Report davy mccracken

FARMERS' CLUB CHARITABLE TRUST TRAVEL BURSARY REPORT Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe D I McCracken 20 November 2002

Report Produced By: Dr David I McCracken Conservation & Ecology Department Environment Division SAC Auchincruive Ayr KA6 5HW Tel: 01292 525 299 Fax: 01292 525 333 E-Mail: D.McCracken@au.sac.ac.uk

Date: 20 November 2002

Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to the Farmers' Club for providing funding towards these trips and for their understanding of the personal circumstances which led to the extended delay in the production of this report. I am also grateful to SAC for allowing me the time to make these trips and to continue to develop the contacts made.

Prior to the trips, Natacha Yellachich (WWF's European Policy Office in Brussels) and Jan-Erik Petersen (Institute for European Environmental Policy, London) were of great assistance in helping me establish additional contacts across these 5 countries. I thank both of them and all the other individuals who made time within their own busy schedules in order to provide assistance and speak to me.

Sally Huband (SAC PASTORAL project officer) and Rhona McCracken (my wife) kindly commented on the form and content of earlier drafts of the text. Any typos or lack of clarity in this final version are, of course, my responsibility!!

Contents Page Introduction Background Focus Approach

1 1 2

Lithuania General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Overview of main impressions formed in discussions

4 4

Latvia General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Overview of main impressions formed in discussions

7 7

Estonia General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Overview of main impressions formed in discussions

10 10

Hungary General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Overview of main impressions formed in discussions

13 13

Romania General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Overview of main impressions formed in discussions

16 16

Conclusions

20

Maintaining the links

22

Appendix 1 Location of main areas visited

23

Itinerary of meetings in Baltic States, August 1999

24

Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Itinerary of meetings in Hungary and Romania, October 1999

26

Appendix 4 Agricultural statistics for countries visited

27

Appendix 5 Summary of national agri-environment programme proposals

28

Appendix 6 Summary of pilot agri-environment programme proposals

30

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 1

Introduction Background I am an agricultural ecologist and the focus of all my work to-date has revolved around obtaining a greater understanding of the complex ecological relationships between farm management practices and the improvement or maintenance of nature conservation value of UK and European farming systems. Between 1992 and 1995 I worked for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee where I helped highlight the nature conservation importance of less-intensive farming systems throughout Europe. I joined the Scottish Agricultural College in 1995 and manage a variety of projects assessing the biodiversity value of farmland. Since 1995 I have also acted in a personal capacity as secretary to the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism. This non-profit organisation arose from the work I was involved with at the JNCC and brings together a wide variety of specialists interested in the effects of European agricultural policy on nature conservation and provides a vehicle through which many pan-European issues affecting high-nature-conservation value farming systems can be highlighted. As part of this work, I have assisted with a number of international conferences held at a variety of venues throughout Europe: • In the French Pyrenees in 1992 on the theme of Nature conservation and pastoralism in Europe • In the Extremadura region of Spain in 1994 on the theme of Farming on the edge: the nature of traditional farmland in Europe • In the Italian Alps in 1996 on the theme of Mountain livestock farming and EU policy development • In the White Carpathians (on the border of the Czech and Slovak Republics) in 1998 on the theme of Managing high nature conservation value farmland: policies, processes and practices.

Activities like this have allowed me to gain a good understanding of the broad similarities and important differences faced by farmers in Scotland, across the UK and within many areas of the European Union. Such work has also served to bring the effects of EU agricultural policy on the nature conservation value of less-intensive farming systems to the attention of a wider audience (including ecologists, policy makers, farmers and nature conservationists) and to highlight the nature conservation and cultural importance of a number of these farming systems throughout the EU. Throughout Europe some of the most critical conservation issues relate to the abandonment of agricultural practices; this affects hay meadows, heathlands, alpine pastures, lowland wet grasslands, blanket bogs and moorlands and even arable land. All these habitats have been created and need to be maintained by farming. Consequently the wildlife associated with them is intimately bound up with the annual farming cycle. Therefore taking the land out of agricultural production is not the appropriate choice for the conservation of such habitats, but rather it is vital to ensure that the intensity of agricultural practised on these habitats is appropriate.

It is evident that many high nature conservation value farming systems will not survive without continuing financial support aimed at promoting locally appropriate rural development which reflects environmental, agricultural and social priorities. Policies are therefore required that allow a way of life which is socially and economically attractive to the farmers involved and, at the same time, maintain land management practices which are beneficial to the wildlife. However, a proper understanding and appreciation of the farming practices associated with high nature conservation value farmland is required before any integrated approach to agricultural, environmental and social policies can be developed for such areas.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 2

Focus Although I had been involved in work within most of the EU countries containing high nature value farmland, I was keen to continue to expand my knowledge and expertise of farming systems to the whole of Europe, and particularly to those central and eastern European countries who will soon become members of the EU. It quickly became clear during two trips (associated with the 1998 conference highlighted above) to the Czech Republic, that not only do the farming systems (and associated nature conservation value) within central and eastern European countries differ markedly from the situation within the EU, but also that there can be major differences between individual countries (such as in the type of farming practised on the Czech and Slovak sides of the White Carpathians).

Nevertheless, one of the common issues facing all EU and pre-accession countries concerns the establishment of effective agri-environment programmes, i.e. schemes where farmers are paid to help them maintain and enhance the wildlife value of their farmland. Within the majority of EU countries the main points of discussion revolve largely (but not exclusively) around scientific/ecological questions such as “which management prescriptions would be the most effective on which habitats” and “what ecological advice is needed by national governments and farmers to help them improve the effectiveness and success of implementing these prescriptions”.

However, the issues facing most central and eastern European countries are much more fundamental. Indeed, most of these countries are not only faced with basic questions concerning “the types and content of the schemes to introduce” but much more importantly are also having to consider “whether their current extension services have the manpower or expertise to ensure that such schemes can be established and operated effectively In 1999 I made a successful application for a Travel Scholarship from the Farmers' Club Charitable Trust and this allowed me to spend a total of five weeks in autumn/early winter in five central and eastern European countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and Romania). The main focus of these two trips (one to the three Baltic States and the other to Hungary and Romania) was to gain more of an impression of the types of agriculture practised, put the interaction between farming and nature conservation in perspective and gain some appreciation of the opportunities, problems and issues faced by each country with regard to the establishment of effective agri-environment programmes. In particular, I was interested in gaining an impression of “the types and content of the schemes being considered for introduction” and "how current extension services will ensure that such schemes can be established and operated effectively”.

Approach The itineraries for these two trips built upon contacts that I had established and maintained with: •

Many of the delegates from the central and eastern countries who attended the 1998 EFNCP conference in the Czech Republic. These individuals came from a variety of both NGO and government agencies and together represent both farming and conservation interests in the countries concerned.

•

The European Agriculture Coordination Unit managed and operated by Natacha Yellachich at WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). I had known Natacha for a number of years and had worked closely with her through the European Forum. In 1999 she had recently taken on two new members of staff (one based in Latvia to cover the Baltic States and the other based in Hungary) and was keen for me to speak with them since this would provide an opportunity for us to learn from each other.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 3

• The partners (Avalon, Institute for European Environmental Policy and Veen Ecology) who were involved in three joint projects concerned with the development of pilot agrienvironment schemes in central and eastern Europe. These projects had resulted in the establishment of national working groups in ten countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). It was originally envisaged that during my travels in 1999 I would also be able to participate in an international team meeting of this group involving representatives from all the countries associated with these projects. However, although this meeting did eventually take place (in December 2000 in Slovkia) the timing was such that my participation at it was not under the auspices of this travel bursary.

During my time travelling in each country I was able to gain an impression of the landscapes and different farming systems involved. Within each country I also arranged meetings with staff within the Ministries of Agriculture, Ministries of Environment, agricultural and environmental research Institutes and various NGOs and used each of these discussions to obtain information and their thoughts on issues such as: • • • • • • •

The main issues facing agriculture in the country The main farming systems of nature conservation importance The importance of farming and farmland for nature conservation and wildlife The approach being taken to the development of agri-environment policies and programmes How agriculture and environment are both viewed within the respective Ministries Whether foreign investment in agriculture was feasible and if so was this seen as a problem or opportunity for nature conservation How the extension service was organised and whether it was capable of providing advice on environmental issues

In 1999, each country was still very much in the development phase with regard to the design of their agri-environment programmes (AEPS). In general, programmes were being developed for one or two pilot areas within each country with a view that the lessons learned from this process would help inform and influence the parallel development of recommendations for the design of national agri-environment programmes. The following pages provide on a county-by-country basis a brief overview of the agricultural situation together with a summary of the main impressions formed during my discussions. I must, however, stress that the impressions and views expressed here should be regarded as my own and should not necessarily be considered as attributable to any individuals I spoke to on the trips.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 4

Lithuania General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Over 50% of Lithuania’s total land area of 6.5 million ha is under agriculture. Arable cropping is by far the most important agricultural land use, accounting for over 80% of the utilised agricultural area, with cereals, fodder crops and potatoes being the major crops. The livestock sectors are dominated by milk and pork production with beef and large-scale poultry production being small but important sectors. In 1998, agriculture accounted for about 12% of the national GDP and 12% of national employment (Appendix 1).

