COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 28.11.1997 
COM(97) 630 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
on the application of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 instituting a Community aid scheme 
for forestry measures in agriculture 

REFORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE miiNrn 
AND THE RUROPFAN PARLIAMENT 
on the application of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 instituting a Community aid scheme 
for forestry measures in agriculture 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Flanking measures were adopted in 1992 to accompany the CAP reform. These authorised 
aid for the environment, early retirement and forestry. As part of one of the main areas of 
reform - temporary set-aside or reallocating farmland to afforestation or non-food production 
- Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992(1) instituted a Community aid 
scheme for forestry measures in agriculture. The aid is part-financed by the Guarantee 
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to promote 
afforestation as an alternative use of agricultural land and the development of forestry 
activities on farms, in order to: 
- accompany the changes to be introduced under the market organisation rules, 
- contribute towards an eventual improvement in forest resources, 
- contribute towards forms of countryside management more compatible with 
environmental balance, 
- combat the greenhouse effect and absorb carbon dioxide. 
The Community provides 75% part-financing in Objective 1 regions and 50% in other 
regions under the EAGGF Guarantee Section. The aid scheme comprises aid for afforestation 
costs, a premium to cover maintenance of afforested areas, a premium to cover losses of 
income resulting from afforestation of agricultural land and investment aid for the 
improvement of woodlands belonging to farmers. The characteristics of the aid scheme are 
summarised in Table 1 overleaf. 
II. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL MONITORING 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1054/94(2) laying down detailed rules for the financial 
monitoring of programmes approved under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 was 
adopted on 5 May 1994. Its purpose is to establish a reliable system for the financial 
monitoring of the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 permitting reactions in the 
framework of the early warning system for budget discipline and estimates of the trend in 
expenditure affecting future budgets as a result of the multiannual nature, of certain 
commitments entered into under approved programmes, resulting in expenditure to be 
charged to the Community budget over several years. Under this Regulation the Member 
States forward information on progress in implementing the aid scheme every six months and 
expenditure forecasts every quarter. 
0) OJNoL215,30.7.1992,p. 96. 
(2) OJNo 1.115,6.5.1994^6. 
Table 1. Aid scheme (summary) 
Aid for afforestation costs 
Annual premium per hectare 
afforested to cover maintenance 
costs in the first five years 
Annual premium per hectare 
to cover losses of income 
resulting from afforestation of 
agricultural land 
aid for the improvement 
of woodlands Amounts 
(amounts in brackets are those in initial Regulation) 
eucalyptus: 2 415.0 ECU/ha (2 000) 
softwood : 3 623.0 ECU / ha (3 000) 
broadleaves and 
mixed plantations : 4 830.0 ECU / ha (4 000) 
softwoods years 1-2 : 301.9 ECU /ha/year (250) 
afterwards: 181.1 ECU/ha/year (150) 
broadleaves years 1-2 : 603.8 ECU/ha/year (500) 
/ mixed afterwards : 362.3 ECU / ha / year (300) 
afforestation undertaken by: 
farmer : 724.5 ECU / ha / year (600) 
other beneficiary : 181.1 ECU/ha/year (150) 
shelterbelts : 845.3 ECU / ha (700) 
firebreaks: 181.1 ECU/ha (150) 
waterpoints : 181.1 ECU/ha (150) 
forest roads : 21735.0 ECU / km (18 000) 
improvement of 
cork oak stands : 1691.0 ECU/ha (1400) 
others : 845.3 ECU / ha (700) Beneficiaries according to the species planted 
Christmas 
trees 
-Fast-growing species Other species 
competent public authorities of the Member States 
farmers practising 
farming as a main 
occupation (deriving 
at least 25% of their 
income from 
agriculture) 
' any natural or legal person 
undertaking afforestation of 
agricultural land 
any private-law natural or legal 
persons other than farmers 
participating in the early retirement 
scheme under Council Regulation 
(EEC) 2079/92 
farmers or associations 
thereof 
As well as the information provided under Regulation (EC) No 1054/94, the Member States 
also forward additional technical information to the Commission each year on the basis of a 
questionnaire. 
