Options for Agroforestry Policy in the European - INRA Montpellier

34 Pages·2005·1.58 MB·English

Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources
Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE)
European Research contract QLK5-CT-2001-00560

Deliverable 9.3

Options for
Agroforestry
Policy in the

European Union

Gerry Lawson1, Christian Dupraz2, Fabien Liagre3, Gerardo Moreno4,
Piero Paris5, Vasilios Papanastasis6

1 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Natural Environment Research Council), UK
2 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) SYSTEM, Montpellier, France
3 Assemblée Permanente des Chambres d’Agriculture (APCA) Paris, France
4 University of Extremadura, Plasencia, Spain
5 Istituto per l’Agroselvicoltura, Porano, Italy
6 University of Thessaloniki, Greece
March 2005

1
Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources
Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE)
European Research contract QLK5-CT-2001-00560

Deliverable 9.3
Options for Agroforestry Policy in the
European Union

CONTENT

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................3
2 Agroforestry as a historic land use in Europe.....................................................................4
3 Past support for Forestry in EU Regulations......................................................................7
4 The EU Forest Strategy......................................................................................................9
5 Mid-term review of Agenda 2000....................................................................................10
6 Pillar I support and implications for agroforestry............................................................13
6.1 Coupled cereal area and headage payments.............................................................13
6.2 Decoupled Single Farm Payments............................................................................17
6.3 Methods used for monitoring crop areas..................................................................21
7 Pillar II support and implications for agroforestry...........................................................23
7.1 The existing Rural Development Regulation 2000-2006.........................................23
7.2 The new Rural Development Regulation 2007-2013...............................................28
8 Summary: main policy recommendations.......................................................................31
8.1 SAFE Proposal 1. The following definition of agroforestry is suggested by the
SAFE consortium and could be included in the new RDR regulation.................................31
8.2 SAFE Proposal 2. The total area of the agroforestry parcel is eligible for the Single
Payment Scheme..................................................................................................................32
8.3 SAFE Proposal 3. Planting and maintenance costs of new agroforestry plantings
should be met within the new RDR, and improvement of existing agroforestry systems be
supported by agri-environment payments...........................................................................33
8.4 SAFE Proposal 4. Ensure that the EU Action Plan for Sustainable Forest
Management, emphasises the need to very greatly increase the presence of scattered trees
in farmed landscapes (agroforestry).....................................................................................34

2
1 Introduction
The Milestone 5 Report, delivered in year 2 of this project, described national rules and
regulations implementing the first EU Rural Development Regulation (1257/99), and the
interpretation of this regulation contained in a sample of national and regional rural
development plans.
Wording of Deliverable 9.3 in the Project Memorandum is:
‘Publication of ’Agroforestry Policy Options’ document to guide the EU DGVI, Member
States and Autonomous Regions on the environmental and economic impact of agroforestry
systems and the effect that agricultural policy changes has on these.’
And Objective 9.3 undertakes to:
Collate, at a national or regional scale, benefits to farmers and policymakers of possible
changes in the interpretation of rules for the implementation of EU agricultural forestry and
agrienvironment regulations
.
This ‘Agroforestry Policy Options’ report will:
• introduce agroforestry as it was till recently in the European landscape;
• present the role of forestry and agroforestry in rural aid schemes predating the current Rural
Development Regulation;
• summarise the eligibility of agroforestry systems for current crop and livestock payments
(Pillar 1);
• consider the potential effects of the decoupling farm payments on agroforestry
• summarise the eligibility of agroforestry for payments within current national Rural
Development Plans (Pillar II);
• examine proposals for the next Rural Development Regulation 2007-2013 (Pillar II); and
the implications for agroforestry
• propose interpretations of existing regulations which are needed to ensure that existing
scattered trees in farmed landscapes are protected and new agroforestry systems
encouraged.

3
2 Agroforestry as a historic land use in Europe
Agroforestry systems are part of the history of the European Union rural landscapes. Trees
were deliberately retained or included in the cultivated or grazed parcels by European farmers
(Figure 1). During the 20th Century, trees were progressively removed from the cultivated
land of Europe as a result of mechanization and intensification, but also as a consequence of
land consolidation schemes to increase the size of agricultural parcels. Many tree hedges and
isolated trees were removed during these consolidation schemes (Figure 2; Figure 3).