Marked changes in farm structures have occurred following independence, resulting in an increasing predominance of so-called family farms (meaning a farm registered on the farm register) with an average size of c. 10-12 ha and household plots (operated by agricultural workers or other rural inhabitants as a means to supplement income from other sources) with an average size of c. 2 ha. Although there has been an associated decline in the number of agricultural companies (largescale corporate enterprises created from state and collective farms with an average farm size of c.

330 ha) these are still a major feature of Lithuanian agricultural production, processing and trading activities. Land reform was still ongoing during my trip to Lithuania in 1999 and it was envisaged that the whole process would not be complete until 2001/2002 at the earliest.

Although the use of chemicals and inorganic fertilisers have declined markedly since independence, diffuse pollution of water from agriculture remains a major environmental concern. The large-scale nature of many of the livestock production and processing complexes also means that these sectors are major contributors to point-source pollution. The abandonment of agricultural fields, especially grasslands, and the associated scrub and forest encroachment is also of increasing concern because of the negative impact this has on plants and birds reliant on open habitats.

Overview of main impressions formed in discussions Agricultural issues My journey to and from Latvia to Kaunas and Vilnius took me through this karstic region in the north of Lithuania. I noted that the landscape was very open (no fences), it was very mixed in terms of the mixture of arable and grassland habitats, that there was a lot of arable ground under fallow, that the ‘field’ sizes were smaller than in Latvia and that livestock (individual milk cows and horses used for traction – all of which were hobbled when grazing) were much more evident.

Agricultural land is considered limited in Lithuania and consequently there is pressure for it to be used in the most cost-effective and profitable way possible. However, although there has been an overall decline in production since the days of Soviet control, some sectors are still operating very intensively. For example, milk production is over 2.5 times domestic consumption and, in 1999, it was envisaged that there would be over-production of cereals caused by the government increasing the subsidy payment during a previous year of low yields.

Pollution of groundwater by phosphates and nitrogen is a large concern in Lithuania, especially in the karstic (limestone) regions along the Latvian border and in the deltas of large rivers (such as the Nemunas). Organic farming and the associated reduction in chemical usage is seen as a potential way to limit the risk from agricultural sources.

In the future it is possible that the Ministry of Agriculture may consider setting limits on the size of farms eligible to receive subsidies. However, although the feeling in 1999 was that farm size would

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 5

need to increase to be viable, it was felt that the government would wish to see the full impact of land reform (which was still ongoing in 1999) before considering whether there was a need for them to take action rather than leave the choice to the individual farmers.

Approach to agri-environment The karstic region in the north-west of Lithuania (on the Latvian border) is vulnerable to pollution of groundwater from agriculture. In 1993, the Tatula programme was established in this region to encourage the protection of groundwater from pollution through good agricultural practice and the development of organic farming. In 1999, the Tatula programme contained 153 members: 104 farmers, 21 food processing plants and other organisations, 10 cooperative agricultural companies and 18 individuals. The highest concentration of organic farms in Lithuania occurs within this region. In Lithuania, this programme is considered as a good example of the way forward for other vulnerable regions such as the Nemunas Delta region and Middle Lithuania.

Organic farms throughout Lithuania are controlled and inspected by a public company called Ekoagros which has been established by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health Care. Through links with a Swedish organisation, Ekoagros can certify Lithuanian organic products as organic for sale abroad. In 1999, Lithuania had, however, not yet established any agreement to export organic produce into the EU. In 1999 there were 60 certified and 84 transitional organic farms in Lithuania, covering in total an area of only 4,006 ha.

The Ministry of Agriculture aims to help develop organic farming, establish a favourable infrastructure and encourage the production of organic products for which there is a demand in both local and foreign markets. To this end, they will compensate up to 25% of the investment expenses of organic farms, provide subsidies for certified organic farms for the first three years and pay 75% of the certification costs (through support of Ekoagros) leaving the farmer to pay the remaining 25%.

In 1990, GAJA (the Association of Ecological Agriculture in Lithuania) was established. This operates along the lines of regional cooperatives, but this has proven difficult as many farmers are reluctant to enter into such agreements (given the false connection between cooperative and collective which exists in the minds of many farmers and the general public). There is, however, an urgent need for farmers to enter into such agreements, since otherwise it will be impossible for an individual farm (with an average size of 15 ha within the GAJA network) to meet the constant demand for supply throughout the year. GAJA has one adviser (based in Vilnius) with a responsibility for covering the whole of the GAJA network of 200 farmers.

The development of the Lithuanian agri-environment programme contains two main elements – a general agri-environment scheme (containing elements such as good agricultural practice with regard to manure handling and the application of crop protection products) and supplementary measures (such as conversion to organic farming, water protection, prevention of run-off). The general agri-environment scheme will apply across the whole of Lithuania while the supplementary measures will only be available to those farmers who have already agreed to participate in the general scheme. Lithuania has also established three different zones within which different levels of compensation payments will apply: • • •

Zone A – region of intensive agriculture in central and southern Lithuania Zone B – hilly region on acid soils in western Lithuania Zone C – hilly region of less favoured areas in eastern Lithuania

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 6

Farmers with property rights or a long-term lease can participate in the AEPs, provided the farmer is less than 65 years old and is able to enter more than 0.2 ha into the scheme. Farmers generally enter into a contract for 5 years under the general agri-environment scheme, but for some supplementary measures (e.g. afforestation, restoration of wetlands) the contracts are for a 20 year period.

However, in terms of Lithuania’s overall Accession strategy, then agri-environment must be said to be well down the list of priorities. A team of 3 individuals have been charged with the complex task of developing agri-environment rules, regulations and approaches.

Capacity of extension service Under the terms of the agri-environment programme, training and advice to farmers will be provided free to farmers participating in the programme through the auspices of the Agricultural Extension Service. Funds from the programme will also be made available to train and improve the skills of agri-environment advisers and those training these advisers.

In 1999, the Agricultural Extension Service consisted of 44 regional offices throughout Lithuania.

However, although the advisers were familiar with the advice and approaches required for intensive production, it was felt that additional training would be required to enable them to be competent on biodiversity and agri-environment issues.

Gutkauskas, A. (1997) The reorganisation of Lithuanian agriculture towards sustainable farming.

Ambio, 26, 442-444 LFN (1998) Possibilities for sustainable agriculture in Lithuania. Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Vilnius MARL (1999) Agriculture of Lithuania. Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania, Vilnius.

Vaiciunaite, R. & Stoncius, D. (2000) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: development of Lithuanian agri-environment pilot project. Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Vilnius Vaiciunaite, R. (2000) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: development of Lithuanian national agri-environment programme. Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Vilnius

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 7

Latvia General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Over 40% of Latvia’s total land area of 6.4 million ha is under forest cover and only c. 37% is under agriculture. Arable cropping (cereals and potatoes) accounts for 75% of the utilised agricultural area, with the majority of the remaining 25% being under meadows and pastures. Livestock production has declined markedly since independence (e.g. cattle and pig numbers in 1998 were both c. 30% of 1989 levels) and milk and pork production are now the dominant sectors. In 1998, agriculture accounted for about 8% of the national GDP and 6% of national employment (Appendix 1).

Land reform since independence has resulted in large (c. 300 ha) collective and state farms being transformed into a large number of comparatively small private farms (with an average size of c. 13 ha of UAA and a further c 7 ha of forest) and household plots (with an average size of less than 5 ha UAA). Large farms run by the state or agricultural companies are now a minor sector in the agricultural landscape.

The marked decline in the use of chemicals and inorganic fertilisers coupled with major decreases in livestock numbers (especially large-scale beef production for the Soviet market) means that in general diffuse and point-source pollution of water from agriculture is much less of concern compared to the 1970s and 1980s. The associated abandonment of agricultural fields (especially the cutting and grazing of wetter meadows) and the associated scrub and forest encroachment is of major concern because of the negative impact this has on plants and birds reliant on open habitats.

Overview of main impressions formed in discussions Agricultural issues My journey to and from Lithuania took me through the south of Latvia. I noted that the landscape was very open (no fences), that the fields were larger than over the border in Lithuania, that arable land formed a larger component of the landscape, that there was a lot of arable ground under fallow, that livestock (individual milk cows and horses used for traction – all of which were hobbled when grazing) were present but appeared less abundant than in Lithuania and that machinery was much more in evidence in the fields. On the journey to and from Estonia, in the north-west of Latvia it appeared that arable was much less a feature of the landscape, there was much more forest and bog/wetland and an increasing number of fields with fences as field boundaries.