III. ADOPTED PROGRAMMES 
1. Decisions and amounts of funding 
Table 2 overleaf shows the 43 programmes that have been adopted so far in the Member 
States. The EAGGF contribution shows the amount initially forecast by the Member State 
compared to that actually allocated under the Decision (for programmes adopted at the 
beginning of 1994 some Member States had initially forecast an EAGGF contribution in 
excess of available budget funds). The afforestation forecasts also show an initial value, 
corresponding to the EAGGF contribution initially hoped for by the Member State, and a 
value adjusted to the amount actually awarded. 
2, Aid and application 
There is a wide variation in the rates of aid awarded to the various programmes and even 
between the various regions in a Member State. There are several reasons for this, not simply 
reflecting whether or not the Member State wishes to promote or discourage afforestation of 
agricultural land. Aid for afforestation and maintenance costs is based on actual costs, which 
depend among other things on: 
- geographical, topographical, physical and climatic diversity (mountain forests, lowland 
forests, natural habitats, nature of the soil, etc.); 
- diverse economic and social factors (workforce, investment in forestry, pluriactivity, etc.); 
- the way in which various aids are calculated (e.g. whether or not they include certain 
parameters such as reafforestation, mortality rate, etc.). 
The annual premium covering losses of farmers' or landowners' income normally reflects 
financial losses resulting from afforestation of their agricultural land and subsequently from 
the loss of annual income previously obtained from agriculture. The attractiveness of this 
premium may depend on the amount paid compared to: 
- actual income from agricultural production; 
- other aid, such as aid to set aside arable land. 
The Member State programmes lay down conditions regulating afforestation. Afforestation 
applications are studied individually at local or regional level, taking into account technical 
aspects connected to afforestation and in principle eligibility with respect to regional 
planning or environmental protection provisions. A few programmes include a zoning 
framework defining areas in which afforestation is authorised, prohibited or regulated. 
Table 2. Decisions and funding 
MEMBER STATE 
Region 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
NL 
A 
P 
FIN 
S 
UK Belgium 
Flanders 
Wallonia 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Navarre 
Basque Country 
France 
lle-de-France 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Loire Region 
Ireland 
Italy 
Abruzzi 
Basilicata 
Bolzano 
Calabria 
Campania 
Emilia Romagna 
Friuli V. Giulia 
Lazio 
Liguria 
Lombardy 
Marche 
Molise 
Piedmont 
Apulia 
Sardinia 
Sicily 
Tuscany 
Umbria 
Valle d'Aosta 
Veneto 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Portugal 
Azores 
Madeira 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom Decision 
Date 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
26.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.02.1996 
27.02.1996 
27.02.1996 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
20.05.1994 
28.12.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
20.05.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
20.07.1995 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
20.07.1995 
21.01.1997 
15.06.1994 Number 
0(94)953/1 
0(94)953/2 
0(94)972 
0(94)953/3 
0(94)953/5 
0(94)953/11 
0(94)953/12 
0(94)953/13 
C(94)953/4 
0(94)448 
0(94)448 
0(94)448 
0(94)953/8 
0(94)953/10 
0(94)1315/1 
0(94)3950 
0(94)1315/2 
0(94)1315/3 
0(94)1315/4 
0(94)1315/5 
0(94)1315/6 
0(94)1315/7 
0(94)1315/8 
C(94)1315/9 
0(94)1315/10 
0(94)1315/11 
0(94)1315/12 
0(94)1315/13 
0(94)1315/14 
C(94)1315/15 
0(94)1315/16 
C(94)1315/17 
0(94)1315/18 
0(94)1315/19 
0(94)953/6 
0(94)953/7 
0(95)1860 
C(94)953/9 
0(94)953/15 
C(94)953/14 
0(95)1859 
0(97)100 
0(94)1533 
TOTAL EC Community 
contribution 93-97 
(Mio ECU) 
Forecast 
14.0 
16.9 
222.0 
48.0 
580.0 
32.0 
161.0 
400.0 
0.3 
15.5 
23.2 
120.7 
33.0 
61.6 
1 728.2 Agreed 
8.65 
6.5 
2.15 
10.3 O 
91.7 (*) 
43.5 
430.0 
27.4 
145.0 (*) 
300.0 
13.65 
15.13 
7.533 
19.33 
17.1 
8.625 
8.93 
3.689 
6.89 
15.275 
9.015 
5.135 
18.41 
21.05 
38.34 
29.73 
27.848 
12.9 
0.77 
20.65 
0.3 
10.2 (*) 
23.2 
96.0 
18.76 
0.6 
61.6 
1 267.21 Implemen­
tation 
93-96 
(Mio ECU) 
-
6.5 
53.5 
25.7 
164.4 
4.1 
94.2 
35.7 
0.0 
5.9 
5.8 
40.5 
5.4 
39.2 
480.9 Afforestation 
forecast 
(ha) 
Initial 
12 500 
9 500 
72 000 
15 000 
550 000 
95 360 
120 000 
170 000 
500 
9 200 
4 600 
128 000 
38 500 
100 000 
1 325 160 Adjusted 
6 300 
7 400 
57 750 
15 000 
305 750 
48 000 
105 000 
80 000 
400 
9 200 
4 600 
94 000 
38 500 
-
100 000 
871 900 
(*) The amount shown here is the amount agreed under the latest amendment to the programme 
IV. ACHIEVEMENTS 1993-96 
The following figures, based on the latest information forwarded by the Member States to the 
Commission,, show what had been achieved under the programmes by 30.4.1996. Three 
Member States are not included in these figures: 
- Belgium and Luxembourg, since schemes implemented up until that point were relatively 
insignificant, 
- Sweden, which only adopted its programme in 1996. 
