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
Date: 1997-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, agricultural production policy, cultivation techniques, environmental protection, means of agricultural production

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 

}fj 
/'il 

• 

£u 

^ $ | | || 

- fc^''  1 

V"  K C«  l 
«* 
A',  *?''*<  i 
'  "^  »»  J lJJ 
1-4  « 

1 

.1 

1 

•  'f*"« 

j 

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 
1.1  CAP reform  and the agri-environment  regulation 
1.2  Agri-environment  measures 
1.3  Premium levels and Community financial contribution 
1.4  Tendering 
1.5 Environmental  capital works 
1.6  State aids 
1.7 Farmers' obligations 
1.8  Approvals procedure 
1.9  Implementing rules 
1.10  Agri-environment  programmes 

2. EC POLICY  FRAMEWORK 

2.1 Interaction with common market  organisations 
2.2  Structural policies, cohesion and employment 
2.3 International  agreements 
2.4 Environment  policy 
2.5 Genetic resources, research 
2.6 Animal welfare  and hunting 

3. PROGRAMME  IMPLEMENTATION  UP TO J997 
3.1 The initial phase: programme approvals 
3.2 Budget  estimates and EAGGF provision 
3.3  Total programme budget 
3.4 Implementation  data 
3.5 Monitoring,  evaluation  and follow  up by the Commission 
3.6  Assessment  of measures by category 
3.7 Developments  in programme management  and administration 

4. CONCLUSIONS 

4.1 Outstanding issues 
4.2 Reflections  on possible amendments 
4.3 Future developments 

ANNEX  : Programme  approval  and amendment  decisions 

4 
4 
4 
5 
5 
6 
6 
6 
6 
7 
7 

10 
10 
10 
11 
12 
13 
13 

14 
14 
14 
15 
16 
17 
19 
22 

25 
25 
28 
31 

33 

1. 

O P É R A T I ON  OF  T HE  A G R I - E N V I R O N M E NT  R E G U L A T I ON 

1.1 

CAP reform  and the agri-environment  regulation 

Table 1.1: 

(c)  protection  and 

effects  of agriculture; 

to extensive grassland; 

milk  products,  and 

to  encourage  farmers 

(a)  use  of  fanning  practices  which  reduce  the  polluting 

Specific  objectives  of  agri-environment 
measures, Article l(a)-(g). 

(b)  extensification  of fanning  and  conversion  of arable  land 
• 

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 
tobacco.  The  aims 
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 
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: 
forestry,  and  early 
agri-environment, 
agri-environment 
retirement. 
regulation2 establishes an aid scheme with 
three  overall  aims3:  to  accompany ' the 
changes 
under  market 
organisation  rules;  to  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  the  Community's  policy 
objectives  regarding  agriculture  and  the 
to 
environment;  and 
providing  an  appropriate 
income  for 
fanners  who  deliver  the  environmental 
benefits. 

(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: 

(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: 

(d)  upkeep of abandoned fannland  and woodlands; 
(e)  long-tenn environmental  set-aside ; 
(f) 
land management for public access; 
(g)  education and training. 

the  environment, 
improvement  of 
countryside,  landscape,  natural  resources,  and  soil  and 
genetic diversity; 

Agri-environment 
measures, Article 2(l)(a)-(g). 

(c)  extensification  of  livestock  production:  to  reduce  the 

proportion of sheep and cattle per forage  area; 

to  contribute 

introduced 

land  management 

Table  1.2: 

The 

(d)  other  environmental  fanning  practices:  to  use  other 
practices  compatible  with 
the  protection  of 
the 
resources,  as  well  as 
environment  and  natural 
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 

1.2 

Agri-environment  measures 

(0 

Article  1 of  the  regulation  provides  for 
the 
seven  specific  objectives  which 
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 

fannland  and woodland in good condition; 
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 

(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. 
idem.  Article  1. 

3 

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 

category  of  expenditure 

Table 1.3:  Maximum 

in  a  scheme. 

part-financing from EAGGF. 

levels  of  premia  eligible 

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 
In 
from  participation 
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 
as 
be 
compensation  for  the  costs  of  delivering 
environmental  public  goods  and  cannot 
be  regarded  as  subsidies  in  an  economic 
sense. 

original  max. rates 
(ECU/ha) 

max,  rates 
1996 

regarded 

should 

210/LU removed 

422.6 

301.9 

181.1 

sheep 

crops 

350 

250 

150 

or 

253.6/LU  removed 

from 
(ECU/ha.) 

for 

and 

annual 

annual  crops  for  which  a 
premium  per  hectare 
is 
the  market 
granted  under 
regulations  governing 
the 
crops in question 
other 
pasture 
annual  crops  and  pasture,  if 
the  farmer  has  given  one  or 
more  of  the  undertakings  in 
(b), 
Article  2  (l)(a)  and 
together with  an  undertaking 
in Article  2(l)(d). 
each 
cattle 
livestock  unit  by  which  a 
herd  is reduced. 
each 
endangered  breed  reared 
specialized  olive  groves 
citrus  fruits 
other  perennial  crops  and 
wine 
upkeep  of abandoned  land 
cultivation  and  propagation 
of  useful  plants  adapted  to 
conditions 
local 
and 
genetic 
by 
threatened 
erosion 
land  set  aside 
expenditure 
courses 

livestock  unit  of  an 

incurred 

on 

100/LU reared 

120.8/LU  reared 

400 
100JD 
700 

250 

250 

483 
1208 
845.3  , 

301.9 

301.9 

600 
2500/ptnon/coune 

724.5 
3019 /ptno^couire 

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. 

