}fj 
/'il 
• £u 
^$|||| 
- fc^'' 1 
V" KC« l «* .1 
A', *?''*< i 
' "^ »» JlJJ 1-4 « 1 
1 • 'f*"« j COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 04.12.1997 
COM(97) 620 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
on the application of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2078/92 
on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the 
protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside 

Preface 
All farming operations produce effects on the rural environment. The traditional European landscape 
and associated biodiversity is to a large extent the result of many centuries of agricultural production. 
Equally important is the contribution of agriculture to the maintenance of rural society. If the 
countryside is to continue to develop as a living and vibrant environment, the farming sector will play an 
essential role, both as a significant economic activity in rural areas and as the most important form of 
land use. 
Much farming activity is directly beneficial to the natural environment, whether in maintaining the 
countryside or, especially in the case of extensive pastures, in preserving valuable and often threatened 
semi-natural habitats. However, not all farming produces positive impacts on the environment and some 
agriculture, especially some intensive production techniques brought in over recent decades, is 
responsible for damage including soil degradation, pollution and over-use of water and reductions in 
biodiversity. 
To an extent, systems of agriculture beneficial to the environment can be promoted through codes of 
practice, backed up where necessary by legal restrictions. However, within the scope of acceptable 
practice, farmers may need to respond to economic pressures to intensify good land, to under-utilize 
marginal land or otherwise adopt farming practices which reduce environmental benefits. Few farmers 
are able to maintain or adjust to environmentally beneficial techniques where these would lead to 
diminished income. For this reason, payments from public funds for farmers who incur costs or forego 
income under agreements to benefit the environment has long been advocated. 
The agri-environment regulation, Council Regulation No (EEC) 2078/92, provides for programmes to 
encourage farmers to carry out environmentally beneficial activities on their land. By recognizing the 
costs of such activities, the programmes are also intended to contribute to the income of farmers who 
provide the environmental service. The agri-environment regulation accompanied the reforms of the 
common agricultural policy which were begun in May 1992 with the changes agreed to several of the 
most significant market regimes. 
Article 10 of the agri-environment regulation requires the Commission to produce a report on the 
implementation of the regulation and submit this report within three years to the Council and to the 
Parliament. While some of the early programmes came into force in 1993, most were not approved until 
1994, and a few, notably those in the three new Member States, were only approved in 1995. 
The first part of the report describes the operation of the agri-environment regulation. The second part 
explains how it fits in with the common agricultural policy and other Community policy instruments. 
The third part comprises an account of implementation up to 1997. The final part of the report draws 
out some conclusions in the light of implementation so far and presents a number of recommendations 
consistent with the increasing emphasis placed on agri-environment programmes in the AGENDA 2000 
document. However, this report is not an evaluation and does not aim to provide a detailed analysis of 
the impact of the various agri-environment programmes. 
Table of Contents 
I OPERATION OF THE AGRI-ENVIRONMENT REGULATION 4 
1.1 CAP reform and the agri-environment regulation 4 
1.2 Agri-environment measures 4 
1.3 Premium levels and Community financial contribution 5 
1.4 Tendering 5 
1.5 Environmental capital works 6 
1.6 State aids 6 
1.7 Farmers' obligations 6 
1.8 Approvals procedure 6 
1.9 Implementing rules 7 
1.10 Agri-environment programmes 7 
2. EC POLICY FRAMEWORK 10 
2.1 Interaction with common market organisations 10 
2.2 Structural policies, cohesion and employment 10 
2.3 International agreements 11 
2.4 Environment policy 12 
2.5 Genetic resources, research 13 
2.6 Animal welfare and hunting 13 
3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UP TO J997 14 
3.1 The initial phase: programme approvals 14 
3.2 Budget estimates and EAGGF provision 14 
3.3 Total programme budget 15 
3.4 Implementation data 16 
3.5 Monitoring, evaluation and follow up by the Commission 17 
3.6 Assessment of measures by category 19 
3.7 Developments in programme management and administration 22 
4. CONCLUSIONS 25 
4.1 Outstanding issues 25 
4.2 Reflections on possible amendments 28 
4.3 Future developments 31 
ANNEX : Programme approval and amendment decisions 33 
1. OPÉRATION OF THE AGRI-ENVIRONMENT REGULATION 
1.1 CAP reform and the agri-environment regulation 
In May 1992 agreement was reached in the Council of Ministers to reform several of the 
most significant market regimes of the common agricultural policy (CAP), including 
arable crops, beef, sheep, milk and 
of the reforms were to bring production 
into line with real market developments, 
to use budgetary c resources more 
effectively, to encourage farmers to 
produce in an environmentally sensitive 
way, and to ensure ample supplies of 
high quality food at lower prices for 
consumers1. In addition to the changes to 
the markets regimes three measures were 
introduced to accompany the reforms: 
agri-environment, forestry, and early 
retirement. The agri-environment 
regulation2 establishes an aid scheme with 
three overall aims3: to accompany ' the 
changes introduced under market 
organisation rules; to contribute to the 
achievement of the Community's policy 
objectives regarding agriculture and the 
environment; and to contribute to 
providing an appropriate income for 
fanners who deliver the environmental 
benefits. 
1.2 Agri-environment measures milk products, and tobacco. The aims 
Table 1.1: Specific objectives of agri-environment 
measures, Article l(a)-(g). 
(a) use of fanning practices which reduce the polluting 
effects of agriculture; 
(b) extensification of fanning and conversion of arable land 
to extensive grassland; • 
(c) protection and improvement of the environment, 
countryside, landscape, natural resources, and soil and 
genetic diversity; 
(d) upkeep of abandoned fannland and woodlands; 
(e) long-tenn environmental set-aside ; 
(f) land management for public access; 
(g) education and training. 
Table 1.2: Agri-environment land management 
measures, Article 2(l)(a)-(g). 
(a) low-input and organic farming: to reduce substantially 
the use of fertilisers and plant protection products, to 
keep the reductions already made, to introduce or 
continue with organic fanning: 
(b) extensive crop and forage production: to change to 
more extensive fonns of crop production, including 
forage production (by methods other than those covered 
by (a) above), to maintain extensive production methods, 
or lo convert arable land into extensive grassland: 
(c) extensification of livestock production: to reduce the 
proportion of sheep and cattle per forage area; 
(d) other environmental fanning practices: to use other 
practices compatible with the protection of the 
environment and natural resources, as well as 
maintenance of the countryside and the landscape, or to 
rear animals of local breeds in danger of extinction; 
(e) upkeep of abandoned land: to maintain abandoned 
fannland and woodland in good condition; 
(0 long-term set aside: to set aside fannland for at least 20 
years and use it for environmental purposes, in particular 
for biotope reserves, natural parks, or protection of 
hydrological systems; 
public access: lo allow walkers on to private farmland Article 1 of the regulation provides for 
seven specific objectives which the 
agri-environment measures may be 
designed to achieve (Table 1.1). These 
aims are given effect through measures 
for land management (Table 1.2) and 
for training and demonstration projects, set out in Articles 2 and 6. The training measures, 
which are optional on Member States, should concern farming or forestry practices (g) 
1 Commission press release 21.05.92. 
2 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, OJ No L 215, 30.7.1992, p.85, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 
2772/95. 
3 idem. Article 1. 
Table 1.3: Maximum levels of premia eligible for 
part-financing from EAGGF. beneficial to the environment4. Additional measures may be introduced specifically to 
provide for training courses, traineeships and demonstration projects5. 
1.3 Premium levels and Community financial contribution 
Payments under the programmes are calculated in relation to the obligations taken on by 
the farmer6. Premia are based on costs 
incurred and income foregone, less any 
additional income or savings resulting 
from participation in a scheme. In 
addition, an incentive element may be 
added where necessary; incentives must 
be justified on the basis of objective 
criteria and normally not exceed 20% of 
net income foregone and costs7. Thus, 
premia should be regarded as 
compensation for the costs of delivering 
environmental public goods and cannot 
be regarded as subsidies in an economic 
sense. 
Upper limits for premia part-financed 
from Community funds are laid down in 
the regulation8. These amounts, which 
were amended in November 1995 in the 
light of exchange movements9, are set 
out in Table 1.3. Community finance is 
provided from the Guarantee section of 
the EAGGF10 at the rate of 75% in 
Objective 1 regions and 50%» elsewhere; 
the other 25% or 50% is provided by the 
Member State. category of expenditure original max. rates max, rates from 
(ECU/ha) 1996 (ECU/ha.) 
annual crops for which a 
premium per hectare is 150 181.1 
granted under the market 
regulations governing the 
crops in question 
other annual crops and 250 301.9 
pasture 
annual crops and pasture, if 
the farmer has given one or 350 422.6 
more of the undertakings in 
Article 2 (l)(a) and (b), 
together with an undertaking 
in Article 2(l)(d). 
each sheep or cattle 210/LU removed 253.6/LU removed 
livestock unit by which a 
herd is reduced. 
each livestock unit of an 100/LU reared 120.8/LU reared 
endangered breed reared 
specialized olive groves 400 483 
citrus fruits 100JD 1208 
other perennial crops and 700 845.3 , 
wine 
upkeep of abandoned land 250 301.9 
cultivation and propagation 
of useful plants adapted to 250 301.9 
local conditions and 
threatened by genetic 
erosion 
land set aside 600 724.5 
expenditure incurred on 2500/ptnon/coune 3019 /ptno^couire 
courses 
1.4 Tendering 
The possibility of inviting applications for agri-environment agreements by calls for tender 
has been discussed by various interested parties. There is no prohibition on this type of 
process in the agri-environment regulation, provided the conditions of grant are 
respected. In particular a ceiling on the premia would be needed to avoid that the 
tendering process resulted in premia which exceeded the maximum allowed for 
agri-environment measures. 
10 idem. Article 2(2). 
idem. Article 6. 
idem. Article 5. 
Regulation (EC) No 746/96, Article 9. 
Regulation 2078/92, Articles 4 and 6. 
Regulation (EC) No 2772/95 OJ No L 288, 1.12.1995, p.35, rectified by Regulation (EC) No 1962/96 of 
11.10.1996, OJ No L 259, 12.10.1996, p.7. 
EAGGF: European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. 
1.5 Environmental capital works 
Capital works or investments are not included within the co-financed part of an 
agri-environment programme. These may be supported under the terms and conditions of 
the relevant structural funds programme. In particular, environmental farm improvement 
grants for capital works may be approved under the investment aid regulation11 and part-
financed by the Community. 
1.6 State aids 
In addition to the above, which are the measures eligible for part-financing from 
Community funds, a Member State may implement State aided agri-environment 
measures under conditions which differ from those provided for in the regulation, or 
which exceed the maximum ceilings for part-financing from Community funds12. The 
State aids must comply with the objectives of the regulation and the rules on State aid s "it 
out in Articles 92-94 of the Treaty of Rome, which, among other matters requires that the 
aids are notified to the Commission and approved. State aids for capital items are 
approved subject to the relevant provisions of the investment aid regulation. 
1.7 Farmers' obligations 
None of the measures for which premia are paid are currently the subject of compulsory 
obligations on farmers, although implementation of the programmes is obligatory at the 
level of the Member States. Farmers may choose whether to continue to exercise their 
normal farming decisions or to accept the conditions and restrictions set out in an agri-
environment scheme. For those who do commit themselves to the programmes, the 
obligations must be observed for the period set out in the programme, which must be at 
least five years. In the case of long-term set-aside, the minimum obligation is for 20 years. 
Only in exceptional cases, such as force majeure or where it would otherwise be 
unreasonable to insist on continuation, may farmers end their participation early. 
The regulation makes provision for the inclusion of mandatory measures implementing 
Community environmental obligations13. However, no application of this provision has 
been approved and the Commission has not been presented with any circumstances in 
which support for compulsory measures would be justified. 
1.8 Approvals procedure 
Each Member State prepares and puts forward one or more draft programmes to the 
Commission for approval. A programme proposal includes, among other matters, a 
description of the geography and farming in the area concerned, a description of the 
proposed objectives, conditions for the grant of aid, and expenditure estimates14. The 
Commission examines the programme to ensure its conformity with the agri-environment 
regulation and consistency with existing agricultural programmes, market regimes, and 
other Community policies. Member States also notify the relevant national administrative 
11 Regulation (EC) No 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures of 20.5.1997, OJ No L 
142, 2.6.1997, p.l. 
12 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Article 10. 
13 idem. Article 4(5). 
14 idem. Article 3. 
6 
provisions and supply data to satisfy the Commission that the budgetary estimates, 
financial control mechanisms and administration are adequate. The programmes are 
approved by the Commission following the 'management committee' procedure, which 
includes consultation of the Member States, meeting in the STAR Committee15, on the 
basis of a Commission Working Document describing the programme and a draft decision 
text. 
1.9 Implementing rules 
The Commission has adopted two sets of implementing rules, the first covered procedures 
for financial monitoring16 and was adopted in 1994. The second Commission 
implementing regulation17, adopted in 1996, dealt with a wide variety of implementation 
issues and incorporated the 1994 regulation. In particular, the implementing regulation 
clarified Member States' obligations with regard to monitoring impacts, evaluation, 
verifications, systems of penalties, changes to agreements and avoiding double payments. 