Afforestation 
Figure 1 below shows the area of agricultural land afforested under the Regulation in each 
Member State, and the distribution of this land between public and private ownership. These 
areas are later compared to the utilised agricultural area (Figure 3) and the forest area (Figure 
4) in each Member State. 
250 000 T 238 112 
200 000 4-
ô 150 000 
100 000 
50 000 4-Public 
afforestation 
9 128ba 
(2%) 
»3 61597 60 477 
6 499 6 234 Private 
afforestation 
497 850 ha 
(98%) 
NL EL DK A FIN 
Total EU: 506 978 ha 
Figure 1. Area of agricultural land afforested under Regulation 2080/92 
The following points should be noted: 
- in total just over 500 000 ha of land has been afforested under this Regulation; 
- with more than 200 000 ha Spain has the largest wooded area; 
- besides Spain, 3 countries (United Kingdom, Ireland and Portugal) have each planted 
more than 50 000 ha of woodland; 
- private individuals have mainly been in receipt of this aid for afforestation costs (98%). 
Figure 2 opposite, which gives the total 
afforested area ia* each Member State, 
shows that Spain, the United Kingdom, 
Ireland and Portugal dominate. These four 
countries together account for over 80% 
of the total area of agricultural land 
afforested under this Regulation. 
Figure 2. Total agricultural area afforested 
under Regulatipn (EEC) No 2080/92 
in each Member State 
Figures 3 and 4 compare the afforested area in each Member State with its utilised 
agricultural area and the previously forest area. 
1.4% 
1.2% -j-p 
1.0%-| 
0.8% 
s o.6% Ha—m 
I mm 
0.2% ffU— I —1 
0.0% i 
Mi, 1,1,1,1,-
ÛZ 3 Z 111 Q 
Figure 3. Relation between agricultural areas 
afforested under 2080/92 and the UAA 
(utilised agricultural area) 8%. -a 
i. 
6%f | 
4% 
la i 111 i m i o I W'II i fnr ) fn j am \ •, [ | 
"- Q ^ < 
Figure 4. Agricultural areas afforested 
under 2080/92 and the total forest 
These figures show that: 
- Apart from Ireland, Portugal and Spain, where the percentage decreases in utilized 
agricultural area (UAA) due to the application of this Regulation are 1.35%, 1.25% and 
0.95% respectively, the decrease in UAA in most Member States is marginal; 
- afforestation carried out under Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 contributes most to the 
increase in forest area (almost 12%) in Ireland. The corresponding increase is only just 
above 2% in the United Kingdom and less than 2% in all other Member States. 
Figure 5 shows the number of people benefiting from the measure in each Member State. 
Figure 6 compares the average woodland per beneficiary, distinguishing between private and 
public afforestation. 
30 000-r 
25 000 4 
«> 20 000 4 <u 
S 15 000 
10 000 
5 000 
123 73 
UK IRL I EL NL DK FIN 
Total EU: 79 140 
Figure 5. Afforestation - Number of beneficiaries 
35 -r 
Z " K. 
Private afforestation 250 -r 
200 4 
150 4 
ioo 4 
50 4 233 
m 140 
60 
32 
17 
Public afforestation 
Global average EU: 0,6 ha 
Figure 6Afforestation - Average per beneficiary '*/ 
0) Public afforestation in Denmark does not benefit from Regulation 2080/92. The value shown in the 
above Figure 6 is provided for information only. 