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. 

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. 

10 

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 
14 

idem.  Article 4(5). 
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 
linear  features, 
abandoned  land,  environmental  set  aside,  courses  and  demonstration  projects  and 
calculation of premia were also  covered.18 

to  extensive  farming, 

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 

Table 1.4:  Categories of agri-environment 

measure. 

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 
land 
management;  and  training  and  demon 
stration  projects.  These  are 
in 
Table  1.4. 

farming;  non-productive 

listed 

1.  Environmentally-beneficial  productive 

fanning 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

organic farming 

farming 

non-organic 
environmental improvements 
maintenance 
existing 
of 
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 

of 

the 

agri-

emphasis 

The  main 
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 

B 

Dk 

D 

El 

E 

F 

Irl 

I 

NL 

L 

Ôs 

P 

Fin 

S 

UK 

EU-15 

1(a) organic 

20% 

24% 

1% 

14% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

23% 

2% 

1% 

17% 

4% 

5% 

15% 

2% 

8% 

1(b) farming with environmental 
improvements 

1(c) maintenance of low intensity 
systems 

58% 

46% 

56% 

35% 

35% 

15% 

49% 

43% 

32% 

39% 

59% 

18% 

42% 

6% 

53% 

41% 

5% 

16% 

21% 

0% 

15% 

79% 

21% 

22% 

0% 

56% 

21% 

68% 

42% 

7 1% 

30% 

35% 

2 non-productive land management 

14% 

14% 

21% 

50% 

42% 

3% 

24% 

10% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

6% 

7% 

1% 

14% 

14% 

3 training and demonstration projects 

3% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

4% 

1% 

4% 

2% 

66% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

5% 

7% 

0% 

3% 

Total 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

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 
its 
the  European  Union.  For  example,  the  Netherlands  has  chosen 
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. 

to  focus 

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, 
to 
environmental  objectives  is  described  in  Agriculture  and  environment'22.  Objective 5(a) 

the  Objective 5(a)  measures  and  LEADER  projects  and  networks) 

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 
agriculture-environment 
framework  programme 
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. 

(1994-1998) 

research 

covers 

for 

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, 
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. 

the  Commission 

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. 

Evolution  of  EAGGF  budget 
estimate 

Estimate  1993-97 (EU-12) 

ECU million 

Commission  estimate,  December 
1991 

2256 

'  5830 

forecasts, 

programme 

Initial 
December  1993 

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 

Budget  in approved programmes, 
October  1995 

Likely out-tum (1997 estimated) 

Revised forecasts, July  1994 

3670 

3915 

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 

expenditure ' 
million) 

Member 
State 
B 
Dk 
D 
El 
E 
F 
Irt 
I 
NL 
L 
P 
UK 
Os 
Fin 
S 
EU15 

EAGGF 

3 
19 
918 
11 
125 
509 
163 
432 
25 
4 
148 
98 
806 
399 
126 
3787 

Out-turn 
Member 
State 
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  1 3 ( b)  P r o p o r t i on  p r id 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 

EVOLUTION OF EAGGF EXPENDITURE 
EAGGF part only  : million ECU 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

ECU million 

Total up 
to 1997 

600 

37 

8 
67 

2 
123 

14 
73 

10 
123 

231 

3 
223 

16 
106 
19 
54 

39 

20 
485 

2 
6 
232 
2 
33 
119 
43 
42 

8 
541 
40 
257 
43 
26 
1391 

2 
9 
304 
10 
54 
144 
100 
336 
4 
12 
264 
58 
143 
83 
36 

1556 

3 
19 
918 
11 
125 
509 
163 
432 
4 
25 
805 
148 
399 
126 
98 
3786 

Member State 

B 

<-  B 

Figure 3.4 

Member 
State 
B 
Dk 
D 
El 
E 
F 
Irl 
I 
L 
NL 
Ôs 
P 
Fin 
S 
UK 
EU  15 
Table 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 

out-turn 

estimate 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1996 Division  of  budget 
R. 2078/92 
2% 

Total EC budget 

67,760 

65,929 

73,555 

85,094 

87,651 

of which EAGGF (guarantee) 

34,590 

32,970 

34,503 

39,108 

41,233 

of which  agri-environment 

123 

231 

485 

1,391 

1,557 

agri-environment as % of total 
budget 

0.18% 

0.35% 

0.66% 

1.63% 

1.78% 

Table  3.6 

3.4 

Implementation  data 

EAGGF  EM 
| | g| 
f i ll 

(guarantee) 
44% 

I  rest of budget 
54% 
j 

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. 