Commission approval practice with regard to extensive farming, linear features, 
abandoned land, environmental set aside, courses and demonstration projects and 
calculation of premia were also covered.18 
1.10 Agri-environment programmes 
1.10.1 Zonal and national implementation 
Programmes should in principle be implemented through zonal programmes throughout 
the territory of the Member States19. Programmes may comprise all of the land use 
measures in the scheme, except where there is sufficient justification for restricting the 
programmes to measures in line with the specific characteristics of an area. In addition, 
each zonal programme must reflect the diversity of environmental situations, natural 
conditions, and agricultural structures and the main types of farming practised. The 
programmes must also respect Community environment policy. The zonal programmes 
may be supplemented by a national scheme applicable everywhere ('horizontally'), 
providing for one or more of the measures. The distinction between zonal and national 
programmes has been interpreted in different ways in the Member States. 
127 programmes had been approved by the Commission by June 1997. Most 
programmes have in addition been amended, some on several occasions. In total the 
Commission has taken 265 approval or amendment decisions. The programmes are 
listed in the Annex in bold type; the amendments are indicated by 'mod' (modification). 
The programmes adopted are extremely diverse in nature, a fact which makes 
comparisons between Member State programmes possible only to a limited extent, 
while tools for such comparative analysis are not yet available. 
15 STAR: Committee on agricultural structures and rural development. 
16 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1405/94, OJ L 154, 21.6.1994, p. 12. 
17 Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/96, OJ L 102, 25.4.1996, p. 19, as amended by Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 435/97 of 6.3.1997, OJL 67, 7.3.1997, p.2. 
18 The issues and reasons justifying the adoption of the regulation were set out in STAR Working Document 
VI/8670/95, which was the basis of discussions prior to the drafting of the regulation. 
19 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Article 3. 
7 
1.10.2 Diversity in implementation 
Within each Member State, programmes have been prepared at national or regional and 
local level, depending on the degree of administrative decentralisation as well as on the 
environmental diversity of the territory. Emphasis on the different environmental 
objectives of the programmes varies widely among Member States, both as a function 
of the environmental awareness of farmers and of the environmental characteristics and 
needs of the Member States. Programmes which contain measures generally applicable 
throughout the Member State are found in Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. In most other Member States, programmes contain 
a mix of measures applicable throughout the territory and regionally (Austria, Belgium, 
Denmark, France, Spain, the United Kingdom). In Germany and Italy almost all 
programmes are regionalized. However, within many programmes, national and 
regional, some or all measures are targeted on environmental zones and designed to 
meet particular local objectives. The Commission has not received any proposal for 
programmes spanning Member State boundaries where similar agri-environment 
conditions exist on both sides of the border. 
Member States have also chosen different ways of combining the measures available 
under the agri-environment regulation within their programmes. In a few Member State 
programmes, the distinct measures available correspond exactly to those set out in 
Article 2(1) of the agri-environment regulation. In other programmes, however, 
integrated measures have been elaborated, drawing on a number of different headings in 
Article 2(1) without treating them separately. In total the Member State programmes 
comprise over 2200 distinct measures. 
1.10.3 Broad categories of measures 
within Member State programmes 
In order to compare programmes across 
the EU they may be divided into similar 
sub-categories. For the measures listed in 
Articles 2 and 6 of the agri-environment 
regulation, three broad categories are 
evident: environmentally-beneficial pro­
ductive farming; non-productive land 
management; and training and demon­
stration projects. These are listed in 
Table 1.4. Table 1.4: Categories of agri-environment 
measure. 
1. Environmentally-beneficial productive 
fanning 
(a) 
(b) 
(c) organic farming 
non-organic farming 
environmental improvements 
maintenance of existing 
intensity systems with 
low-
Non-productive land management (20-year 
set aside, maintenance of abandoned land, 
landscape features, public access etc.) 
3. Training and demonstration projects 
The main emphasis of the agri-
environment programmes in all Member States, with the exception of the Netherlands, 
is on the first category: over 80% of programme expenditure across the EU is budgeted 
for the support of environmentally-beneficial productive farming. For a more complete 
comparison of the programmes this category has been sub-divided according to the 
intensity and nature of the environmental obligations. It should be underlined that, given 
the different conceptualisation behind each programme, divisions between categories 
should be treated with caution and must be regarded as estimates. Table 1.5 shows the 
approximate percentage breakdown for average programme expenditures, based on 
programmes approved by March 1996. Figure 1.5 illustrates the division within each 
Type of measure / % funding 
1(a) organic 
1(b) farming with environmental 
improvements 
1(c) maintenance of low intensity 
systems 
2 non-productive land management 
3 training and demonstration projects 
Total B 
20% 
58% 
5% 
14% 
3% 
100% Dk 
24% 
46% 
16% 
14% 
0% 
100% D 
1% 
56% 
21% 
21% 
1% 
100% El 
14% 
35% 
0% 
50% 
0% 
100% E 
4% 
35% 
15% 
42% 
4% 
100% F 
3% 
15% 
79% 
3% 
1% 
100% Irl 
2% 
49% 
21% 
24% 
4% 
100% I 
23% 
43% 
22% 
10% 
2% 
100% NL 
2% 
32% 
0% 
0% 
66% 
100% L 
1% 
39% 
56% 
3% 
0% 
100% Ôs 
17% 
59% 
21% 
3% 
0% 
100% P 
4% 
18% 
68% 
6% 
4% 
100% Fin 
5% 
42% 
42% 
7% 
5% 
100% S 
15% 
6% 
71% 
1% 
7% 
100% UK 
2% 
53% 
30% 
14% 
0% 
100% EU-15 
8% 
41% 
35% 
14% 
3% 
100% 
Table 1.5: Estimated proportion of budgeted spending in each Member State (1996 programmes), by category of measure. 
,—lype-of-roeasures 
• 1(a) organic 
Q 1(b) faming Wth 
environmental 
knprovements 
D 1(c) maintenance of 
low intensity s ystems 
B 2 non-productive land 
management 
• 3 training and 
démonstration projects 
Figure 1.5 
Member State budget, showing the diverse approaches to implementation taken across 
the European Union. For example, the Netherlands has chosen to focus its 
implementation on demonstration and awakening projects. In several Member States, 
notably Finland, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and some Lander in Germany, 
substantial measures exist to maintain existing extensive practices, while this type of 
measure is absent from the programmes in Greece. Implementation in each Member 
State up to 1997 will be the subject of a Working Document to be presented to the 
STAR Committee. 
2. EC POLICY FRAMEWORK 
The sections which follow illustrate how the agri-environment programmes are linked to other 
CAP measures, wider Community policy, and how environmental objectives form a part of the 
overall CAP. 
2.1 Interaction with common market organisations 
While environmental measures have been included in structural programmes for many 
years, agri-environment programmes are closely linked with the market regimes of the 
CAP, and in particular with their reform in 1992. Payments are drawn from the guarantee 
section of the EAGGF and the programme is a compulsory one for all Member States. An 
express aim of the agri-environment regulation is to accompany, or contribute to the 
achievement of, the reforms of the CAP. 
In the framework of the market regimes, positive environmental effects have become more 
evident in several sectors as a result of changes in support systems and the promotion of 
environmental conditions to the grant of some premia. However, market regimes in so far as 
they promote production can encourage farmers to adopt practices which exert pressures on 
the environment. Particular examples are aid for silage cereals and other premia which reduce 
the attraction of maintaining extensive grazing. These issues have been explored in the 
Commission publication, Agriculture and the Environment'20, which underlines that in a 
sustainable system of production, environmental costs and benefits should be fully integrated 
into any assessment of economic efficiency. The most recent development has been in the fruit 
and vegetable regime, which requires producer groups to implement agri-environment 
measures21 and specific reference is made to the aims of the agri-environment regulation 
(Table 1.1 above). The effect of these measures in the market sector could be to reduce the 
application of agri-environment programmes under Regulation 2078/92. The Commission is 
seeking to ensure consistency between the national application of the fruit and vegetable 
measures and relevant agri-environment measures, and to ensure that general principles relating 
to public payments for environmental outputs are followed. 
Agri-environment undertakings raise the environmental profile for the relevant production 
activities, for which the farmer may also receive market support. Thus the agri-environment 
measures can contribute to the improvement of the environmental impact of farming supported 
under the market regimes. This effect is particularly marked in the case of agreements covering 
the whole of a farm's production. 
2.2 Structural policies, cohesion and employment 
The contribution of structural programmes and measures (Objectives 1, 5(b) and 6 regional 
programmes, the Objective 5(a) measures and LEADER projects and networks) to 
environmental objectives is described in Agriculture and environment'22. Objective 5(a) 
20 'Agriculture and Environment', A. Cammarata, CAP Working Notes Series, European Commission, 
Luxembourg, 1997, ISBN 92-827-3942-2. 
21 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2200/96 of 28.10.1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit 
and vegetables, OJL 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1, Article 15(4). 
22 See footnote 20. 
10 
originally incorporated some agri-environmental measures, such as premia for extensification 
and long-term set aside for environmental purposes. These were replaced by the equivalent 
measures in the agri-environment regulation. However, of the continuing Objective 5(a) 
measures, two in particular have an impact on the relation between agriculture and the 
environment: aid for farmers in mountain, and other less-favoured areas to compensate for 
permanent natural handicaps to farming (compensatory allowances); and investment aid to 
improve the natural environment. 
The aim of compensatory allowances is to support agriculture in less-favoured areas, where it 
is necessary to protect the countryside, by compensating for natural handicaps to farming. The 
less-favoured farming areas correspond to a large extent to those areas where environmentally 
valuable systems of low-intensity agriculture are practised. 
Investment programmes may be devised with the intention of meeting the capital needs of 
agri-environment schemes. In some cases the success of agri-environment measures depends 
on capital investment, in other cases, the dividing line between capital investments and activities 
eligible for support under the agri-environment regulation is difficult to draw. 
Investment aids, under Objective 5(a) measures and Objective 1 and 6 programmes, cover a far 
wider range than the agri-environment programme and coordination between the types of 
programming can present difficulties. The approval and implementation of rural development 
and agri-environment programmes are subject to different procedures, dates, and criteria which 
further reduce the potential for matching capital and agri-environment aids. Regional 
programmes generally, including Objective 5(b), may include agri-environment actions, in 
particular measures to protect natural zones and traditional landscapes. 
In line with practice under the Structural Funds, the Community contribution to 
agri-environment programmes is higher for Objective 1 regions whose development is lagging 
behind (75% EAGGF) than for other regions (50% EAGGF). Concerning the cohesive effect 
of the programmes, the preliminary evidence shows that the larger programmes tend to be 
available to fanners outside Objective 1 regions, which may indicate that authorities in 
Objective 1 experience more difficulties in operating programmes or with funding the 25% 
national contribution. 
The Committee of the Regions23 expressed the concern that, since agri-environment 
programmes support reductions in intensive farming that lower employment may result. 
However, this is not borne out by the few studies which have been carried out which show a 
neutral or positive effect on employment, particularly where the agri-environment undertakings 
require improved management of agricultural land. 
2.3 International agreements 
Implementation of the agri-environment regulation contributes to the fulfillment of the 
European Union's obligations under Agenda 21', which was agreed at the Rio Earth Summit in 
1992. The Convention of Biological Diversity requires the signatories to prepare national plans 
for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. 
23 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'The regional consequences of CAP reform", CoR 17/96, 
19.2.1996, p. 7 
11 
Following the reforms in 1992, the instruments of the CAP, including the accompanying 
measures, comprised part of the Community's commitments under the Uruguay Round 
Agreement reached in 1993. Under this agreement, the EU is committed to limiting its 
aggregate level of support based on yield. Environmental payments are classified in the 'green 
box' and exempt from quantitative limitations. 
In the context of discussions in the OECD, the environmental benefits of agriculture were the 
subject of a seminar held in Helsinki24 in 1996. Several Member States of the EU presented 
their agri-environment programmes as country case studies and the European Commission 
presented two papers25 on the Community perspective, one on the operation of the regulation 
and one by independent experts on the dependency of much of European biodiversity on the 
continuation of certain extensive systems of farming. In the conclusion to the seminar, the 
participants agreed that agricultural activities have both beneficial and harmful effects on the 
environment and the policy challenge is to reduce the harmful effects and enhance the beneficial 
effects; and that agri-environmental objectives, including the maintenance of landscape, are 
unlikely to be achieved by agricultural policy reform alone: they require specific environmental 
policy measures. No single policy solution would be appropriate: a wide array of approaches 
are available, ranging from voluntary approaches, dissemination of results of research, 
education and training, to regulatory measures and financial incentives and disincentives to 
farmers. In addition the seminar recognized that in so far as environmental benefits are 
dependent on the continuation of agriculture, the opportunities for the total decoupling of 
support from production are limited. However, fanners should only be paid for the provision of 
environmental services which the market cannot deliver where their farming activities go 
beyond a reference level, such as that of good agricultural practice in the region concerned. 