Over 130,000 ha of agricultural land is currently classified as abandoned and it is predicted that this will rise to 600,000 ha by 2020.

Organic farming is being actively promoted and is seen as the way forward for farm viability. In 1999, the demand for organic products within Latvia was greater than the supply. Consequently, the international market had not been investigated in any detail.

Approach to agri-environment The Ministry of Agriculture has responsibility for agriculture and forestry issues, though the Ministry of Environment has responsibility for environmental pollution and environmental protection enforcement. The two ministries do cooperate, especially at the level of individuals but also through joint working groups and committees.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 8

The Association for Organic Farming is a non-profit organisation which covers all of Latvia and is funded by its membership (which in 1999 consisted of c. 200 farmers drawn from all sectors). The association acts as an ‘umbrella’ for six organisations and covers all aspects of the organic farming process. Current policy is that organic products should be sold at the same price as the equivalent conventional products, with a view to ensuring that producers can enter the market and increase demand for their products. Individual farms vary in size from 0.5 ha to 200 ha and the association is working to try and encourage the formation of cooperatives.

Given that there is no history of setting compensation payments, the process for doing so is seen as a major issue in the design and development of the Latvian agri-environment programme. Major priorities are envisaged as being organic farming, the preservation of biodiversity and the prevention of agricultural run-off. A number of areas within the country are currently being considered as Less Favoured Areas.

The protection of valuable grasslands is giving particular cause for concern and in 1999 consideration was being given to what kinds of schemes and strategies could be used within the agri-environment programme (especially with regard to what should be paid for and how payment levels should be set). Attention was also being directed at how best to measure biodiversity at farm level, how to raise awareness of farmers to the importance of species-rich grasslands and how best to manage these areas.

An alternative approach is being taken by WWF. Through their Large Herbivore Initiative they have rented c. 200 ha of former meadows which have been abandoned for over 15 years in the south-west of the country. At the moment, over one-third of this area is under secondary forest and much of the remainder is covered in scrub. WWF have recently fenced the area and plan to use it for extensive grazing by both Konig horses (imported from the Netherlands) and a Baltic breed of cattle (though they have no animals as yet) in order to keep the area open for birds. Overall, the land is owned by c. 20 people in total – some of whom see potential tourism spin-offs for themselves and the area.

Capacity of extension service The National Advisory Centre is a non-profit organisation which in 1999 had 99% of its capital owned by the state and 1% by the Farmers Federation. The level of funding provided by the Ministry of Agriculture (and what the funding is to be used for) is agreed on an annual basis. The aim is that the Centre will be 50% self-financing by 2002. In 1999 the Centre has obtained 45% of its finances from other sources, mainly from paid services to farmers (such as book-keeping).

Different services attract different levels of support from the Ministry – for example, book-keeping and fertiliser plans are funded 50% from the farmer and 50% from the Ministry, business plans are paid 100% by the farmer and environmental advice is paid 100% by the Ministry.

The expertise of advisers is biased towards agricultural production and there is little existing agrienvironment expertise among the advisers. In 1999, there were c. 230 Agricultural advisers throughout the country ( 4-6 in each of 26 regional offices), all of whom had received training in organic farming issues. It is envisaged that in the future these 26 regional offices will be amalgamated into 5-6 larger regions, within which there will be one or more environmental specialists.

Avotins, A., Drozdovska, L. & Priednieks, J. (2000) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: development of Latvian agri-environment pilot project. Latvian Fund for Nature, Riga

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 9

Busmanis, P. (1999) Environmental situation in agriculture: country report of Latvia. FAO Central and Eastern Europe Sustainable Agriculture Network.

Priednieks, J. & Drozdovska, L. (2000) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: development of Latvian national agri-environment programme. Latvian Fund for Nature, Riga RLMA (1999) Agriculture in Latvia in 1998. Republic of Latvia Ministry of Agriculture, Riga.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 10

Estonia General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Nearly 45% of Estonia’s total land area of 4.5 million ha is under forest and only 30% is under agriculture. Arable cropping is the dominant land use, accounting for over 78% of the utilised agricultural area, with cereals and forage crops being the major land covers. The livestock sectors are dominated by milk and pork production with beef (though declining) and large-scale poultry production being important additional sectors. In 1998, agriculture accounted for about 4% of the national GDP and 6% of national employment (Appendix 1).

Changes in farm structures have occurred following independence, though land reform has not proceeded as rapidly as in other Baltic States. Consequently, nearly 40% of agricultural land in 1998 was under the management of large agricultural companies or state-owned enterprises (with an average size of over 100 ha). Continuing land reform does mean that private farms (with an average size of over 15 ha) and household plots (with an average size of less than 2 ha) are increasing in number and extent.

Prior to independence, agriculture production in Estonia was based on low-priced, heavily subsidised imported inputs and up to 60% of milk and meat products were exported to other regions of the Soviet Union. The use of chemicals and inorganic fertilisers have declined markedly since independence, though the risk of pollution of water courses from manure stores (especially on smaller farms) is a major environmental concern. The associated marked declines in livestock numbers and associated grazing and cutting practices has led to an increased amount of land abandonment and subsequent encroachment of scrub and forest onto former open habitats. Of particular concern from a biodiversity perspective is the abandonment of wooded meadows, alvars (dry coastal grasslands), coastal meadows and wooded pastures.

Overview of main impressions formed in discussions Note that the centre and south-eastern parts of Estonia are much more fertile than the west.

However, my travels only took me to the west and north coasts of the country, where grassland production and dairy farming was the norm.

Agricultural issues My journey from and to Latvia took me through the western and northern costs of Estonia. I noted that there was an increasing amount of fenced fields, that there was much more forestry and bog/wetlands in evidence and that arable land formed a much smaller component of the landscape than in Latvia.

State-funded support for agricultural production is only available to farmers who are registered (generally those with larger farms such as 10 ha of land and more than 5 head of dairy cattle), who also possess the relevant animal health certificates and are producing an appropriate quality of product. For example, in Lääne County it appears that of 2,000 farms only c. 300 of these are registered, and of those that are registered only c. 75% qualified for subsidies in 1999.

Consequently, many farmers, at least in the smaller farms in the west and north of the country, do not qualify and need to have an additional source of income.

Prior to independence, many collective farms in the west of the country were dairy-oriented and consisted of over 1,000 cows per enterprise. After independence the scale of such farms reduced

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 11

markedly – one I visited had c. 200 cows and was manned by 2 people (and involved hand-milking rather than automated milking since the infrastructure had broken down).

In the west of the country, dairying is practised by 95% of farms in the region and varies from small enterprises of c. 5 cows to large enterprises of > 150 cows. Such larger enterprises are usually cooperatives involving anything from 10-70 owners. The cows graze grass during the summer and are fed on hay (and ground grain) during the winter. The technology associated with silage production is considered too expensive (though it was a main feature of pre-independence production).

At the time of my visit in 1999, the price of milk was in steep decline (caused by the collapse of the market to Russia). The cost to produce milk was in the region of 1.5-2.0 Estonian Krone (EEK) per litre while the price to farmers was in the region of 1.35 Estonian Krone per litre (and a collection charge of 0.15 EEK brought this down to 1.20 EEK per litre). When the Russian market was viable, the price expected to be obtained per litre of milk was 3.5 EEK/litre. During the period of my trip to the country, the government had no plans to assist the dairy industry. The Minister for Agriculture appeared to be working on the basis that the demand for milk from the processing plants would drive the price paid to farmers back up to the minimum required level of 3 EEK/litre.

The average yield of milk per year in the west was 3,500 litres per cow, with cows from cooperatives producing c. 3,300 litres/cow/year while those on private farms produced c. 4,000 litres/cow/year. To be economically profitable, a farm would need at least 50 cows. However, in 1999 it was envisaged that in the future only large-scale (200+ cow enterprises) will survive in the competitive marketplace.

The problems facing the dairy industry were amplified on an island such as Vormsi, where there was substantial additional costs in getting the product (in this case cheese for the specialist tourist market) off the island. In 1999, there were 80 agricultural enterprises on the island, 70 of which were privately owned. All the milk from the island was processed through the island creamery, but the future of this was uncertain (especially given increased transportation costs and the fact that much of the land on the island was being reclaimed by the former Swedish owners). Although the biodiversity value of the grazed pastures and coastal grasslands on the island is high, it appears difficult to convince the local and national government of the need to maintain grazing in such areas.