Number 

I  Member 

State 

Total no. employed in 
participants  agriculture (ASEU 1996) 
'000 
ÎÔ2 
114 
1197 
780 
1119 
1080 
140 
1489 
6 
243 
267 
507 
156 
124 
533 
7857 

number 
1  242 
8  193 
554  836 
1  839 
29 599 
177  695 
23 855 
63 841 
1  922 
5 854 
180 000 
125 479 
91  509 
68 969 
21  482 
|  1356 315  | 
* 7995dala;  "  1996data;  "'estimated 
Table 3.7 Number of participants at 15.4. 1997 

% 
1% 
7% 
46% 
0% 
3% 
16% 
17% 
4% 
32% 
2% 
67% 
25% 
59% 
56% 
4% 
17% 

B 
Dk 
D 
El* 
E 
F 
Irl 
I** 
L 
NL 
ôs*** 
P 
Fin 
S 
UK 
EU15 

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 

P 

UK 

Member  Stat* 

^ T - ^ - T -* 

BOH 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Average premia 

UAA (Utilized 
agricultural 
area) (ASEU 
1996) 

estimate of % 
UAA within 
2078 

'000  ha 
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 

135  706 

% 
1% 
3% 
37% 
0% 
2% 
19% 
18% 
6% 

7 6% 
2% 
72% 
15% 
77% 
45% 
8% 

17% 

Figure 3.8(b) 

Figure 3.8(a) 

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 

A v e r afe 
payment per 

£ 

Total take-up 
at 15.4.1997 
, 
. 
(only area  ™ 
payments) 
•000 ha 
17 
94 
6353 
12 
532 
5725 
801 
977 
97 
31 
2500 
606 
2000 
1561 
1322 

ECU/ha 
84 
186 
89 
n/a 
81 
42 
147 
n/a 
90 
260 
140 
137 
124 
156 
55 

2652 

22628 

'data  1995; "data  1996. 

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 

; 

organic farming 

(1) 
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 
the  EU  there  are  well-established 
ceasing  the  use  of  pesticides.  Throughout 
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. 

non-organic farming with environmental improvements 

(2) 
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. 

maintenance of existing low-intensity systems 

(3) 
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 
43  STAR Working Documents VI/5104/92 and VI/3879/94. 
23 

idem. Article 4(3) 

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 
following 
necessary,  consideration  must  be  given 
independent  evaluation. 

to  strengthening  measures 

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 

support 

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 
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 

in  view  of  the  outstanding 

A number  of aspects  of the agri-environment  regulation  have been  identified  for  possible 
amendment 
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. 

issues  and  developments 

4.2.1  Distinguishing  between types of environmental measure 

in 

of 

the 

framework 

AGENDA  2000  describes  the  possibility  of  developing  the  compensatory  allowance 
scheme  as  a  more  environmental  instrument,  which  would  complement  the  measures 
the  agri-environment  programmes.  The 
undertaken 
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 
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 

the  rate  according 

the  environmental 

to 

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 

training  courses  within 
Member  States  should  be  encouraged 
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. 

to  provide 

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 
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. 

in  agri-environmental  data  supplied 

to  help  ensure  comparability 

to 

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 
regional  and  zonal 
programmes.  Finally  the  Commission  will  investigate  ways  and  means  and  terms  of 
reference  for  establishing an observatory  of environmentally beneficial  agriculture. 

to  strengthen  agri-environment  measures  within 

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 

Programme f motf •  MMndnwnJ  tfeclilon) 

N°  STAR 
W k D oc 

STAR 

N*  Decision 

Date 
Decision 

MS 

Programme fmotf •  amandnwnl decision) 

N ' S T AR 
W k D oc 

STAR 

N*  Decision 

Date 
Decision 

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 

Prog.  Agri-Environnemertt 

94.4841 

25.07.94 

94.2937 

17.11.1994 

Baden-Wurttemberg  i 

93.6830 

29.09.93 

93.2841 

19.10.1993 

Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 1 

96.3774 

26.03.96 

96.0731 

16,4,1996 

Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod  2 

96.8692 

27.11.96 

96.3865 

30.12.1996 

Baden-WOrttemberg 1 mod 3 

97.3825 

21.03.97 

97,0702 

15.4.1997 

Baden-Wurttemberg  1 

95.8965 

27.02.96 

96.0506 

26,3.1996 

Bayern 1 Kulap 

Bayem 1  Kulap mod 1 

Bayem I Kulap mod  2 

Bayern 1 contracte 

Bayem mod. 