The seminar also concluded that policy instruments need to be transparent, targeted, tailored to 
specific environmental situations, carefully monitored for compliance and efficient 
implementation and evaluated against defined objectives. 
2.4 Environment policy 
Agri-environment programmes and measures reflect closely the agricultural aims of the 
Community fifth environmental action programme26, including that of promoting sustainability 
in farming methods. In the Commission's progress report on the implementation of the fifth 
environmental action programme27, emphasis is placed on the need to integrate environmental 
conditions into agriculture policy in general28. Concerning the agri-environment programmes, 
the report concludes that an evaluation methodology should be established and, subject to 
effective implementation in the Member States, an extension of the measures should be 
considered. 
24 OECD Seminar on the Environmental Benefits from Sustainable Agriculture, Helsinki, Finland, 10-13 
September 1996. 
25 OECD:COM/AGR/ENV/EPOC/596/112. 
26 COM (92)23, 27.3.1992. 
27 10/1/96, COM(95)624 final. The Commission proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision 
on the progress report commits the Community to a policy of further integration of environmental 
requirements into agriculture policy. 
28 The Treaty of Rome, Article 130r, provides that environment protection requirements must be integrated 
into the definition and implementation of other Community policies. 
12 
The Directive on the protection of wild birds and their habitats29 introduced measures to 
protect certain species of bird, such as the establishment of special protection zones. Under the 
Habitats Directive, Member States establish sites of special interest for biodiversity which 
together will form a coherent European ecological network, NATURA 2000'. For those habitats 
which comprise traditionally-farmed environments, agri-environment measures such as 
reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers, setting-aside field boundaries and scheduling farm 
activities can be applied. In addition the measure for environmental set-aside may be used to 
create wilderness habitats, such as wetlands. Under the Nitrates Directive30, Member States 
designate vulnerable zones based on water sampling results and establish mandatory action 
plans, usually comprising restrictions on farm activities31. In addition codes of good practice 
are promoted. In several Member States additional measures to reduce the effects of leaching, 
including flooding land, conversion of arable land to pasture and reducing or ceasing the use of 
nitrate fertilizer, have been implemented under the agri-environment programmes. 
The Commission has proposed a framework water directive32, bringing together all aspects of 
water policy, with a view to coordinating measures to be taken within river basins. Many 
agri-environment programmes already address water quality issues. 
2.5 Genetic resources, research 
Programmes include measures to rear animals of local farm breeds in danger of extinction, to 
protect genetic plant resources in agriculture and to promote biodiversity of plant and animal 
species. The agriculture and fisheries research programme (FAIR) of the Community's fourth 
framework programme for research (1994-1998) covers agriculture-environment 
interactions33. Genetic resources supported under agri-environment programmes and relevant 
research projects and other studies funded by the Community will be the subject of Working 
Documents to be presented to the STAR Committee. 
2.6 Animal welfare and hunting 
Agri-environment programmes cannot be used to support activities which would contravene 
Community standards of animal welfare. Although, no areas of conflict have arisen during the 
first years of implementation, the Commission includes in all decisions approving 
agri-environment programmes the condition that approval of programmes is without prejudice 
to Community rules on animal welfare. In relation to wild fauna, programmes designed 
specifically to develop hunting and shooting areas are not eligible for support. 
29 Directive 79/409 of 2.4.1979, OJ L 103 2.5.1979, p.l. This scheme was included within the more 
comprehensive Directive 92/43 of 21.5.1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 
flora, OJL 206 22.7.1992, p.7. 
30 Directive 91/676 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural 
sources of 12.12.1991, OJL 375 31.12.1991, p.l. 
31 In particular the application of manure is limited to 170 KgN/ha. 
32 COM(96)59 final, 21.02.1996, 'European Community Water Policy'. 
33 Section 4.1.2, 1996 Work Programme, Agriculture and fisheries research. 
13 
3. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION UP TO 1997 
3.1 The initial phase: programme approvals 
The agri-environment regulation set a deadline of July 1993 by which time programmes should 
have been sent to the Commission for approval. Most programmes were received by or soon 
after this date and, by the end of 1993, the Commission had completed an overview of all 
notified programmes. In most cases the content of programmes and the budgetary estimates 
had to be adjusted to conform more closely to the provisions of the agri-environment 
regulation. As a result of the initial delays only 16 programmes were approved in 1993, but 
83 new programmes and amendments were approved in 1994 and 59 in 1995. By the end of 
1996, agri-environment programmes had been launched in all Member States with the 
exception of Luxembourg, where implementation had been considerably delayed. 
3.2 Budget estimates and EAGGF provision 
Initial estimates of programme budgets for the first 5 years (1993-97) were extremely high -
2XA times the Commission's estimate in 1991 at the time of the adoption of the 
agri-environment regulation. Following initial 
discussions with Member States, and then as Table 3.1: 
programmes were approved and implemented, 
the amounts were revised downwards as shown 
in Table 3.1. 
For the new Member States, amounts were 
recorded in a declaration to the Treaty of 
Accession totaling ECU 1529 million for the 
period 1995-97. Table 3.2(a) compares the 
estimates, the amounts retained in approved 
programmes with the likely out-turn. The most 
substantial short-falls have been in those Member 
States and regions for which agri-environment 
programmes were a new departure, such as parts 
of Italy, Spain and Greece. In Member States which had previous experience of managing 
programmes, such as Austria, Finland, Germany and France the programmes were more 
rapidly implemented. Expenditure for EU 12 has fallen short of budget in each year up to 1996 
(Table 3.2(b)). For EU15 there was a substantial underspend in 1995 owing to the late Evolution of EAGGF budget 
estimate 
Estimate 1993-97 (EU-12) ECU million 
Commission estimate, December 2256 
1991 
Initial programme forecasts, ' 5830 
December 1993 
Revised forecasts, July 1994 3670 
Budget in approved programmes, 3915 
October 1995 
Likely out-tum (1997 estimated) 2455 
Table 3.2(a) (1) based on initial Member State estimations 
(2) at Dec.1996 (3) 1997 estimate (4) 1995-97 
implementation of the programmes in the new Member States. First payments in these 
countries were not made until 1996, in which financial period two years' expenditure for 
Austria and Finland were recorded, and expenditure for EU15 slightly exceeded the budget. In 
1997, two years' expenditure was made for Italian programmes, and the latest estimates point 
to an overshoot of the budget for EU15 of about ECU 350 million. 
3.3 Total programme budget 
Agri-environment programmes are part-financed by the Community (EAGGF, guarantee 
section) at the rate of 75% in Objective 1 regions or 50% in other regions. The balance of the 
co-financible programme is paid by the Member State or the region. Table 3.3 illustrates the 
total programme out-turn for each Member State (1997 is estimated) showing the parts 
Total coflnanclble 
(ECU 
Member 
State 
B 
Dk 
D 
El 
E 
F 
Irt 
I 
NL 
L 
P 
UK 
Os 
Fin 
S 
EU15 expenditure ' 
million) 
EAGGF Out-turn 
Member 
State 
3 
19 
918 
11 
125 
509 
163 
432 
25 
4 
148 
98 
806 
399 
126 
3787 3 
19 
376 
4 
42 
509 
54 
282 
24 
4 
49 
94 
746 
399 
126 
2458 Total 
38 
1294 
15 
167 
1018 
217 
714 
49 
9 
197 
192 
1553 
798 
252 
6244 -5 g * * 
Figure 13(b) Proportion prid by EAGGF • MemMrSta» 
• EAGGF 
m , H , M , M 
Member State 
D EAGGF B Utrrtm State Figure 3.3(a) 
Table 3.3 : Member State and EAGGF contributions (cofinancible expenditure) out-turn 1993-97 (est) 
contributed by Community and national funds for the period up to 1997. Five Member States 
account for 86% of the expenditure, corresponding to the programmes which have had widest 
application. 
The development of EAGGF expenditure is shown in Table 3.4. It is evident from this table 
that programmes in Germany, Spain, France, Portugal and the UK became operational 
Member 
State 
B 
Dk 
D 
El 
E 
F 
Irl 
I 
L 
NL 
Ôs 
P 
Fin 
S 
UK 
EU 15 EVOLUTION OF EAGGF EXPENDITURE 
EAGGF part only : million ECU 
1993 
37 
8 
67 
10 
123 1994 1995 1996 
2 
123 
14 
73 3 
223 
16 
106 
19 
54 
39 
20 2 
6 
232 
2 
33 
119 
43 
42 
8 
541 
40 
257 
43 
26 
231 485 1391 1997 
2 
9 
304 
10 
54 
144 
100 
336 
4 
12 
264 
58 
143 
83 
36 
1556 Total up 
to 1997 
3 
19 
918 
11 
125 
509 
163 
432 
4 
25 
805 
148 
399 
126 
98 
3786 ECU million 
600 
Member State B <- B 
Table 3.4 Figure 3.4 
reasonably quickly. For most Member States there was a delay of two or more years before 
programmes were in place. The process of developing new programmes has not come to an 
end. In Denmark programmes were redesigned and relaunched in 1997 and significant new 
programmes are under development or have been launched in the UK, Greece and Sweden. 
15 
1996 and 1997 were the first full years of application for most Member States. The estimated 
expenditure for 1997 is given in Table 3.5, which shows substantial implementation in most 
Member States. Figures are also shown in Table 3.5 for the total proportion of EAGGF 
(guarantee) expenditure spent on agri-environment programmes. Comparison shows that on 
Figure 3.5(a) Table 3.5(b) and Figure 3.5(b) 
average, 3.6% of guarantee expenditure was accounted for under the programmes. The 
proportion is substantially higher in the new Member States ranging from 7% in Sweden to 
22% in Austria. Despite the high figures in a few Member States expenditure on 
agri-environment programmes represents only 1.6-1.8% of the total EU budget, as shown in 
Table 3.6. 
ECU billion 
Total EC budget 
of which EAGGF (guarantee) 
of which agri-environment 
agri-environment as % of total 
budget out-turn 
1993 1994 1995 1996 
67,760 65,929 73,555 85,094 
34,590 32,970 34,503 39,108 
123 231 485 1,391 
0.18% 0.35% 0.66% 1.63% estimate 
1997 
87,651 
41,233 
1,557 
1.78% 
Table 3.6 1996 Division of budget 
R. 2078/92 
2% 
EAGGF EM 
(guarantee) ||g| 44% fill I rest of budget 
j 54% 
3.4 Implementation data 
By the mid-point in the 1997 budget year, 1.35 million agreements had been signed with 
farmers, covering 17% of all holdings and persons employed in agriculture in the EU. 
I Member Number Total no. employed in 
State participants agriculture (ASEU 1996) 
number '000 % 
B 1 242 ÎÔ2 1% 
Dk 8 193 114 7% 
D 554 836 1197 46% 
El* 1 839 780 0% 
E 29 599 1119 3% 
F 177 695 1080 16% 
Irl 23 855 140 17% 
I** 63 841 1489 4% 
L 1 922 6 32% 
NL 5 854 243 2% 
ôs*** 180 000 267 67% 
P 125 479 507 25% 
Fin 91 509 156 59% 
S 68 969 124 56% 
UK 21 482 533 4% 
EU15 | 1356 315 | 7857 17% 
* 7995dala; " 1996data; "'estimated 
Table 3.7 Number of participants at 15.4. 1997 Figure 3.7 
16 
Table 3.7 shows a break-down by Member State. In Austria the programme reached nearly 
70% of those employed in agriculture and around 50% in Finland, Germany and Sweden. 
Agreements covered 22.3 million hectares, or 17% of the utilized agricultural area (UAA) of 
the EU. The most widespread programmes were in Austria, Luxembourg and Finland (over 
70% UAA). Coverage was over 30% of UAA in Sweden and Germany (Table 3.8). The level 
of premia per hectare averaged 117 ECU per ha, with most average premia falling in the range 
60-150 ECU/ha (Figure 3.8(b)). Figures for Greece and Italy are not available. 
Take up (hectares) 
3takeup1997 
-take up 1997 as % 
UAA 
^T-^-T-* BOH 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 
Figure 3.8(a) P UK 
Member Stat* 
Member 
State 
B 
Dk 
D 
El* 
E 
F 
Irl 
I" 
L 
NL 
us 
P 
Fin 
S 
UK Total 
cofinancible 
expenditure 
1997,est 
ECU million 
3 
17 
428 
13 
72 
287 
134 
560 
9 
23 
509 
77 
285 
166 
70 
2652 Total take-up 
at 15.4.1997 Averafe 
, . payment per 
(only area ™ £ 
payments) 
•000 ha ECU/ha 
17 
94 
6353 
12 
532 
5725 
801 
977 
97 
31 
2500 
606 
2000 
1561 
1322 84 
186 
89 
n/a 
81 
42 
147 
n/a 
90 
260 
140 
137 
124 
156 
55 
22628 UAA (Utilized 
agricultural 
area) (ASEU 
1996) 
'000 ha estimate of % 
UAA within 
2078 
% 
1 366 
2 715 
17 344 
5 741 
25 092 
30 277 
4 444 
17 294 
127 
1 981 
3 449 
3 981 
2 605 
3 438 
15 852 1% 
3% 
37% 
0% 
2% 
19% 
18% 
6% 
76% 
2% 
72% 
15% 
77% 
45% 
8% 
135 706 17% Average premia 
'data 1995; "data 1996. Figure 3.8(b) 
Further detail of the implementation in the Member States will be the subject of a Working 
Document which the Commission intends to present to the £TAR committee. From the 
outline data presented it is clear that some Member States make very substantial use of the 
opportunities under the regulation, while in others implementation, is at low levels or restricted 
to certain areas. Low implementation may reflect difficulties for Member States or regions to 
secure the national contribution to funding. A similarly diverse picture is evident within 
Member States for those programmes which have been managed on a regional basis. 