These show that: 
- the highest number of beneficiaries is in Spain, where most afforestation has been carried; 
out; 
- the average area of woodland per private beneficiary is around 6 ha. The largest gap is 
between Portugal at one end of the scale (30 ha) and Greece, Germany and Austria at the 
other (all around 1 ha); 
- where the public sector undertakes afforestation, the average afforested area per 
beneficiary is much larger than in the private sector, reaching more than 230 ha in the 
Netherlands for instance. 
Figure 7 below breaks the afforested agricultural areas in each Member State down into 
coniferous plantations and broadleaves or mixed plantations (with more than 75% 
broadleaves). Figure 8 shows the percentage of these species in the afforested areas in each 
Member State. 
Overall, 40% of afforested areas in the EU involve coniferous species and 60% broadleaves 
or mixed plantations. However, the spread varies widely between Member States. While the 
proportion of conifers is below 10% in the Netherlands, Greece and Germany, for instance, it 
is over 80% in Ireland. 
250 000 T 
200 000 4 
"g 150 000 I 
« 100 000 
50 ooo 4-40% 
60% 
Total EU 
B conifers 
Obroadleaves and mixed plantations 
n 
E UK IRL P F I D NL EL DK A FIN 
Figure 7. Share of conifers and broadleaves in -woodland afforested under Regulation 2080/92 
2 685 ha 
(73%) 3 
DK 
s3 
sC3 1018 ha 16 975 ha 
(27%) (91%) 
13 800 ha 12 095 ha 
(48%) (20%) 
38 h» 39 228 hi 
(11%) (79%) G1636 ha 5 855 ha 
(9%) (94%) 
48 382 ha 24 766 ha 
(80%) (94%) 
10 658 ha 120 ha 
(21%) (68%) 379 ha 133 990 ha 
(6%) (56%) 
1 545 ha 6153 ha 
(6%) (95%) 
57 ha 41 465 ha 
(32%) (67%) 3 
I ^^L^^H 
broadleaves and mixed plantations 0 NL 
\^y 
UK 103 730 ha 
(44%) 
346 ha 
(5%) 
20 077 ha 
(33%) 
Figure 8. Percentage of conifers and broadleaves in woodland afforested under Regulation 2080/92 
Figures 9 and 10 show the spread of woodland areas according to the type of land that has 
been afforested. In the EU 61% of land afforested under this Regulation are permanent 
grassland and pasture, 36% arable land and 3% land under permanent crops (vines, orchards, 
etc.). This proportion varies widely between Member States. Countries such as the 
Netherlands or Denmark generally undertook afforestation of arable land, while Austria and 
Ireland concentrated on permanent grassland and pasture. 
250 000 T 
200 000 4-
t> 150 000 
0) 
*= 100 000 4-
50 000 3% 
61% 36% 
Total EU 
G3 permanent crops (vines, fruit 
trees) 
B permanent grassland-and -
pasture 
D arable land 
E UK IRL P I F D NL EL DK 
Figure 9. Distribution of afforested land by land type 
arable land grassland FIN 5 469 ha 
(17%) e 499 ha 
301 ha (100%) 
(1%) 
63 ha 
(47%) 7 500 ha 
(12%) 
v"*^ permanent crops v 
Figure 10. Distribution of total afforested area by land type and Member State 54 097 ha 
(88%) 
Premium to compensate income loss 
Figures 11 and 12 compare the number and type of activity carried out by the beneficiaries of 
premiums covering losses of income in the various Member States. 
Figure 11. Number of beneficiaries of the premium covering income loss per Member State and activity 
10 
100% -
90%-
80% 
70%-
fi 60% 
<u 
| 50% -
o 
* A0%. 
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/. s&i&i 
m WE I swg 
~ 
UK NL E F IRL P I D RN EL 
Figure 12. Proportion of farmers in beneficiaries of the premium covering income loss 
It should be noted that: 
- Nobody is in receipt of the premium covering income loss in Austria or Denmark. The 
Austrian programme does not make any provision for this premium and it was only 
introduced into the Danish programme when it was amended in 1997; 
- The highest number of beneficiaries is in Germany, where more than 90% of those in 
receipt of aid for afforestation costs receive the premium covering income loss; 
- The United Kingdom awards the premium to fanners only, while other Member States 
pay it to non-farmers as well as farmers. A distinction is made between farmers and non-
farmers based on the Regulation's definition of the farmer practising farming as a main 
occupation deriving not less than 25% of their total income from farming on the holding. 