Trees deliberately mixed with crops : olive
trees and cereals in Greece

Trees at various positions in agricultural plots
in southern France

After tree removing from cropped areas : only
few isolated remnant trees at the margin of
plots

Figure 1 : Three stages of tree integration in agricultural plots of Europe
(Images courtesy by Yann Arthus-Bertrand, http://www.yannarthusbertrand.com/yann2/)

The removal of trees from cultivated and grazed areas has been very marked in all European
countries.

4
Figure 2 : in 50 years, the tree cover by scattered trees was impressive in most European
Countries, as in this Swiss village1
During the last 30 years, two opposing trends have been apparent. On the one hand, the role
of trees has been progressively recognised, and schemes favouring the preservation of trees on
farms have been implemented (plantations on agricultural land, plantation of new tree hedges,
protection of isolated trees). On the other hand, the main CAP crop and animal support
regulations have clearly ignored the existence of trees outside the forest. Payments were only
available for treeless plots, or exaggerated estimates of the areas covered by trees were
subtracted from grant-eligible cereal and forage areas. This had the very unfortunate (and
probably both unforeseen) consequence of widespread removal of trees from cultivated or
grazing land to maximise levels of subsidy2.
There is today a risk that in the new member States from Eastern Europe, the same process is
repeated. Reports already indicate that farmers are removing trees in many countries to get
the full CAP Single Payment Scheme (SPS) payments.

1 Tanner (1993).
2 A very simple example of this: one of the authors of this report is the land-owner of a small farm in the French
Alps mountains (Haute-Savoie, Lully village) . Most of the parcels included scattered trees (high stemmed pear,
apple, walnut, oak and ash trees). The farm is rented to several farmers. Between 1980 and 2000, about 50% of
the scattered trees were destroyed by the tenant farmers without authorisation, simply to make sure that the CAP
payments can be obtained from the whole plot area. This resulted in conflicts between the land-owner and the
farmers, but the trees were gone.

5
Figure 3 : The Perche bocage in France has lost almost all its tree cover in 60 years. Note
that trees were included in various patterns in the plots (on the boundary, isolated or
aligned trees inside the plots)
In the meantime, modern and novel agroforestry systems have been designed, but are not very
attractive to European farmers because of policy restrictions that will be documented in this
report. The advantage of these novel systems is that they were designed to be fully compatible
with present day cultivation techniques and mechanisation (Figure 4). They allow modern
farming systems to take advantage of the benefits of rural trees.

Figure 4 : Modern silvoarable systems allow the reintroduction of trees in cultivated or
grazed plots either as aligned (left) or scattered (right) wide-spaced trees. In both cases,
crop production is maintained, and environmental benefits from the trees are
significant.

6
3 Past support for Forestry in EU Regulations
Forestry was included in a number of early specific regional measures, although there is no
evidence of a significant agroforestry component in these schemes:
• protection of farmland in Mediterranean region at risk of erosion (269/79, 2088/85);
• stimulation of development in less-favoured areas of the west of Ireland (1820/80);
• integrated development programme for Lozère in France (1940/81);
• accelerated agricultural development in certain areas of Greece (1975/82);
• integrated development programmes in the Mediterranean area (2080/85);
• development programme for Portuguese agriculture (3828/85);
• encouragement for agriculture in less-favoured areas of France (1400/86);
• encouragement for agriculture in less-favoured areas of Northern Italy (1401/86);
• encouragement for agricultural development in Spain (118/88).