3.5 Monitoring, evaluation and follow up by the Commission 
The possible impacts of the land management measures fall into three categories covering the 
three aims of the agri-environment regulation: impacts on the environment; on agricultural 
production; and socio-economic impacts. For the measures concerning public access and 
training and demonstration projects, different criteria are needed. The Commission drew up a 
guide to monitoring and evaluation in 1995 identifying all the areas which needed to be 
analyzed and this was presented to Member States in the STAR Committee as a Working 
17 
Document34. Tin's document lists all the elements which need to be considered in planning 
evaluations and presents basic principles, such as the need to establish base-line data. 
Following adoption of the implementing regulation, which includes a provision setting out the 
obligations on the Member States to monitor and evaluate programmes35, the Commission 
received details of monitoring and evaluation strategies for all Member States except 
Luxembourg and Portugal. By October 1997, official evaluation reports had been received in 
respect of some programmes in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the 
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Most evaluation reports broadly correspond to the 
criteria set out by the Commission in 1995. The results will be set out in more detail, 
together with addresses where the reports may be obtained, in a further STAR Working 
Document. However, some of the main conclusions reached are set out below, bearing in 
mind that the evaluation process for most programmes is at an early stage. 
Concerning differences in programme implementation, these are due to a variety of 
factors, including the presence of pre-existing agri-environmental policies, the perception 
of the viability of measures, regional or local agricultural and environmental conditions, 
and budgetary restrictions and consequent choices made at the national level. The reports 
conclude that premia levels are function of the degree of targeting of a measure, the 
agricultural activity concerned, the degree of constraints imposed, level of active 
participation expected or desired, physical conditions, production costs, regional priorities 
and the availability of national matching funds. 
Concerning the effectiveness of programme application, previous administrative 
experience and the provision of adequate information are identified as key factors in 
successful programmes. Growth in rates of up-take suggests an adoption path very similar 
to the classical one for innovations: innovators then early adopters and in some cases 
reaching the stage of the advance majority. This is not surprising since in most cases agri-
environment programmes require the farmer to introduce technical innovations. Despite 
their importance, information and training have received generally scarce attention from 
Member States, with the notable exceptions of the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent 
Sweden. 
Effects of schemes on the farmer's income under the CMO regimes or other schemes such 
as the agri-forestry programmes can be decisive factors in limiting adoption if farmers are 
not persuaded that the agri-environment payment adequately covers their losses. This 
factor concerns in particular compensatory payments for arable crops and payments under 
beef and sheep regimes which are based on headage payment and thus encourage 
production within the limits set out in the CMO. Agri-environment programmes are also 
adversely influenced by concern that in foregoing arable cultivation the farmer might lose 
the possibility of access to payments should a new base area or fully decoupled payments 
be introduced; for dairy production agri-environmental take-up is limited by concerns 
over the future of the unused quota. Concerning new schemes, competition with 
afforestation programmes has been identified in some regions. 
The evaluation reports also highlight the difficulties and expense of scientific monitoring, 
absences in base-line data and difficulties in the use of indicators. Concerning the development 
34 Working Document VI/3872/97, which consolidated previous Working Documents. 
35 Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/96, Article 16. 
18 ^__^^____ 
of indicators, the Commission is contributing to work within the EU and in international fora, 
particularly in the OECD. Work on indicators covers a vast range of areas, including in 
particular the following six aspects: discharge of nutrients into eco-systems and waters; 
discharge of plant protection products into eco-systems and waters; effects on climate change 
and global warming; deterioration in the biodiversity of wild flora and fauna; changes in 
cultivated landscape; development of genetic resources (domestic fauna and plant varieties). 
In order to follow the progress of the implementation and evaluation of the agri-environment 
programmes, the Commission holds regular bilateral meetings with the Member States. In this 
way the Commission had early knowledge of the development of programmes, problems with 
implementation and of the high number of amendments to programmes which Member States 
began to submit soon after adoption. 
3.6 Assessment of measures by category36 
3.6.1 Environmentally-beneficial productive farming 
(1) organic farming ; 
In some Member States the consumer demand for organic produce has expanded 
enormously in recent years. The benefits to the environment where normal farming 
systems convert to organic production are extremely high, for example in terms of 
ceasing the use of pesticides. Throughout the EU there are well-established 
organisations which monitor organic farms, maintain standards, and promote organic 
produce in line with the provisions of the Council regulation on organic standards37. 
Evaluation reports highlight the proven environmental benefits on soil and water quality 
and on biodiversity. Profitability is dependent on market possibilities and size of premia. 
Given the volatility of organic markets, it is difficult to predict effects on income. The 
Commission intends to present a Working Document to the STAR committee on 
support for organic farming. 
(2) non-organic farming with environmental improvements 
Adjustments to farming practices supported in Member State programmes include reducing 
inputs, strict scheduling of farm activities, leaving strips beside fields free of spray, 
undersowing grass in crops, reducing stocking density, causing the periodic flooding of 
low-lying land, etc. These and similar techniques may reduce substantially the stress on the 
environment and, if well managed, can result in an increase in biodiversity and reductions in 
pesticide use and nutrient loss. This type of measure may require extra work and result in 
reduced levels of production. Integrated farming techniques, provided they comprise low 
levels of chemical inputs, are increasingly widespread and schemes are supported under 
agri-environment programmes. As with organic production, organizations are being 
established to monitor production and control standards. However the lack of common 
standards and consequent proliferation of labels in some places has led to uncertainty for 
consumers and others. 
36 Categories described at Section 1.10. 
37 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications 
referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ No L 198, 22.7.1991, p.l. 
19 
Evaluation reports highlight the complex variety of measures applied in the different 
programmes. Environmental benefits are shown in respect of water quality, the 
reduction of erosion, the preservation of the agricultural landscape especially in the case 
of perennial crops and conservation of biotic resources. Monitoring water quality is 
shown to be problematical as positive effects may take many years to be realised. This 
suggests that relevant programmes need to be continued for decades in order to be 
effective. It is also frequently impossible to attribute environmental benefits to the 
actions of an individual farmer. In some regions, with fertile soils or with many 
livestock units per farm, there has been a low take-up of environmentally beneficial 
measures which limit production capacity. In these areas the environmental threats may 
be severe and the effectiveness of current approaches may be questioned. 
Management agreements in sensitive zones aimed at promoting biodiversity seem to 
achieve high value positive effects, and take-up has been high where the authorities 
have been able to target promotional and information activities and where the 
agreements do not require big changes in applied farm technologies. In cases where 
greater changes to farm procedures are needed with the active involvement of farmers 
as 'guardians of the countryside', the level of the premium can be a key element in 
determining the level of take-up. 
Concerning preservation of genetic resources, the programmes show a clear positive 
effect on genetic resources while there is no effect on market balance. The measure for 
preservation of useful plants threatened by genetic erosion has not been applied to a 
sufficient extent for conclusions to be drawn. 
(3) maintenance of existing low-intensity systems 
The environmental obligations may be fairly light, comprising the maintenance of traditional 
farming methods, maintenance of the landscape, low levels of inputs, low levels of stocking 
density and, in the case of grassland, a prohibition on ploughing or disturbing natural 
features on the land. The premium per hectare is correspondingly low, reflecting the 
extensive nature of the farming. In marginal areas, however, where a substantial effort is 
required of farmers to stay on the land, and where traditional low-intensity systems are 
necessary for the continued protection of the environment and maintenance of high natural-
value sites, this type of measure can be a valuable instrument to help maintain the 
environment and the traditional fanned landscape. Similar programmes exist, for example 
under the structural funds, designed to maintain agriculture in disadvantaged farming 
areas38. 
The evaluation reports show that measures for the promotion and maintenance of 
extensive grassland have had a significant impact in several countries by preventing 
intensification, underuse or abandonment. It is usually based on the limitation of 
livestock/land ratio and on restrictions on the use of nitrogen fertilisers. Environmental 
benefits include the reduction of erosion, the preservation of the pastoral landscape and 
conservation of biotic resources. The measure has a higher impact on market balance 
when it takes the form of conversion of arable land into extensive grassland. In some 
Member States some reduction in production has been estimated. The measure should 
provide an environmental benefit to society, i.e. the farmer should provide positive 
externalities. 
38 eg. Compensatory allowances under objective 5(a) of the structural funds; see section 2.2. 
20 
3.6.2 Non-productive land management (maintenance of abandoned land, 
environmental set-aside, landscape features, public access) 
Measures which promote the conservation or restoration of habitats or biotopes, for 
example through permanent flooding of land, normally entail very significant reductions 
in, or the complete cessation of, production. There may, however, be a substantial 
amount of work to be done on the land under the terms of the farmer's undertaking. It is 
very unlikely that such habitats would be created without public land purchase or the 
type of agreements available under' agri-environment programmes. In the same way, a 
substantial effort is required of farmers who undertake to clear abandoned land of scrub 
in order to guard against fire hazards or who keep up stone walls, terracing, hedges, 
ponds, wells, and farming landscape features which may be essential to guard against 
erosion. Concerning 20-year set aside, all agricultural activity is normally disallowed. 
However, where the control of unwanted undergrowth is specified, the most desirable 
method of doing this may be to use grazing animals for a short period of a few days, 
and subject to strict controls. Few programmes have been developed to promote public 
access39. In one case, it became clear that farmers expected compensation to be 
calculated as a function of disturbance, particularly near to urban centres. Calculations 
based on income foregone and costs incurred are not always seen as the most suitable 
basis by farmers. 
Evaluation reports show that the long-term set-aside measure is usually limited to 
particular areas in order to achieve specific objectives in nature conservation. The 20 
years length can limit potential take-up. As the measure can be very important for 
conservation purposes, it is important to study how to increase participation. Analysis 
of past experience for Member States suggests that the rigidity of the 20-year 
agreement is a dissuasive factor and more significant than the level of premium in 
determining take-up. Different mechanisms suggested include premia which are indexed 
linked or allow farmers to leave agreements after a shorter period than the full 20 years. 
Evaluations of the measures for upkeep of abandoned farmland and woodland illustrate 
that this measure can give a positive contribution to conservation (erosion, landscape) 
while securing the role of farmers as providers of these services. The measures have no 
impact on market balance. Level of premium need to cover the costs sustained by 
farmers. 
3.6.3 Training and demonstration projects 
Training is provided at various levels. For individual farmers, courses focus on the 
measures in the national programme and specific issues related to the protection of the 
environment and the maintenance of the landscape. Training is also given in some cases 
to experts who draw up farm plans, advise farmers, or train others. Demonstration 
projects are normally closely linked to the themes of the national agri-environmental 
programme and focused on the promotion of appropriate production methods, 
knowledge and technology. 
39 Some Member States have a general right of public access to farmland enshrined in their domestic law. 
21 
3.6.4 Integrated and whole-farm plans 
Programmes in a few Member States adopt an integrated approach to implementation 
of the measures. For example, in one case, all aspects of the farm are analysed and a 
series of measures comprising farming methods, creation of habitats, conservation of 
landscape features, and training for the farmer are agreed. The success of these 
programmes will depend on the quality of the planning and expert advice from advisors. 
Concerning whole farm agreements, one interim evaluation report has concluded that all 
agri-environment agreements should be based on undertakings applying to the whole 
farm. 
3.7 Developments in programme management and administration 
3.7.1 Level of take up 
In many programmes, but by no means all, the levels of take-up have been substantially 
below initial estimates. The Commission has identified six main reasons, as summarised 
Table 3.9: Reasons for low take up. 
(a) initial difficulties and the resulting delays experienced in the start-up phase of the programme may have 
discouraged some farmers. Most programmes have been approved and are now in operation and farmers can see 
that the programmes are established and the opportunities deserve serious consideration; 
(b) estimates of take up provided to the Commission by some Member States may have been over-optimistic; 
(c) levels of compensation for costs and income foregone may be considered by some fanners to be insufficient and/or 
incentive payments may be considered too low for some measures; 
(d) unavailability of matching funding from national or regional sources; 
(e) farmers may be reluctant to bind themselves into contracts for 5 years or more; 
(f) lack of adequate publicity and insufficient promotion af schemes. 
in Table 3.9. Against this, a few Member States and regions have experienced very high 
levels of take up, in some cases beyond the budgetary capacity of the programmes. 