Berlin 

Berlin m o di 

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 

93.6805 

22.07.93 

93.2539 

22.9.1993 

95.6261 

26.10.95 

95.3101 

15.12.1995 

96.6147 

24.07.96 

96.2126 

16.8.1996 

95.6279 

23.11.95 

96.0003 

12.1.1996 

96.8284 

29.10.96 

96,2885 

19.12.1996 

94.7680 

23.11.94 

95.3805 

11.1.1995 

96.8286 

29.10.96 

96,3858 

30.12.1996 

93.7436 

29.09.93 

93.2840 

19.10.1993 

96.8272 

94.8086 

96.3886 

94.8088 

96.8700 

93.6825 

29.10.96 

96,3869 

30.12.1996 

23.11.94 

95.0023 

20.2.1995 

24.07.96 

96.2130 

14.8.1996 

23.11.94 

95.3806 

11.1.1995 

27.11.96 

96.3861 

30.12.1996 

22.07.93 

93.2538 

22.9.1993 

95.8679 

13.12.95 

96.0223 

27.2.1996 

96.9161 

17.12.96 

96,4216 

30.12.1996 

94.7684 

23.11.94 

95.0021 

20.2.1995 

96.8715 

93.6883 

97.3763 

94.7695 

27.11.96 

96,3862 

30.12.1996 

29.09.93 

93.2984 

4.11.1993 

25.02.97 

97.0701 

2.4.1997 

23.11.94 

95.0022 

20.2.1995 

Mecklenburg Vorpommem mod 1 

96.3885 

26.01.96 

96.2120 

7 8 . 1 9 96 

Mecklenburg-Vorpommem mod 2 

96.9163 

17.12.96 

96,4217 

30.12.1996 

Mecklenburg-Vorpommem mod 3 

National  Framework 

97.5213 

94.3815 

27.05.97 

97,1254 

186.1997 

27.09.94 

94.2599 

10.10.1994 

National Framework mod 1 

none 

23.11.94 

94.3034 

22.12.1994 

National Framework mod 2 

95.6178 

27.09.95 

95.2062 

9.11.1995 

National Framework mod  3 

96.6194 

24.07.96 

96.2132 

14.8.1996 

National Framework mod 4 

96.8696 

27.11.96 

96,4212 

30.12.1996 

Niedersachsen 1 

Niedersachsen  II 

Niedersachsen II mod  1 

Nordrhein-Westfalen 

Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 1 

93.9926 

27.09.94 

94.2597 

10.10.1994 

95.3777 

22.02.95' 

95.0132 

31.3.1995 

97.5197 

27.05.97 

97,1243 

5.6.1997 

94.4840 

96.3758 

27.09.94 

94.2598 

11.10.1994 

26.01.96 

96.0224 

28.3.1996 

Nordrhein-Westfalen mod  2 

96.6227 

29.10.1996 

96.2882 

6.12.1996 

Nordrhein-Westfalen mod 3 

96.8694 

27.11.96 

96.3966 

30.12.1996 

Rheinland-Pfalz 1 

R h a i n l a n d - P f a l zl 

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 

93.9928 

27.04.94 

93.1309 

17.6.1996 

96.3827 

29.05.96 

96.1140 

12.7.1996 

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 

27.11.96 

96,2886 

19.12.1996 

17.12.96 

97.0138 

192.1997 

22.02.95 

96.0131 

31.3.1996 

29.10.96 

96,2891 

20.12.1996 

27.09.94 

94.2596 

11.10.1994 

24.07.96 

96.2131 

14.8.1996 

17.12.96 

96,4218 

30.12.1996 

27.08.94 

94.2595 

11.10.1994 

28.01.97 

97.0136 

18.2.1997 

29  09.93 

93.2985 

5.11.1993 

26.01.96 

96.0006 

5.2.1996 

27.02.96 

96.0730 

16.4.1996 

none 

96.1569 

8.7.1996 

-
-

-
-

28.1.1997 

24.3.1997 

27.03.97 

97.0700 

24.3.1997 

08.03.94 

94.0967 

26.4.1994 

24.07.96 

96.2122 

14.8.1996 

Environmental and Organic mod 2  (+ Ami 

96.8985 

17.12.96 

97.0122 

28.1.1997 

Environmental and Organic mod 3 {-> EBFI 

-

-

-

24.3.1997 

Kurser/Demonstrationsprojekter 

96.7484 

27.11.96 

96.3970 

30.12.1996 

Organic  (-»  EBF) 

-

-

-

24.3.1997 

Programa  agroambiental (• Mee-HoniIMI, 

94.8064 

13.12.94 

95.0018 

19.1.1995 

Programa agroambiental mod 1 

96.9178 

17.12.96 

97.0135 

18.2.1997 

Medidas  Horizontale» 

94.4879 

27.09.94 

94.2589 

11.10.1994 

Medidas Horizontales mod  1 (•» Png  «gmam 

• 

-

-

-

19.1.1995 

Castille-Leon 

93.6874 

22.07.93  • 

93.2463 

16.9.1993 

Castile-Leon mod  1 (•» c m »u Mano» mod i> 

CaStile-LeOn mod 2 (•» Programa Agroambiental) 

-

-
-

-
-

25.5.1994 

19.1.1995 

Ca»Iille-La  Mancha 

92.6734 

27.02.93 

93.0686 

29.3.1993 

Castile-La  Mancha mod  1 c ca<weAnonm 

none 

24.03.94 

94.0548 

25.5.1994 

Castile-La  Mancha mod 2 (-» prog, agroem»*» 