This explains why Finland and Greece (each with a high number of "part-time" farmers) 
both have a lower number of farmers than non-farmers benefiting from the premium. 
Improvements 
Figures 13, 14 and 15 show the improvements made to farm woodlands in the Member 
States. In terms of the : 
- number of beneficiaries (Fig. 13): three countries (Germany, Denmark and Finland) 
account for 80% of beneficiaries. Some Member States, such as France and Ireland, have 
awarded practically no investment aid for the improvement of woodlands belonging to 
farmers; 
- area (Fig. 14): 85% of the area affected by this measure is in three countries (Germany, 
Spain and Finland); 
- roads (Fig. 15): the network of forest roads has been extended in the southern countries 
mainly. 
11 
9 000 
8000 
« 7000 .2 
.1 6 000 o 
5 000 T8 385 
i! 4 000 + 
1 3 000 
3 
2 2 000 
1000 7 363 
5137 
2 334 
1281' 
899 A UK EL 
I 3% 1% 1% 
5% 
362 181 84 
D DK FIN E I A * UK EL P F IRL NL 
Total EU: 26 026 
Figure 13. Improvement of farm woodland - Number of beneficiaries 
47 832 
38 474 
M 9 246 e ,„ 
&S 6 709 c * 
1 38 3 602 
111, m 
I EL UK 1690 411 
'&Û—|—(323—| i « 
» DK A F IRL NL 
Total EU: 184 433 ha 
Figure 14. Improvement of farm woodland - Areas involved 
3000 
2 500 
2 000 
is 
S 1 500 
1000 
500 2 580 
1436 
736 
£sa | taa ^ 693 
506 20% 
241 138 
EL FIN D . DK UK F IRL NL 
Total EU: 7 312 km 
Figure 15. Improvement of farm woodland - Forest roads 
12 
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 
The following analysis is based on the results available with respect to the application of the 
Regulation between 1993 and 1996. This short period limits the representative nature of the 
results and does not permit precise conclusions to be drawn about the application of the 
Regulation or produce an accurate verdict on how successful it has been. 
1. Afforestation 
Discussion of results 
1. The afforestation of agricultural land is not new. Aid for afforestation has existed for a 
long time, both at Community level and in some Member States. The Community 
launched various schemes to encourage the afforestation of agricultural land between 
1980 and 1990, including the IMPs and measures relating to agricultural structures. 
However, the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 gave a new boost to this 
type of afforestation, largely because it introduced a premium covering income loss which 
guaranteed an annual source of income for the farmer for a period of up to 20 years. 
2. The afforestation of agricultural land under this Regulation has essentially been 
concentrated in four countries: Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Portugal (despite 
the prolonged drought in 1994-95 which seriously slowed down the pace of afforestation 
on the Iberian Peninsula). The agricultural land that has been afforested in these Member 
States makes up a total of 81% of the overall area afforested in the EU under this 
Regulation, involving 56% of beneficiaries (see Figure 2). 
It is clear, therefore, that this scheme has largely been applied in Member States or 
regions wishing to expand their forest area. The concentration of agricultural production 
on the most productive cultivated land and marginalisation of less productive agricultural 
land have been the main factors determining whether or not agricultural land is converted 
to forest use in these regions, which are often marked by: 
- low existing afforestation and a desire to increase this rate in order to boost wood-
based industries, 
- a recognition of the need to curb rural decline by afforesting agricultural land doomed 
otherwise to be abandoned, thus helping, with the active participation of farmers and 
other owners, to develop this land and promote multifunctional rural management in 
these less-favoured zones or areas in sharp decline. 
3. In terms of area, over 65% of afforestation was carried out in areas believed at risk of fire 
under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on protection of the Community's forests 
against fire. In these areas, afforestation is an effective means of combating soil erosion 
and climate change (it should be noted that Annexe IV to the International Convention to 
Combat Désertification recommends afforestation to offset the impact of désertification). 
Decisions adopting the programmes provided for under Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 ask 
the Member States to include fire prevention measures in plans to afforest high-risk areas 
and in particular to comply with plans to protect forests against fire approved by the 
Commission under Regulation (EEC) No 215 8/92. 