Regulation 2052/88 introduced
Structural Funds, and forestry was
Box 1: Maximum payments in 2080/92
eligible in Objective 1 and 5b areas
for: Planting grants of:
• creation of nurseries; • 2000 €/ha for short rotations
• afforestation with assistance of • 3000 €/ha for conifers
planting grants and annual
• 4000 €/ha for broadleaves and > 75% broadleaf
support;
mixtures
• extension and restoration of
Maintenance grants
woodlands in areas at risk from
soil erosion; • for conifers of 250 €/ha/yr in yrs 1-2 and 150
• reconstitution of woodland €/ha/yr for yrs 3-5;
damaged by fires;
• for broadleaves of 500 €/ha/yr in yrs 1-2 and 300
• downstream assistance for €/ha/yr for yrs 3-5.
investments in exploitation and
Income compensation payments of
processing machinery;
• setting up associations of • 600 €/ha/yr for 20 years if undertaken by farmers;
persons exploiting woodland;
• 150 €/ha/yr for 20 years if undertaken by 'others'.
and
• Woodland improvement and provision of
• forestry awareness campaigns
shelterbelts up to 700 €/ha (exceptionally 1200
and advisory services
€/ha).
Regulation 797/85 & 1609/89
• Renovation of cork oak stands up to 1400 €/ha
introduced optional aid for
(exceptionally 3000 €/ha).
afforestation of farmland and
• Forest roads up to 18000 €/km.
enhancement of farm woodlands
• Provision of firebreaks and dams up to 150 €/ha.
The 'Forestry Action Programme' of
1989-92, provided the first (optional)
assistance for afforestation of
agricultural land, and also focused
on development and enhancement of forests in rural areas, accompanying measures (e.g.
cork), and protection of woodland (e.g. fire).
Then Reg. 2080/92 was introduced with a principal aim of reducing agricultural surpluses,
but also seeking to: (a) improve forest resources; (b) provide greater ecological balance in

7
countryside management; (c) combat the greenhouse effect by absorbing carbon dioxide. For
the first time, implementation of this regulation was binding on member states. This
Regulation also introduced the first compensation payments for loss of agricultural income
following tree-planting. The budget during the planned period of 1993-97 (in the EU of 15)
was 1300 M€, and final spend was 1519 M€.
An end of programme review of 2080/923 found very little evidence of an effect on
agricultural surpluses, since farmers tended increase production elsewhere on their farms.
However the scheme did make a significant contribution to rural development, and was
claimed to have a significant beneficial effect on the environment in terms of control of
erosion, prevention of desertification, biodiversity, regulation of the water regime, carbon
fixation. By the end of the programme in 1999 it was estimated that around 1.140.000 had
been afforested (Table 1) around 66% of which was in Mediterranean regions (Greece, Italy,
Portugal, Spain)4.
Room for another paragraph here on the 2080/92 conclusions
Current EU tree planting schemes as part of the Rural Development Regulations (1257/99 or
1783/99) make no mention of an aim to reduce agricultural surpluses5. Despite this,
several local officials in member states have been encountered who claim that agroforestry
cannot be eligible for 1257/99 afforestation aid, because the aim of such aid is to reduce farm
surpluses.

Table 1: Areas and Costs of grants provided under 2080/926
Type of Measure N°of Wooded area Eligible for co- Cost per ha
beneficiaries (ha) financing (Mio €) (€/ha)
Afforestation 142,628 1,041,589 1,626 1,561
Premium for
maintenance 82,526 794,116 359 452
Premium for loss of
income 101,011 864,578 1,776 2,055
Improving existing
woodlands 40,450 162

3 http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/report/en/forest_en/report.htm
4 “Evaluation of the Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture of Regulation N° 2080/92”
(AGRI/2001/33002-00-00-EN)