Divergencies between high and low levels of take up have resulted in an overall 
imbalance between Member States and between regions. The Commission has sought to 
encourage implementation in those Member States where it has been insufficient and to 
limit spending beyond the agreed financial ceilings. 
3.7.2 Land tenure 
Particular difficulties have arisen in the case of leased land and traditional land tenure 
systems, such as common-held land or land on renewable leases, technically terminable 
at one year's notice. For leased land, the lessor is required to ensure agreements can be 
carried out for the agreement period. However, some measures and some programmes 
have been withheld from farmers unable to meet the conditions of grant by reason of the 
land tenure arrangements. 
3.7.3 Control measures and penalties 
The agri-environment programmes have presented considerable difficulties for checking 
the performance of undertakings. Many environmental land management measures 
require activities to be undertaken at different times of the year. Unlike systems of 
control for the market regimes, where one visit to a farm is needed for verification 
purposes, for the agri-environment programmes several visits may be required to check 
the full range of undertakings given. As far as possible, the systems for the control of 
22 
programmes and penalties for wrongful payment have been adapted to the integrated 
control and administration system40. 
3.7.4 Calculation of premia and maximum co-fmancible amounts 
Premia are in principle payable for undertakings which go beyond a minimum standard 
on the basis of net income foregone, costs incurred and the need to provide an 
incentive. Thus premia neither contain an income element nor can they be considered as 
being subsidies. The Commission seeks to ensure that premia are held within the 
criteria, both to be in line with the provisions of the agri-environment regulation and to 
ensure that programmes retain their 'green box1 status. The regulation sets ceilings on 
the amounts to be reimbursed41 according to land use. However, in the case of mixed 
farms, farms which practice rotation, or farms with varied environmental features, the 
application of different maximum amounts for different fields can become confusing. 
3.7.5 Extensification 
In some programmes, measures designed to achieve extensification by paying per 
livestock unit removed have been less successful than equivalent stock removal 
measures which pay a per hectare rate for environmental stock management. A 
particular difficulty with the measure including payment per livestock unit removed is 
that separate land management measures may be excluded or the maximum premia 
halved42. 
3.7.6 Landscape and historical features 
Several Member States have included proposals to support the maintenance and 
creation of farm features such as terracing, hedgerows, stone walls, ponds, single trees, 
and so on. Justifications advanced have included protection of amenity value (especially 
the visual aspect), promotion of biodiversity, preservation of ancient boundaries, and 
cultural heritage. The Commission has accepted the maintenance of these features in co-
financed programmes, usually as ancillary measures to the main environmental land 
management of farmland or combined with the condition that farmers must adhere to 
good agricultural practice on the adjacent fields. Archaeological sites have normally 
been excluded on the ground of insufficient environmental justification. Some historical 
remains, however, particularly earth works, can be argued to both be part of the 
landscape and require changes to, or limitations on, farm practice for their preservation. 
3.7.7 Endangered breeds and crop varieties 
In approving programmes to support the rearing of endangered farm animals, the 
Commission has established a list of eligible breeds43 of equidae, cattle, sheep and 
goats. In addition minimum eligibility criteria have been established. Requests have been 
made to develop the criteria and to extend the measure to other breeds. Some Member 
States have also proposed measures to support the growing of threatened crop 
40 Regulation 746/96, Articles 19 and 20. 
41 Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Article 4. 
42 idem. Article 4(3) 
43 STAR Working Documents VI/5104/92 and VI/3879/94. 
23 
varieties, and the Commission has accepted measures for individual local crop varieties 
clearly in danger of extinction. 
3.7.8 2 0-year set aside and management of abandoned land 
The 20-year undertaking has proved to be unpopular with farmers, although for certain 
environmental objectives 20 years is needed. Some Member States have established 5-
year set-aside by citing other measures in the regulation or combining measures with 
set-aside options under the arable regime. However, market set-aside, does not cover 
pasture and the conditions of use may not be optimal from an environmental 
perspective. 
In limited circumstances, the maintenance of abandoned land may be undertaken by 
non-farmers44. Concerning maintenance of abandoned woodland, the Commission has 
sought to prevent the measure being used in circumstances where local authorities have 
the responsibility for up keep or where the owner is available to assume responsibility 
for the woodland. 
3.7.9 Training and demonstration projects 
Most Member States have included measures or programmes for training of farmers 
and demonstration projects. Since many agri-environment agreements require farmers 
to implement new techniques or understand complex environmental processes and 
balanced systems of production, the training measures, which are optional on Member 
States under the regulation, may be seen as essential' to the success of certain 
programmes. The Commission intends to present Working Documents to the STAR 
Committee on training and demonstration projects. 
3.7.10 Non-premia measures 
Many measures could be envisaged to promote agri-environment techniques which do 
not involve premia payments although there may be organisational expenses. Examples 
include farm and local area planning, provision of advice on the farm environment or 
natural history, self-help groups, etc. An enormous amount of data is available about 
environmental processes and farming systems. However, allowing farmers access to the 
information and enabling them to acquire the knowledge calls for a greater imaginative 
effort than the publication of booklets summarising codes of good agricultural practice. 
New technology provides opportunities for delivering information and providing 
training needed for farmers to be able to manage their environment effectively and to 
understand the processes involved. 
44 Regulation 2078/92. Article 5(l)(c) and Regulation 746/96, Article 6. 
24 
4. CONCLUSIONS 
4.1 Outstanding issues 
4.1.1 Justifying support for existing extensive systems 
In the case of agri-environment measures which support existing extensive systems, the 
extent of the environmental impact must be under continual scrutiny. Such measures 
should be focused on zones where real farming difficulties exist as a result of the 
declining profitability of traditional farming systems which are environmentally valuable 
and where abandonment of the land use or the decline in pasture management (or, in 
some cases, intensification) would be the logical economic choice. In marginal farming 
regions, where the threat to the environment is posed by a tendency to abandon or to 
reduce pasture management, the costs calculation must take these economic realities 
into account. In these areas the environmental justifications for continuing a particular 
type of extensive agriculture are compelling, underlining the importance of appropriate 
measures to secure the future of this farming. In other areas, farmers receiving premia 
must also be shown to make real efforts which benefit the environment and, where 
necessary, consideration must be given to strengthening measures following 
independent evaluation. 
The minimum standard of acceptable agricultural practice which farmers should follow 
without receiving premia is not uniform across the EU. It differs between Member 
States and between regions according to state of advancement of agriculture, and local, 
socio-economic, and environmental factors. It is not a static concept even within one 
region and will develop over time. In some Member States the application of codes of 
'good agricultural practice' is compulsory; in others they are voluntary. As farming 
standards develop, so should the measures contained within the agri-environment 
programmes which are intended to go beyond the application of minimum standards. 
However, the level must be practically feasible in the light of conditions prevailing in the 
region concerned. 
In relation to 'income foregone', the calculation must be based on the reasonable income 
which the farmer does not receive as a result of the undertaking. This should exclude 
calculations for a method of production or land use which the farmer would have been 
unlikely to implement. 
4.1.2 Targeting 
Some of the agri-environment measures having significant benefit for the environment 
require farmers to forego a considerable level of income, for example by giving up 
productive farming on certain parcels of land altogether. It follows that, given normal 
public budgetary constraints, these measures are better targeted on small areas (and 
fully funded) than available too widely with the result that premia are too low or the 
measure is simply not implemented due to a lack of matching funds. 
Agri-environment measures should only be available in an area in so far as the 
environmental conditions addressed are common throughout the area. Highly detailed 
obligations specific to one type of land and farming tradition will of necessity be most 
limited in geographical application. Measures which apply in a uniform way across an 
25 
entire region or Member State or, possibly, across several Member States, should only 
cover environmental circumstances or objectives common to the larger zone. 
4.1.3 Regionalization and responsibility 
The formulation, implementation and evaluation of agri-environment programmes 
should remain primarily the responsibility of the national or regional authorities. They 
have the necessary knowledge, data, resources and commitment to establish 
programmes best suited to the local circumstances and which will command local 
support. The development, implementation and evaluation of programmes should be the 
subject of a broad consultation at local or regional level, including environmental and 
farming organisations. Through such a process measures can be targeted on regional 
priorities, such as the need to reduce nutrient leaching, preserve natural habitats 
designated under NATURA 2000 or guard against fire and erosion risk. 
However, it should be recognised that a regionalized approach based on administrative 
units does not always lead to appropriate solutions from the point of view of 
environmental geography. For example, where a single agri-environment need spans a 
regional border, such as the need to reduce nitrate run-off into a single river system, a 
strong argument can be made to encourage regional authorities to co-operate closely 
and present consistent or at least compatible measures to address the common problem. 
In addition, there are some types of measures, for example basic support for existing 
low intensity systems, or premia for almost identical organic production systems, where 
regional differences would be hard to justify and a regional approach may even result in 
anomalies. These measures are better suited to a national or trans-national approach. 
4.1.4 Tendering 
While no proposals to award agreements on the basis of tender calls have yet been 
made, a few Member States have expressed interest in this procedure. Tendering would 
be unlikely to deliver better value in relation to certain agri-environment obligations, 
particularly where agreements need to be developed with farmers individually. 
However, for suitable measures, tendering would offer the prospect of a more rational 
means of approving agri-environment expenditure. 
4.1.5 Diverse sources of funding 
The Community now supports environmental activities, to be carried out by farmers, 
not only through the agri-environment programmes, but also by means of the forestry 
and early retirement programmes, Objectives 1, 6 and 5b programmes, the LEADER 
programme, investments under Objective 5a, and in some cases, through the markets 
regimes. In addition, Member States which have the available national resources are 
able to operate extensive systems of State aided measures and top-ups to co-financed 
measures. These diverse sources of funding must be well co-ordinated if anomalies are 
to be avoided in future. AGENDA 2000 contains proposals to rationalise all measures 
into integrated regional programmes, in which it will be essential to ensure that the 
environmental aims are clearly identified and retained and not diluted as a result of the 
programming process. 
AGENDA 2000 also proposes for the development of the Compensatory allowances 
scheme to become a basic instrument to maintain and promote low input farming 
26 
systems. Compensatory allowances provide a basis to support farmers subject to 
farming handicaps. 
4.1.6 Horizontal application 
AGENDA 2000 proposes to continue the application of agri-environment programmes 
throughout the territory of Member States. Within the new Objectives 1 and 2 areas, 
the programmes will be preserved together with other elements of regional 
programmes. Outside these areas, agri-environmental programmes will form part of the 
same legal framework as other rural policies. Where an agri-environmental zone crosses 
a regional boundary, the programming process will need to be respected in the different 
areas. 
4.1.7 Funding 
AGENDA 2000 gives an indicative expenditure for the three accompanying measures of 
ECU 2.8 billion in the year 2000. Growth in expenditure is expected to come from 
those Member States where implementation has been low so far and programme 
developments throughout the EU. Since expenditure is and, under AGENDA 2000, will 
remain under the guarantee section of the EAGGF, accurate forward estimates of 
expenditure are essential. The Commission has received in the past some particularly 
optimistic forecasts of expenditure which made the budgetary process difficult. The 
Commission will continue to look for improvement in forecasting using all means at its 
disposition. 
4.1.8 Interaction with markets regimes 
Although a number of market regimes include agri-environment measures, or conditions 
relating to environmental practice, there remain substantial economic pressures to 
intensify and maximise revenue. Changes to markets regimes which alleviate pressure 
on the environment are likely to have a more general environmental impact than 
agri-environment measures, which are usually applied on a limited area. Where such 
changes impact on running agri-environment programmes, the latter must be adapted to 
the revised economic circumstances. 
4.1.9 Evaluation and monitoring 
The EU lacks sufficient base-line data of the environmental state of its farmland. Where 
agri-environment programmes are applied a particular effort is needed to carry out the 
necessary monitoring. The expense of this work can be considerable and strong 
arguments exist for a part of Community expenditure to be made available for 
evaluation and monitoring. 
4.1.10 Clear objectives 
The agri-environment regulation should remain a vehicle for improving and maintaining 
the quality of the rural environment. Direct income aids should be clearly distinguished 
from support for agri-environment activities, which primarily must deliver 
environmental benefits through compensating agreement-holders who use their factors 
of production to this end. In addition to the overall objectives, precise objectives need 
to be specified within programmes in order to improve transparency and form the basis 
27 __ 
of sound evaluation strategies. Thus 'protection of water quality' needs to become 
specified targets for reductions in N and P levels; 'maintenance of an arable habitat' 
should be expressed in terms of the identified plants and insects and other fauna which 
are intended to benefit. 
4.1.11 Five-year obligation 
The minimum obligation for an agri-environment measure is 5 years or, in the case of 
long-term set-aside, 20 years. The Commission has adopted a flexible approach and 
approved early termination of undertakings for reasons of force majeure and in other 
reasonable circumstances where the holding is transferred. The principle should remain 
that 5 years is a minimum period for the serious application of agri-environment 
measures. 