Approach to agri-environment In the west of Estonia, this is focused solely on the project a Matsalu Nature Reserve which is financed by the Ministry of Environment (as opposed the Ministry of Agriculture who have responsibility for agri-environment programmes) and which also involves coastal habitats on the islands of western Estonia. Matsalu is a major area for migrating birds and the project started in 1998 with the main objectives of managing waste and slurry, keeping meadows mown and keeping coastal grasslands grazed. Given that inputs to agriculture in the remainder of the region are so low, the Ministry does not consider that any agri-environment programme is required elsewhere in the region. While it is acknowledged that grazing has declined or disappeared from many dry coastal grassland (alvar) areas, such sites so not appear to be considered a priority for action (despite their high biodiversity value).

In 1999, the Ministry of Agriculture appeared hampered by the fact that the Government had changed and that no explicit direction had been set by the new Minister for Agriculture. Organic farming was, however, seen as a viable alternative to conventional agriculture and as such it was

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 12

expected that a Committee on Ecological Farming would adopt legislation pertaining to criteria for certification and monitoring of such farms.

Pilot agri-environment projects will be conducted within municipalities in south-east Estonia. They were chosen on the basis of unemployment rate, the percentage of agricultural land and the share of agriculture in the GDP. The projects implemented will aim to assist investment in agriculture or alternative enterprises and to develop on-farm processing and rural tourism.

In 1999, the Ministry of Agriculture was in the process of preparing a Rural Development Plan for Estonia. Priorities were likely to include investment to holdings (such as support for farmers when developing local breeds and plant varieties), development of organic farming, the development of sheep systems on coastal meadows (where encroachment by juniper is causing biodiversity concern), development of alternative activities in rural areas (through start-up aid to those developing tourist enterprises on their farms) and investment in technical assistance to help run the programme.

Close cooperation will be essential between the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment, since applications from farmers to enter the AEP will require approval from the latter.

However, although cooperation does occur between these two Ministries, there is a need for these links to be strengthened.

Capacity of extension service The Ministry of Agriculture does not have its own extension service. Rather it certifies advisers (of which in 1999 there were c. 100 across the whole of Estonia) and farmers are free to employ whoever they want (and can afford). These advisers deal mainly with business/economic advice.

However, pollution issues, fertiliser practice and manure storage plans are overseen by local inspectors from the Ministry of Environment. Given that the latter have a role in regulation, it is difficult to see how they could win the trust of farmers and actively promote positive management practices.

The extension service functions as an NGO. The advisers obtain their income direct from the farmers and the farmers obtain compensation from the State to help pay for this advice. The certification of each adviser is renewed on an annual basis and hence each year they are examined on their experience of the particular sector(s) they specialise in, their communication skills and their approach to dealing with farmers. Estonian government policy in 1999 was directed at reducing the amount paid to farmers to cover the cost of advice from 50% to 30% of the cost.

MAE (1999) Agriculture and rural development: overview 1998. Ministry of Agriculture of Estonia, Tallinn Iital, A. & Loigu, E. (1998) Obstacles and possibilities for sustainable agriculture in Estonia.

Estonian Society for Nature Conservation and Coalition Clean Baltic Mikk, M. & Vetemaa, A. (2000) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: development of Estonian national agri-environment programme and agri-environment pilot project. Centre for Ecological Engineering, Tartu

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 13

Hungary General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Over 65% of Hungary’s total land area of 9.3 million ha is under agriculture. Arable cropping accounts for 70% of the utilised agricultural area, with cereals being the major crops and sunflowers and permanent crops (such as vines) also being important. The pig and poultry sectors are major components of livestock production though the milk, beef and sheep sectors are also important.

Beef production has, however, declined markedly since transition (e.g. in 1998 the tonnage slaughtered was nearly 50% of 1993 levels). In 1998, agriculture accounted for about 7% of the national GDP and 6% of national employment (Appendix 1).

Land reform since transition has resulted in a marked increase in private farmers (with an average size of < 10 ha), many of whom have entered into agricultural association agreements with others.

Large-scale farms run by cooperatives or agricultural companies are now a relatively small component of the agricultural landscape.

The majority of arable land is on good, productive soils capable of yielding good crops. Hence the downturn in agricultural inputs and production has been less marked in Hungary as compared to other CEECs. The level of current inputs of chemicals and inorganic fertilisers and the potential for an increase in these means pollution of ground water remains an important environmental concern.

In addition, declines in livestock numbers means that there is less utilisation of the large extent of grasslands in the country (many remnants of which are of steppe character and important for a range of important bird, plant and insect species). Abandonment of grazing practices and the associated potential planted-afforestation of some areas of grassland are also giving cause for concern.

Overview of main impressions formed in discussions Agricultural issues During the course of my car journey to and from Budapest to southern Hungary and by train to Budapest into Romania, I noted that a very large extent of the agricultural land was under arable crops and much less of this appeared to be under fallow than I had seen in the Baltic States.

Before the start of the nineteenth century, over two-thirds of Hungary would flood each year.

Following the instigation of flood control measures and defences in the nineteenth century, only 2% of Hungary now floods in a normal year.

Within National Parks, farmers pay rent to the National Park to graze or cut agricultural land within the protected areas. The rent charged depends on the quality of the land, but, for example, for cutting and grazing it is around ÂŁ3/ha per year. The National Parks find it very easy to rent out the good and accessible areas of land. However, land of poorer quality or which is less accessible is less easy to rent out each year and this can lead to problems with an invasive alien shrub species.

Amorpha fructicosa is a fast-growing, American shrub which is an escapee from garden situations and which is causing severe problems in Hungary and other lowland areas of central Europe (especially along the Danube). There is a lot of seed-production per plant and it colonises rapidly a one year old fallow field I visited was full of c. 1 m high saplings of this shrub. Once the shrub gets to 3-years old it shades out all other plant life below it.

Outside the National Parks, state-owned land is rented-out through a private company and this increases the prices charged to farmers. For example, a reasonable rent for puszta grassland would

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 14

be ÂŁ3.50/ha per year but the private company may charge c. ÂŁ6.50/ha per year. Most farmers need to pay whatever the rate, since they have generally purchased buildings in which to house their livestock and are therefore dependent on renting the land in association with these buildings.

Approach to agri-environment The infrastructure and institutional requirements of the agri-environment programme have been considered in great detail. The complexity of the system required means that the different elements will need to introduced as part of a rolling programme which in 1999 was scheduled to start in 2001 and be completed by 2003.

It is intended that the 20 Regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture will be used for registration, implementation and administration of the programme. Monitoring of the programme will be the responsibility of the National Parks Service and each of the nine NP regions will establish a unit to deal with baseline inventories of each farm (including socio-economic aspects) and contribute to an evaluation committee which will run for at least the first seven years of the programme.

The whole of the country has been divided into nine different zones on the basis of agricultural and environmental sensitivity criteria. For each zone, an inventory of possible agri-environment measures has been produced. The proposed programme will consist of both horizontal (wide and shallow) and zonal (narrow and deep) approaches. The structure of the AEP follows a pyramid model, whereby the base is formed by several horizontal schemes (such as integrated cropping, organic farming, extensive management of grasslands, appropriate management of wetlands) which will apply to all areas in agricultural use. The zonal approaches will vary from zone to zone depending on the agricultural and environmental characteristics of each zone, but will involve measures such as conversion of arable to grassland, support for endangered breeds, habitat restoration, the use of buffer strips, implementation of species-specific management for particular bird species.

In the first instance, it was envisaged that in 2000 eleven pilot schemes would be launched, with a focus on high priority areas and issues. The location of these schemes would be chosen by the Ministry of Environment (through the National Park Service). It is envisaged that in 2000, 3-4% of Hungary will be under the AEP and that coverage will increase over time to a target of 40-50% cover by 2005/06.

WWF also have a large Danube-Carpathian programme in operation across all the countries in which the Danube flows through (e.g. Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic). This was originally focussed on freshwater but has been broadened to include forestry and land-use policy. In 1999, they were concentrating on mapping of floodplains in Slovakia, trying to encourage farmers to alter their cutting dates for their meadows, trying to encourage a return to traditional (i.e. in which flooding was an essential aspect) meadow management, and establishing a compensation scheme for these floodplains.

Capacity of extension service The Ministry of Agriculture has c. 600 extension workers within its own service. It is intended that advice and extension work for the agri-environment programme will be provided by the existing network of Phytosanitary and Soil Conservation Research Stations and that this network will be developed further.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 15

It is also envisaged that a network of 3-5 Regional Training Centres will be established (based on existing agricultural institutes and universities) and that these will provide training programmes (both direct and in through links with environmental NGOs), a Consultancy Extension Service (whereby consultants will be trained, certified and subject to annual review) and utilise farms onsite for demonstration purposes.