6 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/aid_schemes.pdf

8
4 The EU Forest Strategy
The 1998 Forest Strategy (COM(1998) 649, 03/11/1998) ran to 25 pages and mentioned
agroforestry in several places:
• (p15) called for an emphasis on ‘The sustainable and multifunctional management of
forests, analysis, methods and suitable indicators, the appropriate afforestation, management
and exploitation techniques and methods, the genetic improvement of trees for better
growth, resistance and quality, and the optimisation of agro-forestry systems’.
• (p16) asked for research to concentrate on ‘multifunctional management of forests: support
to forest policy issues; diversification (non-wood uses, agro-sylvo-pastoral systems),
multifunctional and sustainable management combining quality production with
conservation and protection. Forest ecosystems biodiversity and protection of forest soils.
• (p20) recognised that ‘maintenance of traditional management of silvo-pastoral systems
with high levels of biodiversity which may be lost if these areas are abandoned (e.g. in the
Mediterranean regions)’
• and (p23) mentioned the importance of agroforestry for carbon sequestration
However a recent consultation on the first 5-year of implementation of the Strategy7
concluded, inter-alia, that ‘agroforestry and silvopastoralism were seen as two potentially
sustainable forms of land management and as land use forms that could be better used for
rural development in the future. Some contributors regretted that not enough emphasis had so
far been given to raising the awareness of policy-makers, natural resource professionals and
farmers, as regards the potential of agroforestry and silvopastoralism’
This comment seems justified by the fact that there is not a single mention of agroforestry in
the 85 page commission staff paper reporting on implementation of the Forestry Strategy
during the past 5 years8, and we are unaware of many mentions of agroforestry in the Forest
Strategies or Rural Development Plans of member states. Agroforestry plays a major role in
several European landscapes and was much more important in the past. The Action Plan for
Sustainable Forest Management should recognise this (Recommendation I).

Recommendation I: The EU Action Plan for Sustainable Forest Management
which the EU Commission plans to produce during 20061 should give due
emphasis to the need to massively increase the presence of scattered trees in
farmed landscapes (agroforestry), and should not only focus on the sustainable
management of ‘forestry’.

7 http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/consultations/forestry/report_en.pdf
8 http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/reports/forestry/workdoc_en.pdf

9
5 Mid-term review of Agenda 2000
A 2002 mid-term review of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was foreseen in the
Agenda 2000 decision at the Berlin Summit of 1999. The EU's planned eastward expansion,
WTO objections to the current CAP, several food crises and the sustainable development
strategy defined during the Gothenburg Summit raised the necessity to undertake this major
review of the EU's farm policy.
Following on from this review, on 22 January 2003, Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler
presented legislative proposals for the CAP reform. The main issues were
• decoupling of direct aid from production, with farmers receiving a single payment based
(initially) on historical entitlements (reference period 2000-2002), thereby removing
incentives to overproduce;
• cross-compliance with a number of food safety and animal welfare regulations, and with
newly defined minimum standards of ‘good agricultural and environmental condition’;
• ‘modulation’ of support from the first "pillar" of the CAP (direct aids and market support)
to the "second pillar" (rural development), as an instrument to "green" the common
agriculture policy;
• cuts in intervention prices for several sectors.
The key changes compared to earlier (July 2002) proposals were:
• decoupling was only partial;
• modulation will only start from 2006 and the money shifted to rural development will only
amount to 1 per cent per annum over 6 years, instead of the 3 per cent per annum foreseen
initially;
• the maximum of 300,000 euro direct payments to mega-farms was abolished;
• the envisaged system of a compulsory "farm audit" was modified into a "farm advisory
system";
• cross-compliance conditions were simplified;
• reform of the dairy sector started earlier (2004 and not 2005) but will be spread over 5
instead of 3 years.
Legislation underpinning the agreement was formally agreed in September 2003. This
comprised: 7 Regulations, but only the first 3 are relevant to this Report
• Regulation 1782/2003: Horizontal rules (single farm payment, set-aside, modulation, etc.).
• Regulation 1783/2003: Rural Development
• Regulation 1784/2003: Cereals
• Regulation 1785/2003: Rice
• Regulation 1786/2003: Dried Fodder
• Regulation 1787/2003: Milk (Common Market Organization)
• Regulation 1788/2003: Milk (levy)
Specific aspects of 1782/03, 1783/03 and 1784/03 will be considered in the next section in
relation to the eligibility of agroforestry for both coupled and undecoupled payments. The
latter remaining mainly of relevance in France and Spain, since these are the only EU
countries planning to which do not plan to fully decouple their cereal area payments and will,
for the time being retain 25% of current area payments.
The first batch of countries introduced the SPS on 1st January 2005 (Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden & UK). A second tranche

10