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
Date: 1997-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, afforestation, aid system, forestry policy, land use

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  T HE  m i i N rn 
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) 

Amounts 

(amounts in brackets are those in initial  Regulation) 

Beneficiaries according to the species planted 

Christmas 
trees 

Fast-growing species 

Other species 

Aid for afforestation  costs 

eucalyptus: 

2 415.0  ECU/ha 

(2 000) 

competent public authorities of the Member States 

softwood  :  3 623.0  ECU / ha 

(3 000) 

broadleaves and 
mixed plantations  :  4 830.0  ECU  / ha 

(4 000) 

-

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 

Annual premium per hectare 
afforested to cover maintenance 
costs in the first five years 

softwoods 

years 1-2  : 
afterwards: 

301.9  ECU / h a / y e ar 
181.1  ECU/ha/year 

(250) 
(150) 

broadleaves 
/  mixed 

years 1-2  : 
afterwards  : 

603.8  ECU/ha/year 
362.3  ECU  / ha / year 

(500) 
(300) 

' 

Annual premium per hectare 
to cover losses of  income 
resulting from afforestation of 
agricultural land 

aid for the  improvement 
of woodlands 

afforestation  undertaken by: 

farmer  : 
other beneficiary  : 

724.5  ECU / ha / year 
181.1  ECU/ha/year 

(600) 
(150) 

845.3  ECU / ha 
shelterbelts  : 
181.1  ECU/ha 
firebreaks: 
waterpoints  : 
181.1  ECU/ha 
forest roads  :  21735.0  ECU / km 

improvement of 
cork oak stands  :  1691.0  ECU/ha 
845.3  ECU  / ha 

others  : 

(700) 
(150) 
(150) 
(18 000) 

(1400) 
(700) 

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. 

Decision 

Community 
contribution 93-97 
(Mio ECU) 

Date 

Number 

Forecast 

Agreed 

Table 2. Decisions and funding 

MEMBER STATE 

Region 

B 

Belgium 
Flanders 
Wallonia 

27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 

0(94)953/1 
0(94)953/2 

DK 

Denmark 

26.04.1994 

0(94)972 

D 

Germany 

27.04.1994 

0(94)953/3 

EL 

Greece 

27.04.1994 

0(94)953/5 

E 

F 

Spain 
Navarre 
Basque Country 

27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 

0(94)953/11 
0(94)953/12 
0(94)953/13 

France 
lle-de-France 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Loire Region 

27.04.1994 
27.02.1996 
27.02.1996 
27.02.1996 

C(94)953/4 
0(94)448 
0(94)448 
0(94)448 

IRL 

Ireland 

27.04.1994 

0(94)953/8 

1 

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 

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 

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 

L 

Luxembourg 

27.04.1994 

0(94)953/6 

NL 

Netherlands 

27.04.1994 

0(94)953/7 

A 

P 

Austria 

Portugal 
Azores 
Madeira 

FIN 

Finland 

S 

Sweden 

20.07.1995 

0(95)1860 

27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 
27.04.1994 

C(94)953/9 
0(94)953/15 
C(94)953/14 

21.01.1997 

0(97)100 

Implemen 
tation 
93-96 
(Mio ECU) 

-

Afforestation 
forecast 
(ha) 

Initial 

Adjusted 

12 500 

6 300 

6.5 

53.5 

25.7 

9 500 

7 400 

72 000 

57 750 

15 000 

15 000 

14.0 

16.9 

222.0 

48.0 

8.65 
6.5 
2.15 

10.3  O 

91.7 

(*) 

43.5 

580.0 

430.0 

164.4 

550 000 

305 750 

32.0 

27.4 

4.1 

95 360 

48 000 

161.0 

400.0 

145.0 

(*) 

300.0 

94.2 

35.7 

120 000 

105 000 

170 000 

80 000 

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 

0.3 

15.5 

23.2 

120.7 

0.0 

5.9 

5.8 

500 

9 200 

4 600 

400 

9 200 

4 600 

40.5 

128 000 

94 000 

20.07.1995 

0(95)1859 

33.0 

18.76 

5.4 

38 500 

38 500 

UK 

United Kingdom 

15.06.1994 

0(94)1533 

61.6 

TOTAL EC 

1 728.2 

1 267.21 

480.9 

1 325 160 

871  900 

(*) 

The  amount shown here is the amount agreed under the  latest amendment to the  programme 

0.6 

61.6 

-

39.2 

100 000 

100 000 

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-

»3 

61597 

60 477 

Public 
afforestation 
9 128ba 
(2%) 

Private 
afforestation 
497 850 ha 
(98%) 

6 499 

6 234 

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 

i 

8%. -a 
i. 
6%f  | 

4% 

0.0% 

ÛZ 

Figure 3. 

