Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards a better targeting of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps {SEC(2009) 449} {SEC(2009) 450} {SEC(2009) 451}
Date: 2009-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural area with environmental restrictions, hill farming, mountain region, regional farm policy, regional policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 21.4.2009 
COM(2009) 161 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Towards a better targeting of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps 

{SEC(2009) 449} 
{SEC(2009) 450} 
{SEC(2009) 451} 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Towards a better targeting of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps 

1. 

CONTEXT  

In  place  since  1975,  the  aid  scheme  to  farmers  in  Less  Favoured  Areas  (LFA)  provides  a 
mechanism for supporting the continuation of farming and thus maintaining the countryside in 
mountain areas, in less favoured areas other than mountain (the so-called 'intermediate LFAs') 
and in areas affected by specific handicaps.  

Mountain  areas  cover  nearly  16%  of  the  agricultural  area  of  the  EU  and  are  designated 
according to a limited number of physical indicators1. Approximately 31% of the agricultural 
land  of  the  EU  is  classified  as  intermediate  LFA,  on  the  basis  of  a  wide  range  of  criteria 
whose  diversity throughout the EU was spotlighted by the European Court of Auditors as a 
possible  source  of  unequal  treatment2.  Only  a  limited  proportion  of  farms  in  these  areas, 
corresponding to 7% of total EU farms, receive an LFA payment and the average amount of 
the  allowance  significantly  varies  among  the  Member  States,  from  16  euro  per  hectare  in 
Spain to 215 euro per hectare in Belgium. 

The  logic  of  intervention  of  the  LFA  scheme  was  revised  in  2005.  To  enhance  the 
contribution  of  the  rural  development  policy  to  the  EU  sustainable  development  strategy,  it 
was decided to clearly focus the objectives of the scheme on land management.  

The removal of socio-economic objectives from the main aims of LFA payments - now called 
Natural  Handicap  Payments  (NHP)  -  should  be  seen  in  the  light  of  the  availability  of  more 
targeted  measures  for  supporting  farmers'  income  and  competitiveness  as  well  as  the  wider 
rural  economy.  In  a  market  oriented  context,  farmers'  income  is  mainly  sustained  by 
decoupled direct payments and by rural development aids enhancing farms' competitiveness. 
The economic and social development in rural areas is mainly promoted by rural development 
and cohesion policy3 measures supporting the diversification into non-agricultural activities, 
the  development  of  micro  and  small&medium  sized  enterprises  and  tourism  activities,  the 
provision of basic services. 

Article  50.3(a)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/20054  provides  a  new  definition  of  areas  with 
natural  handicaps  other  than  those  which  are  mountainous  in  character  and  than  those  with 
specific  handicaps,  i.e.  'areas  affected  by  significant  natural  handicaps,  notably  a  low  soil 

1 

2 
3 

4 

Altitude, slope, or a combination of these two factors. Areas north of the 62nd parallel are also regarded 
as mountain areas. 
European Court of Auditors (2003), Special Report No 4/2003 - OJ C 151, 27.6.2003. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11.7.2006 laying down general provisions on the European 
Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - OJ L 230, 24.8.2006, p. 1. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20.9.2005 on support for rural development by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
productivity or poor climate conditions, and where maintaining extensive farming activity is 
important for the management of the land'. However in 2005 the Council did not achieve an 
agreement on a possible Community wide system for classifying these areas in line with the 
new  definition  and  the  policy  objectives.  It  was  therefore  decided  to  maintain  the  previous 
system  in  force  for  a  limited  period  of  time  and  the  Commission  was  asked  to  undertake  a 
review  of  the  LFA  scheme  with  a  view  to  presenting  a  proposal  for  a  future  payment  and 
designation system applying from 2010. 

Despite the process of intense cooperation with national authorities and stakeholders and the 
scientific  consultations  carried  out  by  the  Commission  since  2005,  the  limits  resulting  from 
the scale of pan-European data do not allow the Commission to present a legislative proposal 
underpinned  by  thorough  analysis  of  a  possible  new  delimitation  system.  The  information 
necessary  to  assess  the  outcome  of  a  new  delimitation  approach  at  detailed  scale  is  only 
available – or can be collected – at national level.  