4. Examination of the relationship between the number of beneficiaries and the number of 
hectares afforested (see Figure 6) shows that the average area of woodland per beneficiary 
13 
is generally relatively low in the other Member States. Farmland is broken up into small 
plots of land in these regions, leading to "postage stamp" patches of woodland and the 
dispersal of remaining arable land and standing crops, hampering profitable forest 
• management although benefitting landscape. Moreover, the premium covering income 
loss paid to these "mini woodlands" does not bring in a significant compensation for 
farmers. Several reasons have been put forward to explain this situation: 
- farmers' tendency to convert just a small proportion of their land to forestry use rather 
than making a total changeover; 
- attempts to improve poor quality agricultural land (land producing low yields or where 
farm mechanisation is difficult) and extend existing wooded areas ("fleshing out" 
existing wooded areas); 
- the time factor, which means that afforestation can be achieved in small stages over 
several years, thus improving the balance between the time required to establish forest 
plantations and the low funds left over from farming activities. 
As land is often set aside on a progressive basis, the land that becomes available for 
afforestation is in many cases widely dispersed, fragmented and attached to land which is 
still farmed. Planned rural afforestation and land management are needed to establish a 
suitably equipped forest (especially in terms of access roads) large enough to facilitate 
easy management and exploitation and to fund its other protection and access functions 
itself in as many cases as possible. The need to strike a balance between agricultural and 
forest land raises the question of whether or not it is possible to lay down minimum areas 
eligible for afforestation aid, or to demand that management units be grouped together (as 
in the Dutch programme, for instance). However, because of the relative small average 
farm size in the Union, the enforcement of the scheme tends to take place on relatively 
small areas of land. Moreover, the Regulation invites the Member States to draw up zonal 
afforestation plans. 
It is therefore essential that afforestation is carried out within the framework of rural 
development plans. "Mini-woodlands" are considered useful in environmental and 
traditional farm landscape terms, despite the fact that in some cases they may not be 
considered as meeting the requirements of Member State forestry policies or CAP 
objectives within the framework of forestry. The overriding considerations are the need to 
create new more diversified habitats, encourage recreational activities and increase 
attractiveness in terms of tourism. 
Finally, care should be taken when interpreting statistics. The average afforested area-per 
beneficiary does not, for instance, reflect any attempts to group together smaller 
properties and thus obtain larger, unbroken forest areas. 
5. It is difficult to distinguish general rules on the type of land used for afforestation (arable 
land, grassland or land under permanent crops). Nevertheless, the potential environmental 
benefits have probably been tempered by the economic realities of the situation. However, 
it is true to say that: 
- in arable crop areas, where per hectare added value is high, the afforestation rate is 
low. Only a small area of forest belongs to farmers. There are not many possibilities of 
releasing land and the few woodlands that have been created are intended to combat 
wind or soil erosion or for game reserves. 
14 
- in intensive livestock farming areas, where farm value added is relatively high, 
agricultural activity remains stable and afforested areas are fairly small. 
- woodlands are established preferably on permanent grassland in areas where 
livestock breeding is less profitable, or on unproductive arable land, in other words 
areas with low per hectare agricultural value-added, low market values and low rents 
in general. These conditions tend to appear more or less favourable to afforestation. 
Land parcels are, however, often extremely fragmented due to a failure to regroup 
land. This hinders both agriculture and afforestation. 
The effect of Member States' decisions fixing the rate of aid to compensate for income 
loss within the scale laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 on the one hand and for 
other agricultural measures, such as set-aside and Regulation 2078/92, on the other is by 
no means negligible. It is likely, for instance, that potential afforesters are discouraged in 
Germany, where the fixed set-aside premium is often more attractive than the 
afforestation premium; on contrary, in Extremadura (Spain), the afforestation scheme 
seems to be more attractive for farmers in comparison to the agri-environmental 
measures. However, other factors also play a part in farmers' decisions (such as the 
reduction in land value or the difficulty of reversing the process, for example), and it is 
not enough simply to compare rates of aid. Additional studies would be needed to 
enumerate these factors and evaluate their importance in terms of the choices made by 
farmers. 