At the end of the agreement period, there is a danger that the farmer will choose not to 
renew the agreement and change to more profitable systems of farming. In some cases 
this may result in a serious loss of the environmental value built up or preserved over 
the agreement period. In exceptional cases there may be an argument for using 
compulsory national measures to conserve the environment. However, a voluntary 
scheme such as the agri-environment programmes is not an appropriate instrument by 
which to implement compulsory measures, and this important limitation on the 
effectiveness of the measures needs to be recognised. 
4.1.12 Whole-farm agreement 
The practice in many programmes to require participating farmers to take on a whole-
farm agreement has much to recommend it. At a minimum an agreement-holder should 
not be able to negate environmental gains on one part of his farm through intensification 
on another part. 
4.2 Reflections on possible amendments 
A number of aspects of the agri-environment regulation have been identified for possible 
amendment in view of the outstanding issues and developments in programme 
management discussed above. While reflections on proposals arising from AGENDA 2000 
are not yet complete, these points are nevertheless presented to the European Parliament 
and the Council for consideration. 
4.2.1 Distinguishing between types of environmental measure 
AGENDA 2000 describes the possibility of developing the compensatory allowance 
scheme as a more environmental instrument, which would complement the measures 
undertaken in the framework of the agri-environment programmes. The 
agri-environment regulation should emphasise, as suggested in AGENDA 2000, 
environmental services which call for an extra effort on the part of the farmer, such as 
organic farming, maintenance of semi-natural habitats, traditional orchards and 
hedgerows, continuation of alpine cattle keeping, upkeep of wetlands, and other far-
reaching measures in different regions of the EU. In addition, AGENDA 2000 notes that 
a high level of commitment is needed where a measure results in a significant loss of 
yield, such as buffer strips. 
28 
A more precise legal framework is needed for the non-land management measures. 
Projects for public access, demonstration farms and training need specific financial 
arrangements and justification criteria. 
4.2.2 Capital works and other investments 
For reasons of coherence, each agri-environment programme to which a farmer may 
subscribe should incorporate all relevant agri-environment measures, such as capital 
works and processing investments. The current position, where these are often not co­
ordinated with agri-environment programmes, needs to be improved. In many 
programmes, environmental capital items are State aided and approved separately from 
agri-environment programmes under the terms of the investment aid regulation. 
4.2.3 Part-financible prem ia 
The calculation of premia must be strictly limited to income foregone measured against 
a reference level of farm practice, costs incurred and the need to provide an incentive. 
Basic premia in particular need to be justified on this basis in the context of the 
objectives of the programmes and the environmental standards and conditions faced by 
farmers in the regions concerned. Levels of premia must be commensurate with the 
income from a competing land use, including any market premium or other relevant 
income source. A review of the system of part-financible premia may be appropriate. 
4.2.4 Adjusting rates of part-financing from the EAGGF 
The Commission has received recommendations for increasing the levels of part-
financing and modulating the rate according to the environmental impact of 
programmes or measures. The possibility of increasing part-financing rates is raised in 
AGENDA 2000 in the context of strengthening programmes. Any increase in part-
financing rates should be combined with improved targeting and objective setting, and 
effective monitoring and evaluation. 'O 
4.2.5 L ivestock removal 
The measure for extensification of livestock under Article 2(l)(c) should be reviewed 
and possibly developed as an explicit measure addressing extensive livestock farming 
and in particular the management of low-intensity pasture systems. 
4.2.6 Landscape and historical features 
The case for supporting non-productive landscape features in isolation of undertakings 
given on the productive part of the land is difficult to justify. However, cultural and 
historical landscape features, particularly those linked to biodiversity, which accompany 
farming activities should be included within the scope of the agri-environment 
regulation. 
4.2.7 Long term set aside 
The 20-year obligation should be reviewed to determine whether a shorter period may 
be justified. Limited use of grazing animals to control weeds and undergrowth should 
be subject to clear control criteria. Alternative environmental land uses, for example the 
creation of lakes and to provide public access, should be investigated. However, public 
29 
schemes for land purchase, which may be essential to conserve environmental value, 
should not come under the scope of the agri-environment programmes. 
4.2.8 Promotion of training measures 
Member States should be encouraged to provide training courses within 
agri-environment programmes. The training element, which is currently optional on 
Member States, could become part of the range of measures obligatory on Member 
States. 
4.2.9 Non-premia measures 
In the context of integrated programming, agri-environment measures should be fully 
associated with non-premia measures designed to achieve the same ends, such as 
awareness raising, technical environmental assessments, medium and long term planning 
and facilitating farmers to understand the environmental potential of their land. 
4.2.10 Finance for monitoring and evaluation 
The Commission is receptive to the argument that a Community contribution to the 
costs of scientific monitoring and evaluation may be warranted. Costs will vary 
depending on the nature and size of the programme, but a sufficient amount of 
expenditure should be allocated in order to produce useful and thorough data. 
4.2.11 Observatory of environmentally beneficial agriculture 
The interaction of agriculture and the environment in general and the impact of the 
agri-environment programmes in particular are already subjects for a considerable 
quantity of research. At the same time questions remain concerning the environmental, 
agricultural and socio-economic impacts of some programmes and some approaches, 
and will be the subject of future enquiry. In order to follow-up, co-ordinate where 
necessary, and, above all bring early results and analysis to the attention of the 
Commission, the Member States and appropriate non-governmental organisations, the 
establishment of an observatory may be justified. Such a body should be required to 
facilitate the transfer of findings throughout the EU, to identify particularly successful 
measures and programmes, to contribute to the development of indicators for 
measuring agri-environment processes, to identify areas where research lacunae exist, 
and to help ensure comparability in agri-environmental data supplied to the 
Commission. In only five years, the agri-environment approach has developed from 
being an innovation introduced to accompany the reform of the CAP to becoming a 
central part for the future Community farming and rural policy. For this reason alone, 
the provision of effective and relevant research data at the European level is essential. 
4.2.12 Summary of Commission initiatives 
The Commission intends to bring forward Working Documents and present them to the 
STAR Committee covering the following detailed aspects of implementation of agri-
environment programmes: 
- implementation in the Member States; 
- support for organic farming; 
30 
- support for maintaining genetic resources; 
- evaluation studies and Community-funded research and studies; 
- training and demonstration projects. 
The Commission will continue to encourage Member States: 
- to make the best use of existing opportunities for integrating agri-environment 
programme with structural fund programmes; 
- to develop non-premia programmes for disseminating information to farmers; 
- to implement fully those programmes which are behind schedule; 
- to monitor and evaluate programmes and develop them in the light of the results of 
evaluations. 
The Commission will consider bringing forward several proposals for the adjustment of 
the provisions of Regulation 2078/92, including: 
- an improved legal framework for the non-land management measures; 
- a review of the system of maximum part-financible premia; 
- a review of the measure to reduce stock numbers to focus on low-intensity pasture 
management; 
- a review of criteria for incorporation of capital investments and landscape and 
historical farmland features within programmes; 
- a review of the measure for environmental set aside; 
- possibilities for the provision for part-financing from Community funds of 
monitoring and evaluation costs; 
- review of Community part-financing rates 
- any amendments which may result from discussions following the presentation of 
the Working Documents mentioned above. 
In addition, in the context of AGENDA 2000 the Commission will bring forward a 
proposal to strengthen agri-environment measures within regional and zonal 
programmes. Finally the Commission will investigate ways and means and terms of 
reference for establishing an observatory of environmentally beneficial agriculture. 
4.3 Future developments * 
Recognition of the role of farmers as protectors of the environment and stewards of the 
countryside is now established policy of the Community. The perspective is of an active 
rural economy where farmers, in addition to their responsibilities as food producers, take 
on the role of 'rural entrepreneurs' providing services to the local community, including 
the provision of environmental public goods/ The successful implementation of policies 
such as the agri-environment programme constitute a substantial part of the EU's 
obligations under AGENDA 21. 
In the foreseeable future, there is likely to be continued pressure on price support policies 
resulting from the international trading environment and the imperative to retain European 
31 
competitiveness on global markets. Without specific agri-environment measures, the 
unique agricultural heritage of Europe, the result of centuries of sustainable farming, 
would be severely threatened by continued intensification or by abandonment. The same 
considerations apply beyond the EU and the agri-environment regulation has aroused 
considerable interest in the countries of central and eastern Europe where similar 
programmes are under development in at least two countries. In both halves of Europe, 
the association of certain low-intensity farm systems with high levels of biodiversity show 
that decoupling of environmental benefits from production is only possible to an extent. 
AGENDA 2000 confirms the place of agri-environment programmes within the new rural 
development policy. The instrument must be strengthened, both in terms of the quality of 
the programmes and in financial terms. In addition, actions covered by some current agri-
environment programmes will be complemented by the compensatory allowances scheme 
developed as a basic instrument to support low-input farming. 
The proposals contained in AGENDA 2000, in line with the direction of reform of the 
common agricultural policy set out in 1992, and the Commission strategy paper on 
eastern enlargement presented to the Madrid European Council in 1995, would result in 
support for farming, being further decoupled from production and focused on direct 
expenditure, including payments for rural services. This type of expenditure is far more 
visible to the general public than price support mechanisms and, in so far as it is paid for 
the provision of environmental services under agri-environment programmes, the public 
will want to know that the expenditure is justified. If agri-environment measures continue 
to operate with public support, and particularly as they are intended to become more 
significant financially throughout the EU, «it will be necessary to demonstrate the genuine 
environmental impact of the programmes. For these reasons the evaluation of the 
measures continues to be a priority in order to make available reliable data with which to 
assess the effectiveness and impact of the programmes. 
Programme approval and amendment decisions Annex 
MS 
B 
0 
D 
0 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
0 
0 
D 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
0 
D 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
D 
0 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
Dk 
DK 
Die 
Dk 
Dk 
Dk 
Dk 
Dk 
Dk 
Dk 
Dk 
E 
E 
E 
E 
E 
E 
E 
e 
E 
E 
E 
El 
EJ 
a 
0 Programme f motf • MMndnwnJ tfeclilon) 
Prog. Agri-Environnemertt 
Baden-Wurttemberg i 
Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 1 
Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 2 
Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 3 
Baden-Wurttemberg 1 
Bayern 1 Kulap 
Bayem 1 Kulap mod 1 
Bayem I Kulap mod 2 
Bayern 1 contracte 
Bayem mod. 
Berlin 
Berlin modi 
Brandenburg 1 
Brandenburg 1 mod 1 
Brandenburg 1 
Brandenburg II mod 1 
Bremen 
Bremen mod 1 
Freietaat Sachsen 
Freistaat Sachsen mod 1 
Freistaat Sachsen mod 2 
Hamburg 
Hamburg mod 1 
Heesen 
Hessen mod 1 
Mecklenburg Vor pomme rn 
Mecklenburg Vorpommem mod 1 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommem mod 2 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommem mod 3 
National Framework 
National Framework mod 1 
National Framework mod 2 
National Framework mod 3 
National Framework mod 4 
Niedersachsen 1 
Niedersachsen II 
Niedersachsen II mod 1 
Nordrhein-Westfalen 
Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 1 
Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 2 
Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 3 
Rheinland-Pfalz 1 
Rhainland-Pfalzl 
Rheinland-Pfalz mod 1 
Rheinland-Pfalz mod 2 
Saarland 
Saarland mod 1 
Sachsen-Anhalt 
Sachsen-Anhalt mod 1 
Sachsen Anhalt mod 2 
Schleswig-Holstein 
Schleswig-Holstein mod 1 
Thuringen 
Thuringen mod 1 
Amternee 
Amtemes mod 1 (rectif.) 