With  this  Communication  the  Commission  is  therefore  reporting  on  the  state  of  play  of  the 
LFA review exercise and seeking to further involve the Member States in the analysis in order 
to elaborate on solid ground a proposal for an area delimitation system consistent with the EU 
objectives for NHP and stable over time.  

2. 

AN OLD MEASURE WITH A MODERN RATIONALE 

According to the evaluation carried out on behalf of the Commission and completed in 20065, 
the LFA scheme has been effective in maintaining land use in marginal areas of the EU. 

Whilst  being  a  relatively  old  measure,  the  fundamental  objectives  of  the  natural  handicap 
scheme  as  cast  in  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005  remain  relevant  to  the  needs  of 
substantial areas of the farmed countryside in the EU: continued agricultural management in 
areas where the intensification has not occurred because of physical constraints, supports in 
general the maintenance of valued open landscapes, semi-natural habitats and biodiversity; it 
can assist in the control of forest fires and contribute to good soil and water management.  

Within  the  overall  architecture  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  NHP  have  a 
distinctive  role  alongside  other  policy  instruments,  while  being  evidently  interlinked  with 
other land-based aid schemes.  

Whereas the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) introduced in 20036 aims in the first instance to 
sustain farmers' income by providing direct income support, NHP aim at preventing farmland 
abandonment  in  areas  particularly  exposed  at  the  risk  of  marginalisation  by  providing 
compensation for the specific disadvantage causing this risk.  

The  SPS  includes  the  obligation  to  keep  agricultural  land  in  Good  Agricultural  and 
Environmental  Conditions  (GAEC)  to  prevent  under-management  and  abandonment. 

5 

6 

IEEP  (2006),  An  evaluation  of  the  Less  favoured  Area  measure  in  the  25  Member  States  of  the 
European Union, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/lfa/index_en.htm. 
By Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, repealed and replaced by Council 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes 
for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, 
amending  Regulations  (EC)  No  1290/2005,  (EC)  No  247/2006,  (EC)  No  378/2007  and  repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - OJ L 30, 31.1.2009, p. 16. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Complying  with  GAEC  is  potentially  more  onerous  for  farms  in  the  LFA  because  of  low 
yields and returns per hectare. However, the single payment per hectare is generally lower in 
LFA  than  on  farmland  outside  the  LFA,  because  of  historic  yields.  In  these  areas,  where 
progressive  abandonment  is  more  probable  than  elsewhere  and  farming  is  most  important 
from  an  environmental  perspective,  NHP  provide  a  specific  instrument  for  supporting 
continued agricultural management. 

The scope of NHP is also quite distinct from that of agri-environment payments which cover 
the income foregone and costs incurred linked to specific environmental commitments going 
beyond the mandatory baseline. NHP only compensate the natural disadvantage by covering 
the  additional  costs  and  income  foregone  related  to  the  natural  handicap.  They  therefore 
provide a basic form of support to appropriate forms of agriculture to remain in activity. 

Despite this structural distinction from the agri-environment measure, NHP clearly contribute 
to environmental objectives. They fall under Axis 2 of the rural development policy and aim 
at contributing, through continued use of agricultural land, to maintaining the countryside and 
to maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems.  

Finally, it should be pointed out that this review exercise has limited scope; it does not include 
an in-depth assessment of NHP position within a modernized CAP and of the interplay with 
other  land-based  payments  to  farmers;  these  issues  may  be  further  addressed  within  the 
discussion on the future development of the CAP. 

3. 

WEAKNESSES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION 

Against  the  strengths  mentioned  above,  a  number  of  significant  weaknesses  in  the  LFA 
implementation were highlighted by the above mentioned report of the Court of Auditors in 
2003,  casting  a  shadow  over  the  effectiveness  and  the  efficiency  of  the  scheme,  namely  as 
regards the delimitation of intermediate LFAs.  