In the long-term it is envisaged that the extension service will develop into a private, self-standing consultancy operating in a marketplace with other private services, thereby providing farmers with the choice of whom to seek advice from. In the first instance, the main extension service will remain state-owned and its nature conservation expertise will be increased through strengthening links with NGOs. ALRD (2000) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: pilot agrienvironment programme, Hungary. Association for Local and Regional Development, Budapest ALRD (2000) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: recommendations for Hungarian national agri-environment programme. Association for Local and Regional Development, Budapest MARD (1999) The Hungarian agriculture and food industry in facts and figures. Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development, Budapest.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 16

Romania General agricultural situation and main environmental issues Over 60% of Romaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total land area of 28.8 million ha is under agriculture and nearly 30% in under forest. Arable cropping accounts for 60% of the utilised agricultural area, with cereals being the major crops and oilseeds, potatoes and sugarbeet also being important. Over 30% of the utilised agricultural area consists of pastures and meadows, with the remainder being under permanent crops (such as vines). The livestock production sector has fluctuated markedly since transition, but showed a constant decline in the late 1990s and a marked contrast with pre-transition levels (in 1999 sheep, cattle, pig and poultry numbers were all around 50% of 1988 levels). In 1999, agriculture accounted for about 16% of the national GDP and 36% of national employment (Appendix 1).

Agriculture in Romania is therefore more important than any other country in central and eastern Europe, with the exception of Albania. In contrast to most other countries, the share of agriculture in the GDP rose sharply after transition. However, this increase was not caused by expanding production but rather reflected sharp declines in other sectors of the economy.

Farm restructuring and land privatisation in Romania has involved two processes: â&#x20AC;˘ Decollectivisation, through the restitution of land used by Agricultural Production Cooperatives to previous owners and distribution of the remaining land to farm workers and other eligible citizens â&#x20AC;˘ Privatisation of state-owned land through sale, lease and concessions At the start of the land privatisation process, new private landowners had the choice to start individual farming or to join newly established associations. The vast majority established individual private farms, such that in 1999 there were 4.1 million family farms accounting for 68% of agricultural land, with an average size of 2.4 ha. 2.3 million ha (16%) of agricultural land in Romania is under some form of association (whereby private landowners decided to combine their land to form large farms) but this form of land management has been declining in recent years.

Another option has been for smallscale landowners to lease land to new private companies.

Although legislation has till recent years been somewhat unsupportive of large-scale private farming, such companies are growing in number. 2.2 million ha (15%) of agricultural land is still state-owned. It is envisaged that 1.7 million ha of these will be privatised while 0.5 million ha will remain under state-ownership Agricultural production issues have generally dominated the policy agenda, with the result that environmental concerns have been given low priority. Pollution, soil quality and erosion issues are of particular concern in the lowland arable areas. Overgrazing has been identified as an issue in some mountain areas, but the importance of grazing in preserving alpine grasslands (and hence the potential adverse impact of declining livestock numbers) has received far less attention than it deserves.

Overview of main impressions formed in discussions I spent most of my time in Romania either in Bucharest or in the countryside around Brasov in the Carpathian mountains. I therefore gained much more of a first-hand impression of the situation in mountain areas than I did of the plains. In the mountains, I noted that the agricultural landscape consisted of a diverse mixture of small fields, meadows and orchards situated around villages interspersed with forest and woodlands. Hay production took place on extraordinarily steep slopes and these hay fields were very rich in plant species. Much of the cutting of such slopes appeared to

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 17

be done by hand and transport of the hay to winter barns, after drying in ricks on the fields, was either on the backs of the farmers concerned or by horse and cart.

Agricultural issues There are two main types of agriculture in Romania. Small-scale traditional forms of agriculture did survive the communist period, especially in places where the land was difficult to work with machinery (such as the mountain areas). After transition, such areas experienced less of an ‘effect’ since much of the land was still ‘owned’ and managed by families throughout the communist period and it simply reverted back to them. However, on the plains and where land was flat large-scale farming predominated during the communist period – either in the form of state-owned collectives or cooperatives (where the local authorities owned the land and machinery). At the fall of communism, a huge amount of the existing infrastructure and machinery was destroyed making the transition particularly difficult for those inheriting the more productive land.

Rural areas are suffering from large-scale migration of the young to towns and cities where they have greater education and employment prospects. The age-structure of the remaining farmers is therefore biased very much towards the older generation. Life is very hard on these farms, with little mechanisation evident or feasible (even if it could be afforded). The vast majority of farms in the mountain are semi-subsistence rather than commercial concerns.

The size of a mountain farm varies from area to area, but typically is c. 100 m by 400 m, with the meadows located on slopes within the forest, with a barn for storing hay and livestock during the winter. Typically such a farmer will have 10-15 sheep and 1-3 cattle at the most. During the winter the sheep are kept inside, then in the spring a professional shepherd will combine the sheep from a number of owners into the one flock and take these to graze in the mountains. These pastures can vary from 5 km to > 100 km from the home village of the flock. While at the high pastures, the shepherds will milk the sheep twice per day and make cheese, some of which they return to the owners of the sheep and some of which they retain in part-payment for their services. The high pastures are normally owned by the local communities and the grazing rights are let to shepherds on an annual basis. On the way to these pastures in the spring and from these in the autumn, the shepherds and their flocks usually spend only 1-2 days in any one place and hence rely on finding sufficient, free forage enroute. Strict legislation is in force to prevent grazing by livestock in the forests.

The post-transition decrease in livestock production is, in large part, due to a massive drop in wool prices, which were subsidised at 3-4 times the world market prices by the state until 1989. Despite this dramatic decrease, Romania still produces more sheep meat (and goat meat) than any other central and eastern European Accession country. Although sheep numbers have declined by almost 50%, at 9 million head the number of sheep in the country is still very high and these are very important source of milk and cheese production. They are also very important from a biodiversity perspective – both from the fact that their grazing is essential to maintain the high, species-rich pastures and from the fact that the need for winter fodder for these means that there are species-rich hay meadows in and around the villages. Over 70% of the sheep flock in Romania is owned by semi-subsistence farmers and their animals are therefore very important to the preservation of these biodiversity-rich open habitats.

However, very little is known about the pressures facing these farmers or what impact Accession (and the adoption of EU support policies) would have on these systems (or even whether such subsistence farmers would be targeted or eligible for support measures). There is therefore a real concern that this would lead to the abandonment of livestock grazing over large areas with the associated loss of many habitats of high conservation value. Hence, it will be essential that the

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 18

important role that small-scale producers and common grazing systems play is taken into account in the development of the agri-environment and rural development policies.

Approach to agri-environment The development of agri-environment programmes in Romania is somewhat less well advanced than in the other four countries visited. A National Working Group has been established with responsibility for the development of the programme and choosing potential pilot areas to trial the schemes. Control of soil erosion has been identified as a priority in several regions and the proposals under development cover grassland, arable farms and permanent crops (including fruit trees). The very small-scale of many Romanian farms and the low level of income are crucial challenges for rural development.

Organic farming is the only part of the programme which is relatively well developed and wellknown within Romania. However, the marked declines in inputs since transition mean that many people regard Romanian agriculture as being largely organic since the early 1990s and are therefore uncertain that it needs special promotion. The organic farming lobby is, however, gaining ground and in 1999 were pushing for a national certification scheme.

Much still remains to be done from the perspective of the development of the agri-environment programme. But at the same time, much still needs to be done in terms of obtaining an accurate assessment of the extent of the biodiversity resource in Romania. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for the protection and enforcement of regulations concerning protected areas (which cover c. 5% of Romania) and forests. The Ministry does have links with the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to the agri-environment programme. However, limited staffing resources have meant that the staff of the Ministry of Environment have had to prioritise work on the implementation of policies such as the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive in preparation for accession, rather than concern themselves with good agricultural or good environmental practice issues on agricultural land.

Wolf and bear populations in Romania are very healthy and Romania holds the largest concentration of these in Europe. The Carpathian Large Carnivore Initiative has grown from a focus specifically on the wolf to a concentration on wolf, bear and lynx. It has also broadened out from being purely research-oriented to raising public awareness and encouraging eco-tourism as one way for local communities to benefit from the presence of these large animals in the surrounding countryside. Although the Initiative initially regarded shepherds and their flocks as being detrimental to these large carnivores (since many were killed by shepherds protecting their flocks) they have gradually come to realise that the continuation of grazing by these flocks in the mountains is an essential for the survival of the populations of these carnivores â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not only because the sheep can form part of their diet but more importantly because they keep habitats open which are utilised by other prey species. Consequently, the Initiative is running a World Bank funded project whereby grants are available to shepherds to reduce sheep numbers (where overgrazing of habitats has been identified as an issue) or to use electric fencing. The latter is an attempt to decrease the conflict between livestock and carnivores by increasing the protection afforded to the flocks. They are also working to help increase the standard of living of the shepherds. Note that the shepherds stay with their flocks throughout the 6-9 months they may spend grazing away from their home village. Consequently they lead an extremely harsh and socially isolated lifestyle.