AmtemeS mod 2 (746) (•» Environmental » Org»» 
Amtemés mod 3 (see EBF) 
EBF<E<*vw*nefttalVBeneficial Firmng)(« Organic. Antsf 
Environmental and Organic 
Environmental and Organic mod 1 
Environmental and Organic mod 2 (+ Ami 
Environmental and Organic mod 3 {-> EBFI 
Kurser/Demonstrationsprojekter 
Organic (-» EBF) 
Programa agroambiental (• Mee-HoniIMI, 
Programa agroambiental mod 1 
Medidas Horizontale» 
Medidas Horizontales mod 1 (•» Png «gmam 
Castille-Leon 
Castile-Leon mod 1 (•» cm»u Mano» mod i> 
CaStile-LeOn mod 2 (•» Programa Agroambiental) 
Ca»Iille-La Mancha 
Castile-La Mancha mod 1 c ca<weAnonm 
Castile-La Mancha mod 2 (-» prog, agroem»*» 
Paie Vaeco 
Agriculture biologique 
Long term «at aside 
Races menacées 
Thessalle N° STAR 
WkDoc 
94.4841 
93.6830 
96.3774 
96.8692 
97.3825 
95.8965 
93.6805 
95.6261 
96.6147 
95.6279 
96.8284 
94.7680 
96.8286 
93.7436 
96.8272 
94.8086 
96.3886 
94.8088 
96.8700 
93.6825 
95.8679 
96.9161 
94.7684 
96.8715 
93.6883 
97.3763 
94.7695 
96.3885 
96.9163 
97.5213 
94.3815 
none 
95.6178 
96.6194 
96.8696 
93.9926 
95.3777 
97.5197 
94.4840 
96.3758 
96.6227 
96.8694 
93.9928 
96.3827 
96.8698 
96.8999 
94.7682 
96.8274 
94.7207 
96.6182 
96.9165 
94.7205 
97.3760 
93.6872 
95.8980 
96.3783 
none 
-
-
97.3758 
94.3787 
96.6179 
96.8985 
-
96.7484 
-
94.8064 
96.9178 
94.4879 
• -
93.6874 
-
92.6734 
none 
-
95.8831 
95.6114 
96.3785 
91.3823 
956116 STAR 
25.07.94 
29.09.93 
26.03.96 
27.11.96 
21.03.97 
27.02.96 
22.07.93 
26.10.95 
24.07.96 
23.11.95 
29.10.96 
23.11.94 
29.10.96 
29.09.93 
29.10.96 
23.11.94 
24.07.96 
23.11.94 
27.11.96 
22.07.93 
13.12.95 
17.12.96 
23.11.94 
27.11.96 
29.09.93 
25.02.97 
23.11.94 
26.01.96 
17.12.96 
27.05.97 
27.09.94 
23.11.94 
27.09.95 
24.07.96 
27.11.96 
27.09.94 
22.02.95' 
27.05.97 
27.09.94 
26.01.96 
29.10.1996 
27.11.96 
27.04.94 
29.05.96 
27.11.96 
17.12.96 
22.02.95 
29.10.96 
27.09.94 
24.07.96 
17.12.96 
27.08.94 
28.01.97 
29 09.93 
26.01.96 
27.02.96 
none 
-
-
27.03.97 
08.03.94 
24.07.96 
17.12.96 
-
27.11.96 
-
13.12.94 
17.12.96 
27.09.94 
-
22.07.93 • 
-
-
27.02.93 
24.03.94 
-
22.02.95 
29.06.95 
29.05.96 
21.03.97 
29 06.95 N* Decision 
94.2937 
93.2841 
96.0731 
96.3865 
97,0702 
96.0506 
93.2539 
95.3101 
96.2126 
96.0003 
96,2885 
95.3805 
96,3858 
93.2840 
96,3869 
95.0023 
96.2130 
95.3806 
96.3861 
93.2538 
96.0223 
96,4216 
95.0021 
96,3862 
93.2984 
97.0701 
95.0022 
96.2120 
96,4217 
97,1254 
94.2599 
94.3034 
95.2062 
96.2132 
96,4212 
94.2597 
95.0132 
97,1243 
94.2598 
96.0224 
96.2882 
96.3966 
93.1309 
96.1140 
96,2886 
97.0138 
96.0131 
96,2891 
94.2596 
96.2131 
96,4218 
94.2595 
97.0136 
93.2985 
96.0006 
96.0730 
96.1569 
-
-
97.0700 
94.0967 
96.2122 
97.0122 
-
96.3970 
-
95.0018 
97.0135 
94.2589 
-
93.2463 
-
-
93.0686 
94.0548 
-
95.0123 
95.1391 
96.1144 
97.0551 
95.1392 Date 
Decision 
17.11.1994 
19.10.1993 
16,4,1996 
30.12.1996 
15.4.1997 
26,3.1996 
22.9.1993 
15.12.1995 
16.8.1996 
12.1.1996 
19.12.1996 
11.1.1995 
30.12.1996 
19.10.1993 
30.12.1996 
20.2.1995 
14.8.1996 
11.1.1995 
30.12.1996 
22.9.1993 
27.2.1996 
30.12.1996 
20.2.1995 
30.12.1996 
4.11.1993 
2.4.1997 
20.2.1995 
78.1996 
30.12.1996 
186.1997 
10.10.1994 
22.12.1994 
9.11.1995 
14.8.1996 
30.12.1996 
10.10.1994 
31.3.1995 
5.6.1997 
11.10.1994 
28.3.1996 
6.12.1996 
30.12.1996 
17.6.1996 
12.7.1996 
19.12.1996 
192.1997 
31.3.1996 
20.12.1996 
11.10.1994 
14.8.1996 
30.12.1996 
11.10.1994 
18.2.1997 
5.11.1993 
5.2.1996 
16.4.1996 
8.7.1996 
28.1.1997 
24.3.1997 
24.3.1997 
26.4.1994 
14.8.1996 
28.1.1997 
24.3.1997 
30.12.1996 
24.3.1997 
19.1.1995 
18.2.1997 
11.10.1994 
19.1.1995 
16.9.1993 
25.5.1994 
19.1.1995 
29.3.1993 
25.5.1994 
19.1.1995 
2.3.1995 
26.7.1995 
19.7.1996 
28.4.1997 
26.7.1995 MS 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F Programme fmotf • amandnwnl decision) 
Cadre général 
Cadre général mod 2 c PM mon j) 
Cadre général mod 3 
Cadre général mod 4 
Cadre générai mod 5 
Cadre général mod 6 
Cadre général mod 7 
PH - Prime à l'herbe 
PHmodl 
PH mod 2 (•» Cadre Gen rnoB 3) 
Alsace 
Alsace mod 1 
Aquitaine 
Aquitaine mod 1 
Aquitaine mod 2 
Aquitaine mod 3 
Auvergne 
Auvergne mod 1 
Auvergne mod 2 
Basse Normandie 
Basse Normandie mod 1 
Basse Normandie mod 2 
Bourgogne 
Bourgogne mod 1 
Bourgogne mod 2 
Bretagne 
Bretagne mod 1 
Centre 
Centre mod 1 
Centre mod 2 
Champagne Ardenne 
Champagne Ardenne mod 1 
Corse 
Corse mod 1 
Franche Comté 
Franche Comté mod 1 
Franche Comté mod 2 
Franche Comté mod 31 • HN I. um 2) 
Franche Comté mod 4 
Guadeloupe 
Guadeloupe mod 1 
Haute Normandie 
Haute Normandie mod 1 
Haute Normandie mod 2 (-»FC mou 3) 
Ile de France 
Ne de France mod 1 
Ile de France mod 2 
Languedoc Roussillon 
Languedoc Roussillon mod 1 
Limousin 
Limousin mod 1 
Limousin mod 21-» FC mon 3| 
Lorraine 
Lorraine modi 
Midi Pyrénées 
Midi Pyrénées mod 1 
Midi Pyrénées mod 2 
Nord Pas de Calais 
Nord Pas de Calais mod 1 
Nord Pas de Calais mod 2 
Nord Pas de Calais mod 3 
Pays de la Loire 
Pays de la Loire mod 1 
Pays de la Loire mod 2 
Pays de la Loire mod 3 
Picardie 
Picardie mod 1 
Picardie mod 2 
Picardie mod 3 
Poitou Charente» 
Poitou Charentes mod 1 
Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur 
Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur mod 1 
Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur mod 2 
Réunion 
Rhône Alpes 
Rhône Alpes mod 1 
Rhône Alpes mod 2 
Rhône A|pes mod 3 
Rhône Alpes mod 4 N'STAR 
WkDoc 
94.3799 
94.7651 
94.8082 
96.6206 
96.6151 
96.8977 
divers 
93.6844 
94.3829 
-
94.3839 
95.6232 
94.4882 
94.8340 
95.6181 
97.3850 
94.7201 
95.3849 
97.3818 
94.3900 
95.6111 
96.8993 
94.4752 
95.3851 
96.8705 
94.4880 
95.3853 
94.7655 
95.8992 
96.8300 
94.7203 
95.3855 
94.8076 
96.3823 
94.3841 
94.8095 
95.6109 
95.6243 
96.8266 
94.8078 
95.8994 
94.3898 
95.6236 
-
94.4884 
95.6185 
96.8991 
94.4899 
95.6294 
94.7659 
95.6155 
-
94.3843 
95.3857 
94.4754 
94.8342 
95.6106 
94.3896 
94.8091 
95.3859 
96.8268 
94.4825 
95.6104 
95.8996 
96.8672 
94.3846 
95.3861 
95.8998 
96.8270 
94.7657 
95.6187 
94.8074 
95.6189 
96.8995 
94.8081 
94.3847 
-
94.8093 
95.6191 
96.8995 STAR 
23.02.94 
27.06.94 
23.11.94 
24.07.96 
24.07.96 
17.12.96 
28.01.97 
22.07.93 
25.04.94 
-
24 03.94 
20.07.95 
27.09.94 
13.12.94 
27.09.95 
21.03.97 
27.09.94 
31.05.95 
21.03.97 
27.04.94 
20.07.95 
17.12.96 
27.04.94 
31.05.95 
27.11.96 
27.09.94 
31.05.95 
26.10.94 
13.12.95 
27.11.96 
27.09.94 
31.05.95 
23.11.94 
26.03.96 
24.03.94 
23.11.94 
20.07.95 
27.09.95 
29.10.96 
23.11.94 
13.12.95 
27.04.94 
20.07.95 
-
25.06.94 
27.09.95 
17.12.96 
27.09.94 
23.11.95 
26.10.94 
20.07.95 
-
24.03.94 
31.05.95 
23.06.94 
13.12.94 
20.07.95 
27.04.94 
23.11.94 
31.05.95 
29.10.96 
23.06.94 
20.07.95 
13.12.95 
27.11.96 
24.03.94 
31.05.95 
13.12.95 
29.10.96 
26.10.94 
27.09.95 
23.11.94 
23.11.95 
17.12.96 
23.11.94 
27.04.94 
23.06.94 
23.11.94 
23.11.95 
17.12.96 N* Decision 
94.0545 
94.2593 
94.2943 
96.2603 
96.3863 
97.0129 
97.1240 
93.2464 
94.0544 
-
94.1274 
95.1398 
94.2496 
95.0016 
95.2058 
97.0707 
94.2591 
95.1315 
97.0722 
94.1277 
95.1671 
97.0081 
94.1278 
95.1316 
97.0126 
94.2495 
95.1317 
94.2605 
95.3445 
97.0124 
94.2592 
95.1318 
94.2940 
96.0729 
94.0819 
94.2946 
95.1672 
95.2061 
96.3853 
94.2941 
95.3446 
94.1276 
95.1673 
-
94.2497 
95.2059 
97.0128 
94.2590 
95.3107 
94.2607 
95.1674 
-
94.0820 
95.1319 
94.1878 
95.0017 
95.1675 
94.1275 
94.2944 
95.1320 
96.3854 
94.1879 
95.1397 
95.3447 
97.0125 
94.0821 
95.1321 
95.3448 
96.3855 
94.2606 
95.2060 
94.2939 
95.3108 
96.3851 
94.2942 
94.0822 
94.1880 
94.2945 
95.3109 
97.0080 Date 
Decision 
29.4.1994 
13.10.1994 
6.12.1994 
3.10.1996 
30.12.1996 
10.2.1997 
28.5.1997 
16.9.1993 
29.4.1994 
13.10.1994 
21.6.1994 
17.8.1995 
6.10.1994 
16.1.1995 
24.10.1995 
16.4.1997 
13.10.1994 
7.7.1995 
16.4.1997 
21.6.1994 
17.8.1995 
20.1.1997 
21.6.1994 
7.7.1995 
10.2.1997 
7.10.1994 
7.7.1995 
8.11.1994 
20.12.1995 
10.2.1997 
13.10.1994 
7.7.1995 
6.12.1994 
10,4,1996 
27.5.1994 
6.12.1994 
17.8.1995 
6.11.1995 
13.1.1997 
6.12.1994 
20.12.1995 
21.6.1994 
17.8.1995 
6.11.1995 
6.10.1994 
24.10.1995 
10.2.1997 
13.10.1994 
19.12.1995 
8.11.1994 
17.8.1995 
6.11.1995 
27.5.1994 
7.7.1995 
3.8.1994 
16.1.1995 
17.8.1995 
21.6.1994 
6.12.1994 
7.7.1995 
13.1.1997 
3.8.1994 -
17.8.1995 
20.12.1995 
10.2.1997 
27.5.1994 
7.7.1995 
20.12.1995 
13.1.1997 
8.11.1994 
24.10.1995 
6.12.1994 
19.12.1995 
13.1.1997 
6.12.1994 
27.5.1994 
3.8.1994 
6.12.1994 
19.12.1995 
20.1.1197 
33 
Programme approval and amendment decisions Annex 
MS 
Id 
1(1 
Irl 
id 
L 
L 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
NL 
OS 
OS 
OS 
OS 
OS Programme f>»* • mn**** deewon) 
REPS 
Reps modi 
Reps mod 2 
Reps mod 3 
Fltosanltarl 
Formazion» 
Formazione mod 1 
Abruzzo 
Abruzzomodl 
Basilicata 
Basilcata mod 1 
Bolzano 
Bolzano 
Calabria 
Campania 
Emilia-Romagna 
Emii a-Romagna mod 1 
Emiia-Romagna mod 2 
Frlull-Venezia Giulia 
FriuJ-Venezia Giulia mod 1 
Lazio 
Laziomod 1 
Llguria 
Liguria mod 1 
Lombard ia 
Lombardia mod 1 
Marche 
Marche mod 1 
Molise 
Moïse mod 1 
Piemonte 
Piemonte mod 1 
Puglia 
Sardegna 
Sardegna mod 1 
Sardegna mod 2 
Sicilia 
Siciia mod 1 
Sicilia mod 2 
Toscana 
Toscana mod 1 
Toscana mod 2 
Trento 
Trento mod 1 
Umbria 
Umbria mod 1 
Umbria mod 2 
Valle d'Aosta 
Vale d'Aosta mod 1 
Vale d'Aosta mod 2 
Veneto 
Veneto mod 1 
Agri-environnement 
L'e ntret.de l'esp. naturel 
MA : Managment agreements. 