Paie  Vaeco 

Agriculture  biologique 

Long term «at  aside 

Races  menacées 

Thessalle 

-

-

-

19.1.1995 

95.8831 

22.02.95 

95.0123 

2.3.1995 

95.6114 

29.06.95 

95.1391 

26.7.1995 

96.3785 

91.3823 

29.05.96 

96.1144 

19.7.1996 

21.03.97 

97.0551 

28.4.1997 

9 5 6 1 16 

29  06.95 

95.1392 

26.7.1995 

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 

33 

Cadre  général 

94.3799 

23.02.94 

94.0545 

29.4.1994 

Cadre  général mod 2 c  PM mon j) 

94.7651 

27.06.94 

94.2593 

13.10.1994 

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 

P H m o dl 

PH  m od  2  (•» Cadre Gen rnoB 3) 

A l s a ce 

Alsace mod  1 

A q u i t a i ne 

Aquitaine mod  1 

Aquitaine mod  2 

Aquitaine  mod  3 

A u v e r g ne 

Auvergne mod  1 

Auvergne mod  2 

Basse  Normandie 

Basse  Normandie mod  1 

Basse  Normandie mod  2 

B o u r g o g ne 

Bourgogne mod  1 

Bourgogne  mod  2 

B r e t a g ne 

Bretagne mod  1 

Centre 

Centre mod  1 

Centre mod  2 

94.8082 

23.11.94 

94.2943 

6.12.1994 

96.6206 

24.07.96 

96.2603 

96.6151 

24.07.96 

96.3863 

3.10.1996 

30.12.1996 

96.8977 

17.12.96 

97.0129 

10.2.1997 

divers 

28.01.97 

97.1240 

28.5.1997 

93.6844 

22.07.93 

93.2464 

94.3829 

25.04.94 

94.0544 

-

-

-

16.9.1993 

29.4.1994 

13.10.1994 

94.3839 

24  03.94 

94.1274 

21.6.1994 

95.6232 

20.07.95 

95.1398 

17.8.1995 

94.4882 

27.09.94 

94.2496 

6.10.1994 

94.8340 

13.12.94 

95.0016 

16.1.1995 

95.6181 

27.09.95 

95.2058 

24.10.1995 

97.3850 

21.03.97 

97.0707 

16.4.1997 

94.7201 

27.09.94 

94.2591 

13.10.1994 

95.3849 

31.05.95 

95.1315 

7.7.1995 

97.3818 

21.03.97 

97.0722 

16.4.1997 

94.3900 

27.04.94 

94.1277 

21.6.1994 

95.6111 

20.07.95 

95.1671 

17.8.1995 

96.8993 

17.12.96 

97.0081 

20.1.1997 

94.4752 

27.04.94 

94.1278 

21.6.1994 

95.3851 

31.05.95 

95.1316 

7.7.1995 

96.8705 

27.11.96 

97.0126 

10.2.1997 

94.4880 

27.09.94 

94.2495 

7.10.1994 

95.3853 

31.05.95 

95.1317 

7.7.1995 

94.7655 

26.10.94 

94.2605 

8.11.1994 

95.8992 

13.12.95 

95.3445 

20.12.1995 

96.8300 

27.11.96 

97.0124 

10.2.1997 

Champagne  A r d e n ne 

94.7203 

27.09.94 

94.2592 

13.10.1994 

Champagne Ardenne  mod  1 

95.3855 

31.05.95 

95.1318 

7.7.1995 

Corse 

Corse  mod  1 

Franche  Comté 

Franche  Comté mod  1 

Franche  Comté  mod  2 

94.8076 

23.11.94 

94.2940 

6.12.1994 

96.3823 

26.03.96 

96.0729 

10,4,1996 

94.3841 

24.03.94 

94.0819 

27.5.1994 

94.8095 

23.11.94 

94.2946 

6.12.1994 

95.6109 

20.07.95 

95.1672 

17.8.1995 

Franche  Comté  mod 31 • HN I. um 2) 

95.6243 

27.09.95 

95.2061 

6.11.1995 

Franche  Comté  mod 4 

96.8266 

29.10.96 

96.3853 

13.1.1997 

G u a d e l o u pe 

Guadeloupe mod  1 

Haute  Normandie 

94.8078 

23.11.94 

94.2941 

6.12.1994 

95.8994 

13.12.95 

95.3446 

20.12.1995 

94.3898 

27.04.94 

94.1276 

21.6.1994 

Haute  Normandie mod  1 

95.6236 

20.07.95 

95.1673 

17.8.1995 

Haute  Normandie mod 2 (-»FC mou 3) 