Capacity of extension service In 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture established an extension service which in 1999 consisted of 2,500 staff (though it was envisaged that this would rise to 5,000). In 1999, this service was solely concerned with agricultural production issues and the promotion of the development of agricultural

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 19

activity. It was unclear what role this service would play in the agri-environment programme or how they would interact with the environmental protection staff based within the 42 regional offices of the Ministry of Environment. There are also a number of private agricultural extension services in Romania, run by Agricultural Producers Associations, Processing Associations or foreign companies.

NWGAES (2001) Agri-environmental programmes in central and eastern Europe: development of Romanian national agri-environment programme and agri-environment pilot projects.

National Working Group for Agri-Environment Schemes, Bucharest OECD (2000) Review of agricultural policies: Romania. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 20

Conclusions The development of agri-environment programmes is something that all CEECs need to do as part of the pre-accession process. Given the range of other pressing social and environmental concerns, it was not surprising in 1999 to find that agri-environment was relatively low down the list of national priorities within all five countries visited. However, in many cases it was also clear that agri-environment was regarded as of relatively low importance within the hierarchies of the national ministries of agriculture and the environment.

Despite this, the development of agri-environment programmes across all five countries was being driven forward by small teams of committed and dedicated individuals. However, resource limitations and the timescale for the pre-accession process, did however, mean that these individuals were working under high pressure to complete the different phases of development.

Such pressures meant that in many cases these teams did not have the luxury of time to focus on the bigger picture, especially with regard to the uniqueness of their own agricultural situations and associated biodiversity concerns. Instead, short-term necessity meant that in most situations approaches already developed within EU situations were being drawn upon.

For some environmental concerns (such as agricultural pollution) the issues are relatively clear-cut and it is relatively simple to adapt the EU approaches for use in the CEECs. However, from a wider biodiversity perspective, many of the CEECs contain large areas of semi-natural habitats which have been created and need to be maintained by farming systems practised over the agricultural landscape. There did not, however, appear to be any time for reflection on the logic or relevance of trying to adapt existing "off the shelf" agri-environment approaches for such areas given that those approaches themselves were largely developed in situations where the semi-natural habitats had become remnant rather than dominant features in the EU farmed landscape.

Agri-environment approaches can be wide-and-shallow or narrow-and-deep in terms of their depth of focus and how prescriptive they are. In the UK (as in many other EU countries), the latter approach has predominated and has resulted in schemes which are being increasingly regarded as being too prescriptive and inflexible to have any real beneficial effects on biodiversity. Within the CEECs visited in 1999, much effort was being directed towards taking an similar approach and thereby developing what appeared to be quite complex programmes. Given the economic constraints in these countries, such approaches (and their potentially high infrastructure demands) may end up placing restrictions the amount of money available to actually pay farmers for management on the ground. The latter will however be essential if the biodiversity goals are to be met.

Given their largely similar histories, the CEECs have potentially much to learn from each other in terms of how best to develop and adapt policies to suit their own emerging structures of land ownership. In 1999 there was, however, little evidence of interchange on these issues taking place across the countries concerned. This situation did appear to be improving, especially through the efforts of the Avalon/IEEP/Veen Ecology projects, but there was a reluctance in many countries to consult widely with other CEECs in case this allowed them a competitive advantage in the accession process.

Within the various agri-environment programmes under development, much effort was being directed to measures for mitigating the perceived adverse effects of agriculture. In this respect, the support of organic farming was viewed as an important way to help address such issues. It was, however, unclear what biodiversity (as opposed to wider environmental) benefits were expected to be gained from this approach. The general lack of willingness (based on the adverse associations with collective farming) of the farmers to cooperate in marketing and supply also left open to

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 21

question the long-term viability of many of these small farms, irrespective of whether they were certified organic or not.

While point-source and diffuse pollution issues were of obvious importance from an environmental and human health perspective, the major farmland biodiversity issue occurring across all five countries was concerned with the adverse effects of the abandonment of farming practices on habitats of high nature conservation value. Although this situation was recognised as important, the marked declines in livestock (and markets for livestock products) in each country was making it especially difficult to see how this could be addressed within the confines of the agri-environment programmes being developed. Not only was the general scarcity of available animals (such as sheep for grazing the coastal grasslands in Estonia) an issue, but many agri-environment teams were finding it difficult to see how they could encourage the retention or reintroduction of grazing animals to such areas (not only because the land types themselves were not 'attractive' to farmers but also because the livestock management skill-base was lacking in many of the new farmers).

Although the situation varied from country to country, in many cases much of the farmland biodiversity value was being provided by small-scale, semi-subsistence farmers. Ensuring the continued existence of such farmers will be of great importance in ensuring the continued maintenance of and the high biodiversity landscape mosaics that these maintain. It was, however, unclear how such farmers would be supported under many of the agri-environment programmes in development or indeed whether they would even qualify as eligible farmers in the first place (given that many do not meet the qualification criteria for existing agricultural support measures).

Across all five countries, it was recognised that a cost-effective extension service is a vital component in helping to ensure that policy messages are passed on to farmers. However, in 1999 all these services were very agricultural production or business oriented and it was unclear how rapidly these could be extended or adapted to ensure that their staff were in a position to provide effective biodiversity advice to farmers entering the agri-environment programmes.

The development of agri-environment programmes in the CEECs has been valuable in that it has brought many of the issues facing farmers in these countries into sharper focus. More questions than answers have arisen in the process, and hence approaches to maintaining biodiversity on farmland in these countries will need to continue to evolve over the coming years. Time is, however, of upmost importance for many of the most important agricultural habitats, since once these and the underlying farming systems are lost it will be difficult, if not impossible, to recreate them. Ways must therefore be found to address the continuing decline of livestock management on such areas and to ensure that policies appropriate to small-scale, part-time farming are developed.

Similar arguments are being put forward within the EU with regard to the problems and issues facing high nature conservation value in the mountains and Mediterranean areas in particular. If ensuring effective management of farmland biodiversity across the whole of the existing and new EU countries means developing a twin-track approach to agricultural support policies, then so be it.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 22

Maintaining the links Since completing these trips I have continued to build upon many of the contacts I made in each country and have been working with others to help raise awareness of many of the issues highlighted in the discussions: •

In December 2000 I participated in a seminar held in Bratislava, Slovakia on Preparing for the Implementation of Agri-Environment Schemes in Central and Eastern Europe (December 2000). This two-day seminar was aimed at Ministry of Agriculture officials and NGO representatives from the 10 Accession countries and was organised by AVALON and the Institute for European Environmental Policy with support from the European Forum for Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, the British Ecological Society and DG Environment. The meeting involved representatives from the teams working on the development of agrienvironment schemes within each country

•

The conferences of the European Forum on Nature Conservation Pastoralism have also continued to highlight Accession county issues and involve participants from CEECs: • In June 2000, the Forum conference was held in Ennistymon, Ireland with the theme Recognising European pastoral farming systems and understanding their ecology: a necessity for appropriate conservation and rural development policies. This conference was organised by EFNCP with funding and support from the Irish Heritage Council and Dutch Ministry for Agriculture, Nature Management & Fisheries. The latter provided support which allowed the attendance and of over 25 delegates from 10 Accession countries to this meeting.

•

The next Forum conference will be held at the end of September 2003 in Montpellier, France with the theme Rural Development Measures and the Future of Pastoralism: regional problems, future management possibilities and policy realities. Part of the conference will be devoted to the question of identifying indicators of High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) and an additional workshop on this issue may actually be combined with the conference. Given the extent of HNVF held within CEECs, the Forum intends to support the involvement of a number of participants from the Accession countries at these meetings

•

Since February 2001 I have (as part of my work within SAC) been coordinating a Concerted Action (PASTORAL: the agricultural, ecological and socio-economic importance of freeranging livestock rearing in Europe) funded under the European Commission's 5th Framework programme and conducted in collaboration with partners from throughout Europe. The experience gained on my travels in CEECs helped inform the development of this proposal and subsequent working of this project. A 3-day workshop was specifically held in Romania in October 2001 to help illustrate many of the issues recognised there on my previous visit.

•

SAC colleagues and myself are also currently collaborating with contacts within Romania and together we are actively seeking funds to conduct work specifically targeted on transhumance systems in the mountains of Romania.

•

The European Forum on Nature Conservation & Pastoralism is also continuing to develop other initiatives to raise the profile of traditional agricultural systems in Accession countries and their importance for nature conservation. One possibility being investigated is to collaborate with WWF and its agricultural team member in CEECs to focus attention on the need to find ways of directing targeted support to High Nature Value farming systems.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 23

Appendix 1

Haapsalu Vormsi

Location of main areas visited

Tallinn Lahemma Janeda Parnu

Estonia Limbazi Riga

Latvia

Lithuania Kaunas

Vilnius

Budapest

100 km

Hungary

Koros

Brasov

Romania

Bucharest

100 km

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Appendix 2 Itinerary of meetings in Baltic States, August 1999 DATE Sunday 1 August Monday 2 August Tuesday 3 August Wednesday 4 August

Thursday 5 August Friday 6 August

Saturday 7 August Sunday 8 August Monday 9 August

Tuesday 10 August Wednesday 11 August

LOCATION Flight to Riga from Glasgow via Gatwick.