Several critical points raised by the Court have already been addressed. Regulation EC (No) 
1698/2005 revised the approaches for calculating the payment and for classifying intermediate 
LFAs,  and  linked  them  both  unequivocally  to  natural  handicaps  for  agriculture,  minimising 
the  risk  of  overcompensation.  It  also  introduced  the  requirement  for  NHP  beneficiaries  to 
respect  cross  compliance7,  with  a  view  to  provide  a  simpler  and  more  coherent  approach 
compared  to  the  good  farming  practices  previously  applied.  A  reinforced  monitoring  and 
evaluation  of  the  measure  was  set  up  within  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation 
Framework applying to all rural development interventions for the programming period 2007-
13,  while  Regulation  (EC)  No  1975/20068  provided  more  specific  rules  on  controls  and 
sanctions. 

7 

8 

Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 established the principle that farmers who do not comply with certain 
requirements in the areas of public, animal and plant health, environment and animal welfare are subject 
to  reductions  of  or  exclusion  from  direct  support.  This  ‘cross  compliance’  system,  maintained  under 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, applies also to rural development payments linked to land or animals. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1975/2006  of  7  December  2006  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005,  as  regards  the  implementation  of  control 
procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures - OJ L 368, 
23.12.2006, p. 74. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  problems  that  remain  to  be  tackled  within  the  current  review  exercise  are  the  lack  of 
transparency of the systems used by the Member States for classifying intermediate LFAs, the 
insufficient targeting of the aid on sustainable land management, notably by targeting on the 
situations  most  in  danger  of  land  abandonment  and  the  need  to  achieve  the  common  area 
classification approach. 

4. 

MAKING THE LFA DELIMITATION SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVE  

4.1. 

Shortcomings of the present classification of intermediate LFAs 

The  current  classification  of  intermediate  LFAs,  based  on  the  three  typologies  of  indicators 
listed  in  Article  19  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/19999,  raises  serious  questions  about  the 
effective and targeted use of the funds allocated to the scheme, for two main reasons.  

It  is  partially  based  on  socio-economic  criteria  that  no  longer  reflect  the  core  objectives  of 
NHP and have been inherited from the original approach of the scheme which is now out of 
date.  Furthermore,  the  evolution  of  the  demographic  and  economic  data  used  has  not  been 
taken into account to up-date the delimitation.  

In  addition,  it  has  occurred  with  reference  to  a  wide  range  of  national  criteria  often  not 
comparable  at  a  European  level.  This  diversity  significantly  reduces  transparency  and  may 
lead to an insufficient targeting of the aid in the light of the objectives of the measure. 

In 2005 the legislator redefined the areas with natural handicaps other than those  which are 
mountainous  in  character  and  than  those  with  specific  handicaps  as  areas  affected  by 
significant  natural  handicaps,  as  mentioned  in  section  1  above.  Starting  from  the  new 
definition,  the  Council  intended  to  set  up  a  number  of  objective  common  criteria  for 
designating the eligible area, as mentioned in the recitals of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 

The discussions preceding  the  adoption of the regulation showed that it was not possible to 
reach an agreement on an area classification method based on a number of proxies reflecting 
poor  soil  qualities  and  unfavourable  climatic  conditions  (e.g.  average  cereal  yields,  %  of 
permanent grassland, livestock density). The need for an in-depth technical cooperation with 
the  Member  States  in  order  to  identify  objective  and  scientific-based  delimitation  criteria 
became evident. 

In a first step, the Commission departments tasked the Joint Research Centre (JRC) to derive 
a  set  of  common  soil  and  climate  criteria  which  could  support  a  new  delimitation  of 
intermediate LFAs. In order to carry out this task, a panel of soil, climate and land evaluation 
high-level  experts  was  established  and  its  work  was  co-ordinated  by  JRC.  The  expert  panel 
identified  eight  soil  and  climate  criteria  indicating,  at  a  certain  threshold  value,  severe 
limitations  for  European  agriculture.  They  are  listed  in  the  technical  annex  to  this 
Communication  which  includes  also  some  technical  details  regarding  their  definition  and 
justification. 