Another element that should be discussed in relation to the premium covering income loss 
is the difference in aid depending on whether or not the recipient is a farmer practising 
farming as a main occupation (i.e. deriving more than 25% of total income from farming 
on the holding). The peculiar logic of this condition stems from CAP guidelines and the 
limited availability of EAGGF Guarantee Section funding. However, it also raises 
difficult issues for the relevant administrations in the Member States, with regard to 
management and monitoring for instance, and hinders afforestation in regions where 
many rural players cannot derive more than 25% of their income from farming (this is 
true both of the EU's northernmost regions, where small farms are frequently combined 
with large forest properties, and of the southern regions, where farmers also have to work 
in areas outside farming as such). 
In the 1980s the potential role of afforestation within the context of the CAP reform was 
considerably over-estimated. Forecasts considered only hypothetical areas (15-20 million 
hectares) of agricultural land that might possibly be afforested without taking into account 
the various environmental, economic, social and legal constraints framing choices of how 
to use released agricultural land. 
After only three years, it is rather premature to evaluate what has been achieved by the 
Regulation in terms of the objectives listed therein. However, by distinguishing between 
the three main policies to which these objectives are linked the following observations can 
be made: 
- CAP-related objectives: 
Although afforestation of agricultural land has probably only had a small impact on 
reducing surplus agricultural production, we must not forget its contribution to rural 
development: by encouraging pluriactivity on the part of farmers and compensating, 
via the premium provided for this purpose, their income loss, properly implemented it 
encourages a dynamic approach to soil use and proper maintenance of the countryside; 
15 
- environmental policy objectives: 
A number of rules must be respected to ensure that afforestation enhances the 
compatibility of countryside management and the need to maintain an environmental 
balance. These include the rules and conditions laid down in afforestation 
programmes, the location of woodland, the choice of species and plantation methods. 
In some cases non-compliance with the environmental conditions laid down in the 
programmes or faulty interpretation have produced a negative impact on the 
environment (for example when conditions laid down to preserve valuable biotopes are 
ignored). In such cases the necessary changes must be made to ensure that these 
anomalies are not repeated.With a careful choice of species, location and management 
methods, afforestation generally plays an important part in environmental protection 
and may generate a number of positive external effects (curbing erosion, preventing 
desertification, encouraging biodiversity and regulating the hydrological regime, etc.). 
Failure to observe these parameters, however, can lead to negative impact on the 
environment. 
By increasing the carbon dioxide fixation rate, afforestation of agricultural land also 
helps combat the greenhouse effect. Within the context of global climate change this 
contribution is of course very modest. However, the policy of afforestation of 
agricultural land is an important part of the global environment policy to which the EU 
committed itself at the 1992 Rio Conference (UNCED). 
- Forestry policy objectives: 
The Member States have sole competence in terms of the application of forestry policy 
(provided in the context of Regulation 2080/92 they respect the objectives laid down in 
the Article 1 of the said Regulation) and have made use of the flexibility in the 
Community framework laid down in this Regulation to choose various options in line 
with this policy and focus either on developing their wood-based industries or on the 
environmental and social functions of the forest stands they have created. In Ireland, 
for example, where the aim is to double forest area over the next thirty years so as to 
create economically viable wood-based industries, the programme largely focuses on 
plantations with a high economic return (sitka spruce, pine, etc.). In contrast, the 
United Kingdom programme strives to integrate application of the Regulation into an 
overall regional planning policy focusing on the countryside and environmental 
aspects. 
Initially, due to the new character of the Regulation, some Member States had difficulties 
adapting their administrative arrangements. Subsequent experience gained by these 
Member States, linked with relative flexibility on the part of the Commission, has helped 
improve the situation. 
Conclusions 
Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 is directly applicable throughout the European Union, 
although each Member State is free to choose what exactly they wish to focus on. Starting 
from the basis of a fairly general European law, each country and region has adapted the 
Regulation to their particular needs. 
Several elements, such as the interests of individuals, the policies followed and the areas 
concerned, have a positive or negative impact on the choices which can be made when 
afforesting agricultural land. Some of these elements are shown in the following table. 