Riga (Latvia) Martins Rekis (WWF Agriculture Team) Pick up car at airport Travel 260 km to Kaunas (Lithuania) Kaunas (Lithuania) Lithuanian University of Agriculture Separate meetings with: (1) Minvydas Liegus & Raimundas Rukuiza (International Department), (2) Vida Rutkoviene (Head of Department of Applied Ecology) (3) Petras Lazauskas (Head of Department of Soil Science) Travel 100 km to Vilnius (Lithuania) Ruta Vaiciunaite Lithuanian Fund for Nature Vilnius (Lithuania) Separate meetings with: (1) Romualdas Zemeckis (Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics) (2) Almonas Gutkauskas (TATULOS organic programme) (3) Ruta Valiunaite and Salius Jasius (Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture) Travel 400 km to Limbazi (Latvia) Discussions with farmer and independent field visits Travel 120 km to Pärnu (Estonia) Discussions with farmers and independent field visits Travel 120 km to Haapsalu (Estonia) Enroute Matsalu Nature Reserve where grazing reintroduction programme ongoing. Programme director (Alex Lotman) unavailable for a meeting so independent field visit to the site Haapsalu (Estonia) Joint meeting with: Krista Antsve (Lääne County Government) and Jan-Erik Petersen (Institute for European Environmental Policy) Haapsalu (Estonia) Meeting with: Sirae Sultsing (Lääne County Government Agriculture specialist) Travel 20 km by car and ferry to Vormsi island Joint meeting with: Elle Puurmann (Farmer and ecologist) Andres Koch (Mayor and manager of local creamery) Ahto Kokk (Veterinarian)

ACCOMMODATION Hotel Oma, 33 Ernestines Str., Riga As above B&B in the Old Town booked via Litinterp agency As above

B&B in city centre booked via Litinterp agency As above.

Laucini Farmhouse B&B, Limbazu Piirisaare talu (Farmhouse B&B), Uulu, Pärnu County Promenaadi Hotel (Sadama 22, Haapsalu

As above

As above

Page 24

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe DATE Thursday 12 August Friday 13 August

Saturday 14 August Sunday 15 August Monday 16 August Tuesday 17 August Wednesday 18 August

Thursday 19 August Friday 20 August

LOCATION Travel 130 km to Tallinn (Estonia) Tallinn (Estonia) Separate meetings with: (1) Kaido Kroon, Ministry of Agriculture (2) Arvo Iital Tallinn University and Estonian Society for Nature Conservation Tallinn (Estonia) Visit to folk and agricultural museum Travel 70 km to Lahemma National Park

ACCOMMODATION Valge Villa B&B, K채nnu 26/2,Tallinn As above

As above

Independent field visits Lahemma National Park

Toomarahv kodumajutus (Farmhouse B&B), Vergi side, Altja k체la As above

Independent field visits Travel 280 km to Riga (Latvia)

Hotel Oma, Riga

Enroute meeting with Velo Luts at Janeda Agricultural Training Centre, Estonia Riga (Latvia) Joint meeting with: Aivars Lapins. Inga Purvina, Andis Zeikars (all Lativian Ministry of Agriculture) Maira Dzelzkaleja (Latvian Agricultural Advisory and Training Support Centre) Liga Drozdovska (Association for Organic Farming BLOA) Riga (Latvia) Intention was to meet with Andris Miglavs Latvian State Agrarian Economics Institute but contacts made in days previous established that this was not possible Flight from Riga to Glasgow via Gatwick

As above

As above

Page 25

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Appendix 3 Itinerary of meetings in Hungary and Romania, October 1999 DATE Sunday 17 October

LOCATION Flight to Budapest from Glasgow via Paris

Monday 18 October

Southern Hungary 400 km round trip field visits to Hungarian National Parks organised by Viki Siposs (WWF Hungary Agriculture team) and involving herself together with Attila Pal (Birdlife) and Tomas Toth (National Park Service) Budapest (Hungary) Separate meetings with: (1) Ferenc Tar (Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture) (2) Peter Palatiz (TACS Foundation) Budapest (Hungary) Separate meetings with: (1) Viki Siposs (WWF Hungary Agriculture team) (2) Charlie Avis (WWF Hungary Danube Initiative) (3) Zoltan Kun (WWF International PAN-PARKS)

Tuesday 19 October Wednesday 20 October

Thursday 21 October Friday 22 October Saturday 23 October

Travel to Sventendre (Hungary) Separate meetings at CEE Regional Environment Centre with: (1) Cerasela Stancu (Grants Manager) (2) Entela Pinguli (Grants Manager) (3) Mira Mileva (Project Manager: Biodiversity Projects) Travel 500 km (10 hours) on early morning train to Brasov (Romania) Countryside around Brasov (Romania) Meeting and round trip of 100 km field visits in company of Andrei Blumer (Carpathian Large Carnivore Project) Travel 80 km to countryside surrounding Bran (Romania)

Sunday 24 October

Independent field visits Travel 40 km to countryside surrounding Poina Brasov (Romania)

Monday 25 October

Independent field visits Travel 150 km (4 hours) on early morning train to Bucharest (Romania)

Tuesday 26 October

Wednesday 27 October Thursday 28 October

ACCOMMODATION Hotel Panzio Swing, IX Ferenc krt. 19-21, Budapest As above

As above

As above

Pensunea Muri, Str. De Mijloc 62, Brasov As above As above As above

Hanul lui Manuc, Str. Franceza 62-64, Bucharest

Joint meeting with: Bogdan Paranici, Roxana Schiopu (TER Ecology Institute) and Mihail Dumitru and Sorin Stefanescu (Research Institute for Soil Science and Agrochemistry) Bucharest (Romania)

As above

Separate meetings with: (1) Mihail Cozariuc (Ministry of Environment) (2) Adriana Baz (Ministry of Environment) (3) Constantin Leonte (Ministry of Agriculture) Bucharest (Romania)

As above

Visit to folk and agricultural museum Bucharest (Romania) Mircea Ciocan (British Embassy Know How Fund) Travel from Bucharest to Glasgow via Paris

Page 26

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 27

Appendix 4 Agricultural statistics for countries visited. All figures from 1998 unless otherwise indicated Population size Agriculture share of national employment Agriculture share of GDP Total land area (ha) Forests Agricultural area - Arable - Pastures/meadows - Permanent crops Total numbers of livestock - Cattle - Pigs - Sheep - Goats - Poultry - Horses Agricultural area under different types of holding (ha) - Large-scale commercial enterprises - State owned - Agricultural association - Private farmers - Householder

Lithuania(1) 3,700,000 12.1% 12.0% 6,530,000 1,976,000 3,373,000 2,890,200 439,800 43,000

Latvia 2,500,000 6.0% 8.0% 6,460,000 2,842,000 2,395,000 1,779,000 596,000 Inc in arable figure

Estonia(2) 1,454,000 6.0% 4.3% 4,522,700 2,035,000 1,433,100 1,119,700 316,000 12,000

Hungary 10,147,000 7.2% 5.6% 9,303,000 1,769,000 6,193,000 4,710,000 1,148,000 335,000

Romania(3) 22,500,000 35.6% 15.6% 28,839,000 8,075,000 17,880,000 11,264,000 5,900,000 715,000

1,065,100 1,270,000 32,200 14,600 8,444,200 77,600

434,400 421,100 29,400 3,208,800 22,000

325,600 306,300 35,600 1,542,900 NA

873,000 5,479,000 909,000

3,143,000 7,194,000 8,409,000 585,000 69,480,000 NA

NA NA NA NA NA

24,000 1,365,000 766,400

390,421 433,376 220,970

(1) Livestock figures from 1996, (2) Holding area data from 1997, (3) All data from 1999

30,557,000 NA 988,000 21,482,700 3,721,900

180,000 2,200,000 2,298,000 10,083,000

Inc. in private farmer

Inc. in private farmer

Inc. in ag association

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 28

Appendix 5 Summary of national agri-environment programme proposals. From Baldock, D., Bennett, H., Verschuur, G., Petersen, J-P, Surjan, A., Lankester, M. & Veen, P. (2001) Agri-environment programmes in central and eastern Europe: synthesis report of a multi-partner project. AVALON Foundation, Wommels, The Netherlands.

Consultation

Training and advice

Objectives

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Hungary

To ensure the normal economic and social conditions for the rural population, decrease the negative environmental impact of agriculture, restore traditional landscapes, improve ground and surface water quality, and ensure the sustainability of agriculture.

