12. 96 97. 0137 94. 4819 23. 06. 94 94. 1881 96. 0005 18. 2. 1997 11. 8. 1994 5. 2. 1996 95. 2056 10. 10. 1995 95. 1393 96. 4210 17. 8. 1995 30. 12. 1996 97. 1258 17. 7. 1997 94. 1883 28. 9. 1994 13. 12. 95 27. 09. 95 20. 07. 95 27. 11. 96 24. 06. 97 25. 07. 94 94. 3801 95. 6159 96. 8257 95. 8967 95. 6139 95. 3894 96. 8711 97. 5243 94. 4864 96. 3808 03. 05. 96 96. 0738 96. 8981 17. 12. 96 97. 0084 3. 5. 1996 23. 1. 1997 97. 3784 93. 9948 - 28. 01. 97 26. 01. 94 97. 0699 2. 4. 1997 94. 0551 6. 5. 1994 - - 16. 04. 1997 93. 6879 29. 03. 93 93. 2836 18. 10. 1993 England-ESA 1 mod 1 c i. scooxumodi none 24. 03 94 94. 0552 18. 5. 1994 England-ESA I mod 2 England-ESA I mod 3 94. 8102 23. 11. 94 94. 2952 9. 12. 1994 96. 3806 26. 03. 96 96. 0737 3. 5. 1996 England-ESA I mod 4 c i mod i. • mod n 96. 8979 17. 12. 96 97. 0083 23. 1. 1997 England-ESA 1 mod 5 <•» E-ESA. «now ) England-ESA 1 England-ESA II mod 1 (•» i mod •) - - - 93. 7440 29. 09. 93 93. 2834 - - - 16. 04. 1997 18. 10. 1993 18. 5. 1994 England-ESA II mod 2 (••. modi) 95. 6205 27. 09. 95 95. 2054 4. 12. 1995 England-ESA II mod 3 (-» i. moo «i England-ESA II mod 41+ E-ESA. comow ) - - - - - - 23. 1. 1997 16. 4. 1997 England-ESA • 93. 6819 29. 09. 93 93. 2827 15. 10. 1993 England-ESA III mod 1(-»imodj) England-ESA III mod 2 (+i moo») England-ESA III mod 3 (-» E-ESA» consoM. ) England-ESA IV England-ESA IV m o di England-ESA IV mod 2 (-» E. ESA. contou ) - - - - - - - - - 4. 12. 1995 23. 1. 1997 16. 4. 1997 94. 3804 23. 02. 94 94. 0553 6. 5. 1994 96. 6145 26. 06. 96 96. 1145 19. 7. 1996 - - - 16. 4. 1997 England-ESAs c o n s o l i d a t ed cESAEng i 97. 3828 21. 03. 97 97. 0704 16. 4. 1997 England-Habitat England-Habitat mod 1 England-Habitat mod 2 E n g l a n d - N S AI 94. 4766 27. 04. 94 94. 1874 15. 7. 1994 96. 3805 26. 03. 96 96. 0736 3. 5. 1996 96. 8983 17. 12. 96 97. 0085 23. 1. 1997 94. 3885 23. 06. 94 94. 1877 20. 7. 1994 England-NSA I mod 1 c i ™ *) 96. 3825 26. 03. 96 96. 0735 3. 5. 1996 E n g l a n d - N S AI England-NSA II mod 1 I * I ™ HI N. Ireland-Access N. lreland-ESA N. Ireland-Habitat 95. 3867 31. 05. 95 95. 0623 22. 6. 1995 - - - 3. 5. 1996 95. 6145 20. 07. 95 95. 1678 17. 8. 1995 94. 3810 24. 03. 94 94. 1271 9. 6. 1994 94. 0000 17. 04. 13 94. 2486 28. 9. 1994 S c O t l a n d - C PS (•ScHeomrjdtMoonendrnod3. UK 96. 7486 29. 10. 96 97. 0089 23. 1. 1997 Scotland-ESA A c c e ss S c o t l a n d - E S AI SCOtland-ESA 1 mOd 1 <4Eng ESAImodl) ScoUand-ESA 1 mod 2 Scotland-ESAIl 94. 4859 26. 07. 94 94. 2484 28. 9. 1994 93. 6881 29. 09. 93 93. 2835 18. 10. 1993 - - - 18. 05. 1994 95. 6208 27. 09. 95 95. 2055 4. 12. 1995 93. 7438 29. 09. 93 93. 2842 19. 10. 1993 Scotland-ESA II mod 1 (• «. mod i) 96. 6145 26. 06. 96 96. 1149 31. 7. 1996 Scotland-ESA II mod 2 i-»EESAimod t) Scotland-ESA IH ScoUand-ESA III mod 1(-»imodi) Scotland-Habitat Scotland-Habitat mod 11-> SCKCPSI UK-Access, E. S. W UK-Access, E. S. W mod 1 <-» SCO»**CPS) UK-Moorland UK-Moorland mod 1 UK-Moorland mod 21-> scooand-cpsi UK-Organic Farming Wales-ESA 1 Wales-ESA 1 mod 1 <-» WESAI cornu i Wales-ESA H Wales-ESA II mod 1 (-ew. ESA. con. oi) - - - 23. 1. 1997 94. 3806 23. 02. 94 94. 0554 6. 5. 1994 - - - 31. 7. 1996 94. 4852 26. 07. 94 94. 2485 28. 9. 1994 - - - 23. 1. 1997 94. 4862 26. 07. 94 94. 2483 28. 9. 1994 - - - 23. 1. 1997 94. 8062 23. *11. 94 94. 2951 9. 12. 1994 96. 6180 25. 09. 96 96. 2601 27. 9. 1996 - - - 23. 1. 1997 94. 4764 26. 05. 94 94. 1875 19. 7. 1994 94. 3808 26. 05. 94 94. 1876 19. 7. 1994 - - - 02. 04. 1997 94. 7675 27. 10. 94 94. 2608 8. 11. 1994 - - - 02. 04. 1997 Wales-ESA» c o n s o l. fimodi. imodt) 97. 3780 28. 01. 97 97. 5570 02. 04. 1997 Wales-Habitat Wales-Tir Cymen 94. 4854 26. 07. 94 94. 2487 28. 9. 1994 94. 4860 27. 09. 94 94. 2489 7. 10. 1994 S S S UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK UK 95 8677 13. 12. 95 96. 0011 5. 2. 1996 UK Wales-Tir Cymen mod 1 97. 3829 21. 03. 97 97. 0723 16. 4. 1997 3Ï ISSN 0254-1475 COM(97) 620 final DOCUMENTS EN 03 14 15 17 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-640-EN-C ISBN 92-78-28026-7 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg 3<r