MA modi 
MA mod 2 
MAmOd 2 («plrnd3.pl mdl.pl md 1) 
Part 1 (bnlogracne randbouMr. voetped. optedrng) 
Part 1 mod 1 
Part 1 mod 2 
Parti mod 3 (•»•** moo 2) 
Part 1 (uiteeruoOng) 
Part II mod 1 (-nwmodj) 
Part M (lamirtng) 
Part III mod 1 (-emmod2) 
^iederosterreich 
Niederôsterreich mod 1 
ÔPUL 
ÔPUL mod 1 
Steiermark N4STAR 
WkDoc 
93.9906 
95.6174 
96.6156 
97.3861 
96.8690 
95.3781 
96.8279 
94.7669 
97.3814 
94.4776 
97.3788 
93.6895 
94.3830 
95.3844 
96.8686 
94.4834 
96.8961 
97.5182 
93.1475 
97.3810 
94.7661 
96.8965 
94.3869 
96.8959 
94.3854 
97.3768 
94.4848 
96.6204 
94.7673 
97.3816 
94.8069 
97.3770 
95.6209 
94.7671 
95.3820 
96.8963 
94.7228 
95.6253 
96.8969 
94.4892 
94.7693 
96 8971 
94.7226 
96.8955 
93.9850 
96.3762 
97.8967 
93.1471 
96.8688 
97.3767 
93.1473 
96.8957 
95.3807 
96.6234 
93.6825 
none 
94.8337 
96.8713 
94.3830 
96.6149 
96.7492 
-
94.4843 
-
96.3852 
-
95.6176 
96.8707 
95.3840 
96.6236 
95 8677 STAR 
27.01.94 
27.09.95 
26.06.96 
27.05.97 
27.11.96 
22.02.95 
29.10.97 
26.10.94 
25.02.97 
23.06.97 
28.01.97 
29.9.1993 
26.05.94 
31.05.95 
28.01.97 
27.09.94 
17.12.96 
23.04.97 
27.04.94 
25.02.97 
26.10.94 
17.12.96 
25.07.94 
17.12.96 
26.05.94 
28.01.97 
27.09.94 
24.07.96 
26.10.94 
25.02.97 
23.11.94 
28.01.97 
27.09.95 
23.11.94 
30.03.95 
17.12.96 
27.09.94 
• 13.12.95 
17.12.96-
27.09.94 
26.10.94 
17.12.96 
27.09.94 
17.12.96 
27.01.94 
26.01.96 
17.12.96 
25.07.94 
27.11.96 
28.01.97 
23.02.94 
17.12.96 
27.04.95 
25.09.96 
26.05.93 
08.03.94 
22.02.95 
27.11.96 
24.03.94 
25.07.94 
29.10.96 
-
25.07.94 
-
24.04.96 
-
23.11.95 
27.11.96 
27.04.95 
25.09.96 
13.12.95 N* Decision 
S4.0549 
95.2057 
96.1146 
97.1244 
96.3864 
95 0125 
96.2878 
95.3039 
97.0554 
94.2491 
97.0133 
93.3014 
94.0830 
95.1314 
97.0141 
94.2492 
97.0093 
97.1783 
94.0825 
97.0729 
94.2949 
97.0095 
94.2488 
97.0092 
94.0826 
97.0131 
94.2604 
96.2133 
95.3040 
97.0553 
94.2950 
97.0132 
95.2216 
95.0024 
95.0619 
97.0094 
94.2494 
96.0008 
97.0097 
94.2600 
95.0020 
97.0098 
94.2594 
97.0090 
94.1272 
96.0505 
97.0096 
94.2493 
97.0130 
97.0552 
94.0818 
97.0091 
95.0616 
96.2615 
93.2826 
94.0547 
95.0124 
96.3857 
94.0543 
96.2127 
96.2875 
-
94.1882 
-
96.0740 
-
95.3102 
96.3860 
95.0620 
96.2604 
96.0011 Date 
Decision 
29 4.1994 
19.10.1995 
19.7.1996 
4.6.1997 
30.12.1996 
15.3.1995 
25,11.1996 
10.1.1995 
17.3.1997 
6.10.1994 
11.2.1997 
4.11.1993 
15.6.1994 
19.7.1995 
5.3.1997 
6.10.1994 
29.1.1997 
7.7.1997 
3.6.1994 
20.5.1997 
9.12.1994 
29.1.1997 
5.10.1994 
29.1.1997 
8.6.1994 
11.2.1997 
13.10.1994 
268.1996 
10.1.1995 
17.3.1997 
13.12.1994 
12.2.1997 
14.11.1995 
15.2.1995 
6.7.1995 
29.1.1997 
10.10.1994 
30.1.1996 
29.1.1997 
10.10.1994 
25.1.1995 
29.1.1997 
11.10.1994 
29.1.1997 
24.6.1994 
22.3.1996 
29.1.1007 
10.10.1994 
11.2.1997 
17.3.1997 
19.5.1994 
29.1.1997 
15.5.1995 
11.10,1996 
15.10.1993 
29.4.1994 
8.3.1995 
20.12.1996 
29.4.1994 
14.8.1996 
22.11.1996 
20.12.1996 
17.8.1994 
20.12.1996 
8.5.1996 
20.12.1996 
11.12.1995 
30.12.1996 
7.6.1995 
• 7.10.1996 
5.2.1996 MS 
P 
P 
P 
P 
P 
Rn 
Fin 
S 
S 
S 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK Programme (m»« • •AWM*»»* dechtion) 
Acoret 
Continent 
Continent modi 
Continent mod2 
Madeira 
Aland 
Finland 
Mijloprogrammet 
Mijldprogrammet mod 1 
Flerarig valodlng 
England-Cty. Steward 
England-Cty. Steward mod 1 
England-Cty. Steward mod 2 
England-Cry. Steward mod 3 
England-ESA Access 
England-ESA Access mod 1i-»ESA»con«*a) 
England-ESA 1 
England-ESA 1 mod 1 c i. scooxumodi 
England-ESA I mod 2 
England-ESA I mod 3 
England-ESA I mod 4 c i mod i. • mod n 
England-ESA 1 mod 5 <•» E-ESA. «now ) 
England-ESA 1 
England-ESA II mod 1 (•» i mod •) 
England-ESA II mod 2 (••.modi) 
England-ESA II mod 3 (-» i. moo «i 
England-ESA II mod 41+ E-ESA. comow ) 
England-ESA • 
England-ESA III mod 1(-»imodj) 
England-ESA III mod 2 (+i moo») 
England-ESA III mod 3 (-» E-ESA» consoM.) 
England-ESA IV 
England-ESA IV modi 
England-ESA IV mod 2 (-» E.ESA. contou ) 
England-ESAs consolidated cESAEng i 
England-Habitat 
England-Habitat mod 1 
England-Habitat mod 2 
England-NSAI 
England-NSA I mod 1 ci™*) 
England-NSAI 
England-NSA II mod 1I*I™HI 
N.Ireland-Access 
N.lreland-ESA 
N.Ireland-Habitat 
ScOtland-CPS (•ScHeomrjdtMoonendrnod3.UK 
Scotland-ESA Access 
Scotland-ESAI 
SCOtland-ESA 1 mOd 1 <4Eng ESAImodl) 
ScoUand-ESA 1 mod 2 
Scotland-ESAIl 
Scotland-ESA II mod 1 (• «. mod i) 
Scotland-ESA II mod 2 i-»EESAimod t) 
Scotland-ESA IH 
ScoUand-ESA III mod 1(-»imodi) 
Scotland-Habitat 
Scotland-Habitat mod 11-> SCKCPSI 
UK-Access, E.S.W 
UK-Access, E.S.W mod 1 <-» SCO»**CPS) 
UK-Moorland 
UK-Moorland mod 1 
UK-Moorland mod 21-> scooand-cpsi 
UK-Organic Farming 
Wales-ESA 1 
Wales-ESA 1 mod 1 <-» WESAI cornu i 
Wales-ESA H 
Wales-ESA II mod 1 (-ew.ESA.con.oi) 
Wales-ESA» consol. fimodi.imodt) 
Wales-Habitat 
Wales-Tir Cymen 
Wales-Tir Cymen mod 1 Nl STAR"" 
WkDoc 
94.3883 
94.3801 
95.6159 
96.8257 
94.4819 
95.8967 
95.6139 
95.3894 
96.8711 
97.5243 
94.4864 
96.3808 
96.8981 
97.3784 
93.9948 
-
93.6879 
none 
94.8102 
96.3806 
96.8979 
-
93.7440 
-
95.6205 
-
-
93.6819 
-
-
-
94.3804 
96.6145 
-
97.3828 
94.4766 
96.3805 
96.8983 
94.3885 
96.3825 
95.3867 
-
95.6145 
94.3810 
94.0000 
96.7486 
94.4859 
93.6881 
-
95.6208 
93.7438 
96.6145 
-
94.3806 
-
94.4852 
-
94.4862 
-
94.8062 
96.6180 
-
94.4764 
94.3808 
-
94.7675 
-
97.3780 
94.4854 
94.4860 
97.3829 STAR 
27.04.94 
23.02.94 
20.07.95 
17.12.96 
23.06.94 
13.12.95 
27.09.95 
20.07.95 
27.11.96 
24.06.97 
25.07.94 
03.05.96 
17.12.96 
28.01.97 
26.01.94 
-
29.03.93 
24.03 94 
23.11.94 
26.03.96 
17.12.96 
-
29.09.93 
-
27.09.95 
-
-
29.09.93 
-
-
-
23.02.94 
26.06.96 
-
21.03.97 
27.04.94 
26.03.96 
17.12.96 
23.06.94 
26.03.96 
31.05.95 
-
20.07.95 
24.03.94 
17.04.13 
29.10.96 
26.07.94 
29.09.93 
-
27.09.95 
29.09.93 
26.06.96 
-
23.02.94 
-
26.07.94 
-
26.07.94 
-
23.*11.94 
25.09.96 
-
26.05.94 
26.05.94 
-
27.10.94 
-
28.01.97 
26.07.94 
27.09.94 
21.03.97 N* Decision 
94.0824 
94.0546 
95.1676 
97.0137 
94.1881 
96.0005 
95.2056 
95.1393 
96.4210 
97.1258 
94.1883 
96.0738 
97.0084 
97.0699 
94.0551 
-
93.2836 
94.0552 
94.2952 
96.0737 
97.0083 
-
93.2834 
-
95.2054 
-
-
93.2827 
-
-
-
94.0553 
96.1145 
-
97.0704 
94.1874 
96.0736 
97.0085 
94.1877 
96.0735 
95.0623 
-
95.1678 
94.1271 
94.2486 
97.0089 
94.2484 
93.2835 
-
95.2055 
93.2842 
96.1149 
-
94.0554 
-
94.2485 
-
94.2483 
-
94.2951 
96.2601 
-
94.1875 
94.1876 
-
94.2608 
-
97.5570 
94.2487 
94.2489 
97.0723 Date 
3.6.1994 
29.4.1994 
17.8.1995 
18.2.1997 
11.8.1994 
5.2.1996 
10.10.1995 
17.8.1995 
30.12.1996 
17.7.1997 
28.9.1994 
3.5.1996 
23.1.1997 
2.4.1997 
6.5.1994 
16.04.1997 
18.10.1993 
18.5.1994 
9.12.1994 
3.5.1996 
23.1.1997 
16.04.1997 
18.10.1993 
18.5.1994 
4.12.1995 
23.1.1997 
16.4.1997 
15.10.1993 
4.12.1995 
23.1.1997 
16.4.1997 
6.5.1994 
19.7.1996 
16.4.1997 
16.4.1997 
15.7.1994 
3.5.1996 
23.1.1997 
20.7.1994 
3.5.1996 
22.6.1995 
3.5.1996 
17.8.1995 
9.6.1994 
28.9.1994 
23.1.1997 
28.9.1994 
18.10.1993 
18.05.1994 
4.12.1995 
19.10.1993 
31.7.1996 
23.1.1997 
6.5.1994 
31.7.1996 
28.9.1994 
23.1.1997 
28.9.1994 
23.1.1997 
9.12.1994 
27.9.1996 
23.1.1997 
19.7.1994 
19.7.1994 
02.04.1997 
8.11.1994 
02.04.1997 
02.04.1997 
28.9.1994 
7.10.1994 
16.4.1997 
3Ï 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 620 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 14 15 17 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-640-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-28026-7 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
3<r