To preserve and manage the most valuable natural areas, promote environmentally friendly and organic farming and decrease water pollution

To promote and support agricultural practices that are in accordance with the protection of traditional landscapes, biodiversity and the wider environment, to provide an appropriate income to farmers who deliver these practices, increase farmer awareness of environmentally friendly practices and to support a positive image of farmers amongst Estonian society

To establish sustainable agriculture, preserve areas of high natural value, conserve soil and water resources, increase high quality produce to improve export opportunities, diversify rural employment, improve rural life, improve the potential for tourism and educate the rural population about the environment

The Lithuanian Extension Service and scientific and teaching organisations are organising training courses.

The Farmers Information Centre and Latvian Fund for Nature are preparing information materials. The Latvian Ornithological Society will also play an important role in training. Training will be aimed at administrative staff, planners, controllers, farmers, consultants and teaching staff of agricultural schools

Advisers will assist farmers in the preparation of the whole-farm agrienvironment plan and application forms. Basic training is obligatory to all farmers joining AEP as well as for some supplementary measures. In addition there are voluntary annual training courses. Training is also available for advisors, administrators, training and monitoring staff.

Training and demonstration farms programmes will be undertaken to promote success of the AEP.

An initial Project Working Group consisted of representatives from the government, research institutions and environmental NGOs. A Ministerial working group was established later which had a stronger influence, therefore some elements included in the national programme were not approved by the Project Working Group.

The programme was designed with cooperation from the main environmental NGOs, farmer organisations, scientific institutions, universities and related governmental organisations such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development

150 stakeholders were consulted during the design of the NEP. These included agricultural producers, environmental and nature protection NGOs, government officials and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;other relevant partiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Consultation also included interviews with 68 farmers in proposed pilot areas.

In addition to governmental officials (Ministry of Environment and Agriculture and Rural Development), nature conservation NGOs, research institutions, agricultural universities and representative bodies also played an important part in designing the AEP.

selectedTypes of agri-environment scheme

Monitoring and indicators

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 29

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Hungary

Monitoring will be supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture and conducted by several experienced, independent organisations approved by both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Paying Agency

The National Guidance Committee, consisting of representatives from a wide range of governmental institutions, local government and NGOs will be responsible for monitoring. Evaluation of projects will be the responsibility of the Regional Department of the Rural Support Service Partnership Council.

It is recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture should establish a Monitoring and Evaluation Board to introduce an indicator system for monitoring environmental and socioeconomic impacts of all proposed schemes. Evaluation is the responsibility of the Working Committee whose members are representative of administration (national and county level), research and NGOs to ensure an objective evaluation

A detailed institutional development plan is not included in the Hungarian NAEP because as yet only the main structural framework has been accepted.

There is no indication of possible combinations of packages or different measures but neither is there any restriction on combinations. There is no clear indication of a whole farm or parcel approach.

There is no indication of possible combinations of packages or different measures but neither is there any restriction on combinations.

Management plans are required for farms which comply with priorities of agri-environment measures set in the regional (municipality) agrienvironment plan. The whole-farm should participate in the programme.

Management prescriptions are detailed.

Environmentally friendly farming practices (e.g. restricting stocking rate, fertiliser and manure application and synthetic pesticides; establishing an appropriate crop rotation; establishing uncultivated mid-field strips) are included. Farmers may undertake any combination of the Supplementary Measures Scheme

Farmers can select one or more management packages for arable land, orchard, wetlands, extensive/organic livestock breeding, demonstration farms, implementation of organic plant protection, basic soil and landscape protection, habitat rehabilitation and species protection measures. Farmers must undertake a complete package and the packages must be applied as one unit.

Note: In Romania, work on proposals for national and pilot AEPs started later than in other countries. Control of soil erosion has been identified as a priority in several regions and the proposals under development cover grassland, arable farms and permanent crops (including fruit trees). The very small-scale of many Romanian farms and the low level of income are crucial challenges for rural development. Pilot projects are in development at Dornelor-Tihuta and Tismana-Pestisani-Runcu.

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Page 30

Appendix 6 Summary of pilot agri-environment programme proposals. From Baldock, D., Bennett, H., Verschuur, G., Petersen, J-P, Surjan, A., Lankester, M. & Veen, P. (2001) Agri-environment programmes in central and eastern Europe: synthesis report of a multi-partner project. AVALON Foundation, Wommels, The Netherlands.

Environmental type

Size areaName of pilot

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Hungary

Rusne Island

Laudonas and Marmastiene s pagasts

Palamuse Community (Jogeva County)

Kihelkonna Community (Saare County)

Egyek-Pustakocs

Borsodi Mezoseg

4,691 ha

37,900 ha

21,607 ha

24,595 ha

c. 6,000 ha

More than 32,000 ha

Highly productive arable land in the flood-protected polders, 3 summer Vorusne, Pakalne, Uostadvaris and 4 winter polders Rusne, Skirvyte, Uostadvaris, Vorusne (Nature and Landscape Reserves) and also riverine wetlands (Ramsar sites)

Consists of land of highnature-value (flood-plain meadows and internationally important gathering places of birds)

Unique drumlin area with heritage landscape value, narrow lakes and wetlands.

Low-lying plain resting on bedrock composed of Silurian limestone. 25% of area is protected (Viidumae Nature Protection area, Vilsandi National Park).

Characteristics are the valuable, high biodiversity semi-natural habitats such as wooded meadows, alvars, coastal meadows and wooded pastures.

Two-thirds of the area is protected (of which 1,200 ha is wetland-swamps) and one-third is not (arable and grassland).

Characteristic and ancient landscape with unique biotopes (steppes and marshlands), rich avifauna and mosaic-like fauna.

Very diverse grassland habitat-complex scattered with wet habitats and arable lands, shaped by traditional grazing agriculture. Characteristic steppe (puszta) habitats, flora and fauna. The area is dominated by saline soil related ecosystems consist of a protected area (17,932 ha) plus adjacent buffering semi-natural areas (9,708 ha) and floodplains (5,210 ha)

Type of farmland

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe Farmland is 2,606 ha with arable land (4965 ha), meadows (1,231 ha), pastures (880 ha) and nature area (1,553 ha)

Mixture of arable and grassland, both productive areas and land under traditional management

50% is agricultural land â&#x20AC;&#x201C; total of 10,286 ha of which 4,042 ha is in current use (arable land 9,211 ha), 37% (8,042 ha) is covered in forest, 15% other land, including natural grasslands (1,075 ha)

50% of the area is forested, 16% is agricultural land (arable 2,270 ha, natural grassland 1,772 ha) and only 1,724 ha is in active agricultural use

Arable land 51% (2950 ha), pastures/grasslands 32% (1869 ha), marshlands/reed 16% (902 ha), forests 1% (64 ha)

Page 31

68% protected area: 17,962 ha owned by the State, 15-20% expected to be added of which 100% is grassland, reed and swampland. 18-20% of arable lands remain in private ownership. Of the buffer and floodplain zone: 94% is owned privately, the remaining area is under State or Foundation ownership

Agri-Environment Issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Number of farms

Type of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;farmingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the area

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Page 32

Hungary

Large number of owners and small plots prevent intensive farming.

Therefore mainly extensive use of the meadows and pastures and cattle rearing

Farms of different levels of intensity, but mostly lower input (could be used as representative of Latvia)

Intensive agricultural production with relatively fertile soils, more crop than animal oriented

More or less environmentally friendly agriculture and extensive production because of very poor and droughtprone soils. Most of the arable land is used as grassland. Sheep numbers have decreased to less than 600

Intensive and extensive production as well as nature protection zones.

Arable production on the most suitable lands, grassland management or pasture on the more fragile soils, reed production on the borders of the marshland managed for wildlife conservation.

Organic farming is widespread

Sheep breeding and fisheries plus cashcrop production

Landusers: 1,102 (land reform is ongoing) but farmers, small plot owners and leasers prevail (74% of the land). 26% is one agricultural enterprise, 735 small scattered farming plot owners with an average size of 1.8 ha, 39 private farms (average 9.5 ha) and 41 private farms (over 4 ha)

Not known

Two enterprises (50% of the arable land, 4,000 ha), private farms: full-time farms <40, part-time farmers c. 100

One agricultural enterprise (800 ha), 100 active private farms: fulltime farms c. 10 (20-ha ha), part-time farms c. 90

Individual entrepreneurs, agricultural enterprises, other organisations (public companies, foundations etc) and private farmers

8 prosperous large farms (500 ha arable and pasture), sheep breeding and fisheries: 15 large farms (250-1,500 ha) producing cashcrops, 67 family private enterprises (over 50 ha), 18 families grazing sheep, several hundred (average size 0.52 ha) cultivate cashcrops (sunflower, corn) or are part-time farmers producing for their own consumption