Ile  de  France 

Ne de  France mod  1 

Ile de  France mod 2 

-

-

-

6.11.1995 

94.4884 

25.06.94 

94.2497 

6.10.1994 

95.6185 

27.09.95 

95.2059 

24.10.1995 

96.8991 

17.12.96 

97.0128 

10.2.1997 

L a n g u e d oc  R o u s s i l l on 

94.4899 

27.09.94 

94.2590 

13.10.1994 

Languedoc  Roussillon mod  1 

95.6294 

23.11.95 

95.3107 

19.12.1995 

L i m o u s in 

Limousin mod  1 

Limousin mod  21-» FC mon 3| 

Lorraine 

Lorraine  m o di 

Midi  Pyrénées 

Midi Pyrénées mod  1 

Midi Pyrénées mod  2 

Nord  Pas  de  Calais 

94.7659 

26.10.94 

94.2607 

8.11.1994 

95.6155 

20.07.95 

95.1674 

-

-

-

17.8.1995 

6.11.1995 

94.3843 

24.03.94 

94.0820 

27.5.1994 

95.3857 

31.05.95 

95.1319 

7.7.1995 

94.4754 

23.06.94 

94.1878 

3.8.1994 

94.8342 

13.12.94 

95.0017 

16.1.1995 

95.6106 

20.07.95 

95.1675 

17.8.1995 

94.3896 

27.04.94 

94.1275 

21.6.1994 

Nord Pas  de Calais  mod  1 

94.8091 

23.11.94 

94.2944 

6.12.1994 

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 

95.3859 

31.05.95 

95.1320 

7.7.1995 

96.8268 

29.10.96 

96.3854 

13.1.1997 

94.4825 

23.06.94 

94.1879 

3.8.1994 

-

95.6104 

20.07.95 

95.1397 

17.8.1995 

95.8996 

13.12.95 

95.3447 

20.12.1995 

96.8672 

27.11.96 

97.0125 

10.2.1997 

94.3846 

24.03.94 

94.0821 

27.5.1994 

95.3861 

31.05.95 

95.1321 

7.7.1995 

95.8998 

13.12.95 

95.3448 

20.12.1995 

96.8270 

29.10.96 

96.3855 

13.1.1997 

Poitou  C h a r e n t e» 

94.7657 

26.10.94 

94.2606 

8.11.1994 

Poitou Charentes mod  1 

95.6187 

27.09.95 

95.2060 

24.10.1995 

Provence  A l p es  Côte  d ' A z ur 

94.8074 

23.11.94 

94.2939 

6.12.1994 

Provence Alpes  Côte d'Azur mod  1 

95.6189 

23.11.95 

95.3108 

19.12.1995 

Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur mod  2 

96.8995 

17.12.96 

96.3851 

13.1.1997 

R é u n i on 

R h ô ne  A l p es 

Rhône Alpes mod  1 

Rhône Alpes mod  2 

Rhône A|pes mod 3 

Rhône Alpes  mod 4 

94.8081 

23.11.94 

94.2942 

6.12.1994 

94.3847 

27.04.94 

94.0822 

27.5.1994 

-

23.06.94 

94.1880 

3.8.1994 

94.8093 

23.11.94 

94.2945 

6.12.1994 

95.6191 

23.11.95 

95.3109 

19.12.1995 

96.8995 

17.12.96 

97.0080 

20.1.1197 

Programme approval and amendment decisions 

Annex 

MS 

Programme f > »* •  mn**** 

deewon) 