9 

Poor productivity of the land; economic performance in agriculture appreciably lower than the average; 
a  low  or  dwindling  population  predominantly  dependent  on  agricultural  activity  (Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural 
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations - OJ L 160, 
26.6.1999, p. 80) . 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The biophysical criteria identified by the expert group of scientists through the JRC network 
can  be  used  anywhere  in  Europe  to  discriminate  land  presenting  severe  limitations  for 
agricultural  production  on  the  basis  that  soil  and  climate  data  of  sufficient  spatial  and 
semantic detail are available. 

They  can  be  applied  to  designate  areas  affected  by  natural  handicaps  for  agriculture  in  a 
relatively simple way: an area is considered affected by significant natural handicaps if a large 
part of its utilised agricultural land (at least 66%) meets at least one of the criteria listed in the 
table  at  the  threshold  value  indicated  therein.  The  biophysical  criteria  are  therefore  not 
cumulative.  Any  indicator  can  trigger  the  classification  provided  that  the  characteristics 
related to such criterion are observed and appropriately measured in the area, at the associated 
threshold value.  

The thresholds should be considered as a minimum level of handicap to be met for classifying 
an  area  as  constrained;  the  Member  States  would  have  the  possibility  to  raise  the  threshold 
level if this is not discriminatory and justified by national circumstances.  

4.2. 

Preliminary assessment of the biophysical criteria and data limits 

The  biophysical  criteria  mentioned  above  represent  a  promising  approach  for  setting  up  an 
objective  and  transparent  system  for  designating  areas  according  to  Article  50.3(a)  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005.  They  have  been  therefore  used  as  a  basis  for  the  area 
delimitation envisaged in three out of four options for reviewing the LFA system submitted to 
public  consultation  on  22  May  2008  and  described  in  the  impact  assessment  report 
accompanying this Communication.  

They have been extensively discussed in over one hundred meetings held by the Commission 
departments and the Member States since November 2007. The investigations made until now 
in cooperation with the national experts suggest that they are robust, based on sound science 
and  allow  classifying  land  homogeneously  throughout  the  EU.  They  provide  a  simple  and 
comparable system for LFA designation, unambiguously linked to soil and climate handicaps 
for  agriculture  and  implementable  by  all  the  Member  States  in  a  relatively  short  period  of 
time, although requiring administrative effort to be put in place.  

The  assessment  of  the  common  criteria  made  until  now  cannot  however  be  regarded  as 
exhaustive, because of the lack of adequate data at EU level. The pan-European data available 
are  not  adapted  for  an  application  of  the  criteria  at  a  detailed  territorial  scale  and  for  an 
assessment  of  its  impact  at  such  detailed  scale.  For  that  reason  and  in  order  to  avoid 
anomalous results, the active involvement of the relevant Member States' authorities in further 
analytical  work  is  envisaged  as  a  necessary  intermediate  step  before  tabling  a  legislative 
proposal.  

The  cooperation  required  from  the  Member  States  aims,  on  the  one  hand,  at  simulating  the 
application of the common criteria on the basis of sufficiently detailed soil and climate data.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  simulation  should  include  adequate  elements  ensuring  that  the  areas 
where the natural handicaps have been offset are not granted LFA status, as discussed in the 
following section. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
5. 

TARGETING  THE  AID  TO  EXTENSIVE  FARMING  SYSTEMS  IMPORTANT  FOR  LAND 
MANAGEMENT 

5.1. 

Excluding areas where farming has overcome natural handicaps 

The  intensity  of  farming  systems  is  often  a  reflection  of  natural  conditions:  areas  where 
natural handicaps have not been offset by human intervention and technological progress are 
in  general  characterized  by  low-input,  low-output  farming  systems  due  to  the  physical 
constraints farmers face. 

Thanks to technical progress and human intervention, farmers have in several cases managed 
to overcome successfully the natural handicaps and are able to carry out profitable agriculture 
in areas where the natural conditions were at the origin quite unfavourable. In such cases, the 
intrinsic  natural  characteristics  of  the  area  remain  unchanged,  so  on  the  pure  basis  of  the 
biophysical  criteria  the  area  would  be  designated  as  severely  constrained  for  agriculture. 
However,  the  handicap  does  not  impact  on  agricultural  productivity  and  there  is  no 
justification  for  classifying  the  area  as  affected  by  natural  handicaps.  As  an  example,  many 
wet areas were artificially drained and are now highly fertile; however the artificial drainage 
has  not  changed  the  intrinsic  character  of  the  soil  type,  which  will  still  classify  as  poorly 
drained. 