16 
Table 3. Incentives and disincentives of aid for afforestation 
Field 
Agriculture, 
CAP 
Regional 
planning 
Employment Incentives j 
- iow-productivity agricultural land \ 
- search for other production niches 
to bring in additional income Disincentives 
competes with aid awarded under 
other Regulations (2078/92, set-
aside) 
concern about Community, 
national or regional guarantees 
needed to continue premiums long 
term 
irreversible nature of the measure 
(land cannot be returned to 
agricultural use) 
- development of the forest stand 
Environment opportunity to employ the 
available workforce profitably in 
agriculture's low season 
improve the environmental and 
landscape quality of rural areas 
combat soil erosion and 
desertification possible reduction of scenic value 
due to species choice 
Statutory 
Socio-economic 
and financial farmers' descendants will not be 
able to revert to farming " 
improvement in wildlife value 
increase in market value of 
marginal land areas (remote areas, 
land poorly suited to agricultural 
use, tiny plots of land on the edge 
of the forest, etc.) 
establish an area for leisure use 
diversification of financial 
investments 
promotes the regional heritage of 
large landowners in certain areas conflict with the farm lease act 
unfavourable economic climate for 
wood-based industries 
reduction in financial value of 
agricultural land after afforestation 
continual investment required at 
the start and long-term repayment 
2. A specific aspect: cork oak 
Cork oak plantations constitute specific plant fonnations in certain parts of Spain (dehesas) 
and Portugal (montados), which are often linked with the production of cork (of whfch the 
EU is the leading world producer) and pastoral agriculture and forestry. These plant 
fonnations are of interest in economic (high value-added product (cork), increased demand 
on world market), social (jobs) and environmental (fight against desertification, biodiversity) 
terms. 
The Advisory Committee on Cork believes that Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 has been 
positive for the sector as a whole. In the areas in question in Spain and Portugal in particular 
aid (afforestation and improvement) has largely concentrated on such plant formations. The 
Committee has however demonstrated that limiting the improvement scheme to farmers who 
practise fanning as a main occupation is not adapted to this type of production, particularly 
in view of the length of time needed for cork production. 
17 
3. Investment aid to improve woodlands 
Discussion of results 
In many regions, sensible management of farm woodland is an integral part of developing 
and protecting the rural world. Farm woodland may play an active role in economic terms 
(timber production, tourism, hunting) or constitute a land reserve which may be mobilised for 
major investment. 
Under Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92, investment in farm woodland concentrates on 
assistance for the following measures: 
- in southern Europe (Spain, Portugal and Greece): fire protection measures (firebreaks, 
waterpoints) in line with Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on protection of the Community's 
forests against fire, forest paths, renewal and improvement of the cork oak stand (in 
Portugal especially); 
- in northern Europe: developing shelterbelts in Denmark, and restructuring the existing 
drainage system and regenerating unproductive stands in Finland; 
- in Germany and the United Kingdom: forestry measures to increase the stability and 
environmental value of stands; 
- the network of forest roads is being extended in most Member States. 
Some countries, particularly France and Ireland, have made practically no use of investment 
aid in farm woodland: 
- in Ireland, this is probably due to the fact that projects linked to Regulation (EEC) No 
2080/92 concentrate entirely on afforestation, since the operational forestry programme 
adopted within the framework of the EAGGF Guidance Section for Objective 1 regions 
offers to part-finance measures that improve the existing forest and is not limited to farm 
woodland; 
- in France, national aid systems do not always make it easy to distinguish forest belonging 
to farmers from that belonging to other private owners. It is therefore difficult for it to 
meet the eligibility criteria laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92. 
Conclusions 
Application of aid measures to improve farm woodland raises the following issues in 
particular: 
- do the types of investment have a real impact on improving the economic viability of farm 
woodland or are they more like ongoing forestry management aid, simply extended to 
cover farm woodland and thus backing up existing national aid in most cases? 
- by limiting aid to afforested areas linked to farms, is it not true that the Regulation can 
only partly attain its objectives of long-term improvement of forestry resources and more 
environmentally compatible countryside management? However, its potential for the 
improvement of landscape, and in many instances biodiversity, is acknowledged. 
Although farm woodland may be an important part of existing forests in some EU regions 
in statistical terms, the complex forest ownership structure (fragmented and scattered 
18 
between a large number of private owners who often do not practise farming as their main 
occupation) means that measures limited to farm woodland can only have a limited 
impact. 
The scheme would undoubtedly have a greater impact if, for example, farmers could work 
towards maintaining the forest as a whole, by encouraging, within the framework of 
consistent local forestry development, activities that could also involve areas of forest 
outside their own. 
* * 
* 
To close, it must be emphasised that this document is only an activity report. It cannot be 
considered an analysis or evaluation document, as these cannot be carried out given the way 
things stand but will certainly be of interest at a later stage. 
19 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 630 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 10 17 14 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-647-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-28224-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
£4>