Id 

REPS 

1(1 

Reps  m o di 

Irl 

id 

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 

N4S T AR 
W k D oc 

93.9906 

STAR 

N*  Decision 

Date 
Decision 

27.01.94 

S4.0549 

29  4.1994 

95.6174 

27.09.95 

95.2057 

19.10.1995 

96.6156 

26.06.96 

96.1146 

19.7.1996 

97.3861 

27.05.97 

97.1244 

4.6.1997 

96.8690 

27.11.96 

96.3864 

30.12.1996 

95.3781 

22.02.95 

95  0125 

15.3.1995 

96.8279 

29.10.97 

96.2878 

25,11.1996 

94.7669 

97.3814 

26.10.94 

95.3039 

10.1.1995 

25.02.97 

97.0554 

17.3.1997 

94.4776 

23.06.97 

94.2491 

6.10.1994 

97.3788 

28.01.97 

97.0133 

11.2.1997 

93.6895 

29.9.1993 

93.3014 

4.11.1993 

94.3830 

26.05.94 

94.0830 

15.6.1994 

95.3844 

31.05.95 

95.1314 

19.7.1995 

96.8686 

28.01.97 

97.0141 

5.3.1997 

94.4834 

27.09.94 

94.2492 

6.10.1994 

96.8961 

17.12.96 

97.0093 

29.1.1997 

97.5182 

23.04.97 

97.1783 

7.7.1997 

93.1475 

27.04.94 

94.0825 

3.6.1994 

FriuJ-Venezia Giulia mod 1 

97.3810 

25.02.97 

97.0729 

20.5.1997 

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 

94.7661 

96.8965 

26.10.94 

94.2949 

9.12.1994 

17.12.96 

97.0095 

29.1.1997 

94.3869 

25.07.94 

94.2488 

5.10.1994 

96.8959 

17.12.96 

97.0092 

29.1.1997 

94.3854 

26.05.94 

94.0826 

8.6.1994 

97.3768 

28.01.97 

97.0131 

11.2.1997 

94.4848 

27.09.94 

94.2604 

13.10.1994 

96.6204 

24.07.96 

96.2133 

268.1996 

94.7673 

97.3816 

94.8069 

26.10.94 

95.3040 

10.1.1995 

25.02.97 

97.0553 

17.3.1997 

23.11.94 

94.2950 

13.12.1994 

97.3770 

28.01.97 

97.0132 

12.2.1997 

95.6209 

27.09.95 

95.2216 

14.11.1995 

94.7671 

95.3820 

23.11.94 

95.0024 

15.2.1995 

30.03.95 

95.0619 

6.7.1995 

96.8963 

17.12.96 

97.0094 

29.1.1997 

94.7228 

27.09.94 

94.2494 

10.10.1994 

95.6253 

•  13.12.95 

96.0008 

30.1.1996 

96.8969 

17.12.96-

97.0097 

29.1.1997 

94.4892 

94.7693 

96  8971 

94.7226 

27.09.94 

94.2600 

10.10.1994 

26.10.94 

95.0020 

25.1.1995 

17.12.96 

97.0098 

29.1.1997 

27.09.94 

94.2594 

11.10.1994 

96.8955 

17.12.96 

97.0090 

29.1.1997 

93.9850 

27.01.94 

94.1272 

24.6.1994 

96.3762 

26.01.96 

96.0505 

22.3.1996 

97.8967 

17.12.96 

97.0096 

29.1.1007 

93.1471 

25.07.94 

94.2493 

10.10.1994 

96.8688 

27.11.96 

97.0130 

11.2.1997 

97.3767 

28.01.97 

97.0552 

17.3.1997 

93.1473 

23.02.94 

94.0818 

19.5.1994 

96.8957 

17.12.96 

97.0091 

29.1.1997 

Agri-environnement 

95.3807 

27.04.95 

95.0616 

15.5.1995 

L'e ntret.de  l'esp.  naturel 

96.6234 

25.09.96 

96.2615 

11.10,1996 

MA : Managment  agreements. 

93.6825 

26.05.93 

93.2826 

15.10.1993 

MA m o di 

MA mod 2 

none 

08.03.94 

94.0547 

29.4.1994 

94.8337 

22.02.95 

95.0124 

8.3.1995 

M A m Od  2  («plrnd3.pl mdl.pl md  1) 

96.8713 

27.11.96 

96.3857 

20.12.1996 

P a rt  1  (bnlogracne randbouMr. voetped. optedrng) 

94.3830 

24.03.94 

94.0543 

29.4.1994 

96.6149 

96.7492 

-

25.07.94 

96.2127 

14.8.1996 

29.10.96 

96.2875 

22.11.1996 

-

-

20.12.1996 

94.4843 

25.07.94 

94.1882 

17.8.1994 

-

-

-

20.12.1996 

96.3852 

24.04.96 

96.0740 

8.5.1996 

-

-

-

20.12.1996 

95.6176 

23.11.95 

95.3102 

11.12.1995 

96.8707 

27.11.96 

96.3860 

30.12.1996 

95.3840 

27.04.95 

95.0620 

7.6.1995 

96.6236 

25.09.96 

96.2604 

•  7.10.1996 

L 

L 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

OS 

Part 1 mod 1 

Part 1 mod 2 

Parti mod 3 (•»•** moo 2) 

P a rt  1 (uiteeruoOng) 

Part II mod  1 (-nwmodj) 

Part M (lamirtng) 

Part III mod  1  (-emmod2) 

^iederosterreich 

Niederôsterreich mod 1 

ÔPUL 

ÔPUL mod 1 

Steiermark 

MS 

Programme (m»« •  •AWM*»»* dechtion) 

P 

P 

P 

P 

P 

A c o r et 

C o n t i n e nt 

Continent  modi 

Continent mod2 

Madeira 

Rn 

Fin 

A l a nd 

F i n l a nd 

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  A c c e ss 

England-ESA Access mod  1i-»ESA»con«*a) 