Mi, 1,1,1,1,-

111  Q 

Z 

3 

la  i  111  i  m  i  o 

I  W'II  i  fnr  )  fn 

j  am  \ 

•, 

[ 

| 

"-  Q  ^  < 

Relation  between agricultural areas 
afforested under 2080/92 and the UAA 
(utilised agricultural area) 

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 

35  -r 

UK 

IRL 

I 

EL 

NL 

DK 

FIN 

Total EU: 79 140 

Figure  5. Afforestation  - Number  of  beneficiaries 

123 

73 

250 -r 

233 

200  4 

150  4 

140 

m 

ioo  4 

50  4 

60 

32 

17 

Z 

" 

K. 

Private  afforestation 

Global average EU: 0,6 ha 

Public  afforestation 

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 

D 

NL 

EL 

DK 

A 

FIN 

E 

UK 

IRL 

P 

F 

I 

Figure  7. Share  of conifers and broadleaves  in -woodland afforested  under Regulation  2080/92 

2 685 ha 

1018 ha 
(27%) 

(73%) 3 
DK s3 
sC3 

38 h» 
(11%) 

13 800 ha 
(48%) 

16 975 ha 
(91%) 

G 1636 ha 

(9%) 

5 855 ha 
(94%) 

379 ha 
(6%) 

133 990 ha 
(56%) 

3 

(44%) 

103 730 ha 

12 095 ha 
(20%) 

48 382 ha 
(80%) 

24 766 ha 
(94%) 

1  545 ha 
(6%) 

6153 ha 
(95%) 

I 

^^L^^H 

346 ha 
(5%) 

39 228 hi 
(79%) 

10 658 ha 
(21%) 

120 ha 
(68%) 

57 ha 
(32%) 

41  465 ha 
(67%) 

NL 

\^y 

20 077 ha 
(33%) 

broadleaves and  mixed  plantations  0 

UK 

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> 
0) 

150 000 

*=  100 000 4-

50 000 

3% 

36% 

61% 

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 

5 469 ha 

(17%) 

301 ha 

(1%) 

e 499 ha 

(100%) 

63 ha 
(47%) 

7 500 ha 
(12%) 

54 097 ha 
(88%) 

FIN 

arable  land 

grassland 

v"*^  permanent crops 

v 

Figure  10.  Distribution of total afforested area by land type and Member  State 

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 

fi 
<u 

| 
o 
* 

100% -

90%-

80% 

7 0 %-

60% 

50%  -

A0%. 

30% -

20% -

10%  -

no/. 

s&i&i 

m  WE 

swg 

I 

~ 

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 

7 363 

5137 

9 000 

T8  385 

« 
.2 
.1 
o 

i! 

1 
3 

2 

8000 

70 00 

6 000 

5  000 

4 000  + 

3 000 

2  000 

1000 

A  UK  EL 
3%  1%  1% 

I 
5% 

2  334 

1 2 8 1' 

899 

362 

181 

84 

D 

DK 

FIN 

E 

I 

A 

*  UK 

EL 

P 

F 

IRL 

NL 

Figure  13.  Improvement  of farm  woodland  - Number  of  beneficiaries 

Total EU:  26 026 

47  832 

38 474 

M 
&S 

1 

9 246 

e ,„ 
6 709 

c  * 

38  3  602 

1690 

4 11 

111, m 

I 

EL 

'&Û—|—(323—| 

i « 

UK 

» 

DK 

A 

F 

IRL  NL 

Total EU:  184 433 ha 

Figure  14.  Improvement  of farm  woodland  - Areas 

involved 

2  580 

1436 

3 0 00 

2  500 

2  000 

1  500 

1000 

500 

is 
S 

736 

693 

506 

20% 

241 

138 

£ sa 

| 

taa  ^ 

EL 

FIN 

D 

.  DK 

UK 

F 

IRL  NL 

Figure  15.  Improvement  of farm  woodland 

- Forest 

roads 

Total EU:  7 312 km 

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: 

include 

laid  down 

the  rules  and  conditions 

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 
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 

Incentives 
-  iow-productivity agricultural land 
-  search for other production niches 

j 
\ 

to bring in additional income 

Regional 
planning 
Employment 

Environment 

Statutory 
Socio-economic 
and  financial 

-  development of the forest stand 

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 

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 

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) 

possible reduction of scenic value 
due to species choice 

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>