England-ESA 1 

Nl  STAR"" 
W k D oc 

STAR 

N*  Decision 

Date 

94.3883 

27.04.94 

94.0824 

3.6.1994 

23.02.94 

20.07.95 

94.0546 

29.4.1994 

95.1676 

17.8.1995 

17.12.96 

97.0137 

94.4819 

23.06.94 

94.1881 

96.0005 

18.2.1997 

11.8.1994 

5.2.1996 

95.2056 

10.10.1995 

95.1393 

96.4210 

17.8.1995 

30.12.1996 

97.1258 

17.7.1997 

94.1883 

28.9.1994 

13.12.95 

27.09.95 

20.07.95 

27.11.96 

24.06.97 

25.07.94 

94.3801 

95.6159 

96.8257 

95.8967 

95.6139 

95.3894 

96.8711 

97.5243 

94.4864 

96.3808 

03.05.96 

96.0738 

96.8981 

17.12.96 

97.0084 

3.5.1996 

23.1.1997 

97.3784 

93.9948 

-

28.01.97 

26.01.94 

97.0699 

2.4.1997 

94.0551 

6.5.1994 

-

-

16.04.1997 

93.6879 

29.03.93 

93.2836 

18.10.1993 

England-ESA  1 mod  1 c i. scooxumodi 

none 

24.03  94 

94.0552 

18.5.1994 

England-ESA  I mod  2 

England-ESA I mod 3 

94.8102 

23.11.94 

94.2952 

9.12.1994 

96.3806 

26.03.96 

96.0737 

3.5.1996 

England-ESA I mod 4 c i mod i. • mod n 

96.8979 

17.12.96 

97.0083 

23.1.1997 

England-ESA 1 mod 5 <•» E-ESA. «now ) 

England-ESA  1 

England-ESA  II mod  1 (•» i mod •) 

-

-

-

93.7440 

29.09.93 

93.2834 

-

-

-

16.04.1997 

18.10.1993 

18.5.1994 

England-ESA  II mod 2 (••.modi) 

95.6205 

27.09.95 

95.2054 

4.12.1995 

England-ESA  II mod 3 (-» i. moo «i 

England-ESA II mod 41+ E-ESA. comow ) 

-
-

-
-

-
-

23.1.1997 

16.4.1997 

England-ESA  • 

93.6819 

29.09.93 

93.2827 

15.10.1993 

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  m o di 

England-ESA  IV mod 2 (-» E.ESA. contou ) 

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

4.12.1995 

23.1.1997 

16.4.1997 

94.3804 

23.02.94 

94.0553 

6.5.1994 

96.6145 

26.06.96 

96.1145 

19.7.1996 

-

-

-

16.4.1997 

England-ESAs  c o n s o l i d a t ed cESAEng i 

97.3828 

21.03.97 

97.0704 

16.4.1997 

England-Habitat 

England-Habitat mod  1 

England-Habitat mod  2 

E n g l a n d - N S AI 

94.4766 

27.04.94 

94.1874 

15.7.1994 

96.3805 

26.03.96 

96.0736 

3.5.1996 

96.8983 

17.12.96 

97.0085 

23.1.1997 

94.3885 

23.06.94 

94.1877 

20.7.1994 

England-NSA  I mod  1 c i ™ *) 

96.3825 

26.03.96 

96.0735 

3.5.1996 

E n g l a n d - N S AI 

England-NSA  II mod  1 I * I ™ HI 

N.Ireland-Access 

N.lreland-ESA 

N.Ireland-Habitat 

95.3867 

31.05.95 

95.0623 

22.6.1995 

-

-

-

3.5.1996 

95.6145 

20.07.95 

95.1678 

17.8.1995 

94.3810 

24.03.94 

94.1271 

9.6.1994 

94.0000 

17.04.13 

94.2486 

28.9.1994 

S c O t l a n d - C PS  (•ScHeomrjdtMoonendrnod3.UK 

96.7486 

29.10.96 

97.0089 

23.1.1997 

Scotland-ESA  A c c e ss 

S c o t l a n d - E S AI 

SCOtland-ESA 1 mOd 1 <4Eng ESAImodl) 

ScoUand-ESA 1  mod  2 

Scotland-ESAIl 

94.4859 

26.07.94 

94.2484 

28.9.1994 

93.6881 

29.09.93 

93.2835 

18.10.1993 

-

-

-

18.05.1994 

95.6208 

27.09.95 

95.2055 

4.12.1995 

93.7438 

29.09.93 

93.2842 

19.10.1993 

Scotland-ESA  II mod  1 (• «. mod i) 

96.6145 

26.06.96 

96.1149 

31.7.1996 

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) 

-

-

-

23.1.1997 

94.3806 

23.02.94 

94.0554 

6.5.1994 

-

-

-

31.7.1996 

94.4852 

26.07.94 

94.2485 

28.9.1994 

-

-

-

23.1.1997 

94.4862 

26.07.94 

94.2483 

28.9.1994 

-

-

-

23.1.1997 

94.8062 

23.*11.94 

94.2951 

9.12.1994 

96.6180 

25.09.96 

96.2601 

27.9.1996 

-

-

-

23.1.1997 

94.4764 

26.05.94 

94.1875 

19.7.1994 

94.3808 

26.05.94 

94.1876 

19.7.1994 

-

-

-

02.04.1997 

94.7675 

27.10.94 

94.2608 

8.11.1994 

-

-

-

02.04.1997 

Wales-ESA»  c o n s o l.  fimodi.imodt) 

97.3780 

28.01.97 

97.5570 

02.04.1997 

Wales-Habitat 

Wales-Tir  Cymen 

94.4854 

26.07.94 

94.2487 

28.9.1994 

94.4860 

27.09.94 

94.2489 

7.10.1994 

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 

95  8677 

13.12.95 

96.0011 

5.2.1996 

UK 

Wales-Tir  Cymen mod  1 

97.3829 

21.03.97 

97.0723 

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