It is therefore necessary, for the cases where the natural handicaps can be overcome, to fine-
tune the area delimitation by applying the biophysical criteria in combination with appropriate 
production-related indicators.  

The  handicaps  resulting  from  poor  drainage,  soil  texture,  stoniness,  rooting  depth  and 
chemical  properties,  as  well  as  soil-moisture  balance  are  those  most  commonly  offset  by 
farmers  thanks  to  investments,  farming  techniques  and  appropriate  crop  choices.  The 
simulations made on the basis of these criteria should therefore systematically exclude: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

artificially drained areas when applying the poor drainage criterion; 

areas  with  high  proportion  of  irrigated  land  when  applying  the  soil-moisture 
balance criterion; 

areas  for  which  soil  problems  (soil  texture,  stoniness,  rooting  depth  and 
chemical  properties)  are  clearly  overcome  and  where  relevant  production-
related  indicators  (average  cereal  yield  or  livestock  density  or  standard  gross 
margin per hectare) are comparable to the national average (excluding, where 
appropriate, mountain areas). 

The  technical  annex  accompanying  this  Communication  provides  more  details  about  the 
required  fine-tuning  of  the  area  delimitation  in  relation  with  the  different  types  of  natural 
handicap and the associated biophysical indicators. 

5.2. 

Eligibility rules at farm level 

Limiting the eligible zones to those actually suffering from natural handicaps is a sine qua non 
for  targeting  the  aid  to  areas  at  risk  of  marginalisation  and  land  abandonment  and  where 
extensive farming is important for land management. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Beyond  the  area  delimitation,  appropriate  eligibility  rules  applied  after  the  process  of  area 
delimitation  within  the  zone  designated  as  disadvantaged,  in  order  to  target  the  aid  to  the 
farms complying with the objectives of the scheme are a useful tool for directing the aid to 
areas for which the hazard of abandonment is greatest. Different agricultural practices may in 
fact  coexist  in  the  same  area,  where  some  farming  systems  have  overcome  the  natural 
handicap through intensification processes. 

Eligibility rules at farm level are already widely used by the Member States today, although 
according  to  the  evaluation  many  of  these  are  inessential  to  the  main  objectives  of  the 
measure  and  reflect  a  wide  variety  of  objectives  and  administrative  requirements.  Their 
consistency with the objectives of the scheme and with the international commitments of the 
EU  can  be  enhanced,  while  leaving  a  sufficient  margin  of  manoeuvre  for  addressing  local 
peculiarities, in respect of the principle of subsidiarity. 

The use and definition of eligibility rules at farm level is discussed in the options identified 
within  the  ongoing  impact  assessment  and  described  in  the  report  accompanying  this 
Communication.  The  examination  of  this  component  of  the  payment  system  will  be  further 
developed  when  preparing  the  legislative  proposal,  taking  also  into  account  the  impact  of  a 
possible new delimitation system based on the simulations carried out by the Member States 
in response to this Communication.  

6. 

SIMPLIFICATION POTENTIAL 

Establishing a common set of delimitation criteria would simplify the implementation of the 
NHP scheme at EU level, as the almost 100 indicators currently applied by the Member States 
at  different  threshold  values,  would  be  replaced  by  8  criteria  clearly  defined  and  associated 
with the same minimum thresholds all over the EU territory. 

The  transparency  resulting  from  this  simplification  should  provide  more  efficiency  in  the 
implementation, in terms of transposition and compliance with the objectives. 

One  biophysical  indicator  would  be  sufficient  for  classifying  an  area  as  affected  by  natural 
handicap, while in the current system an area needs to exhibit all the three types of handicaps 
mentioned  in  Article  19  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/1999  for  being  designated  (see 
footnote 9).  

It is clear however that the application of common biophysical criteria requires start-up costs 
that will be different among the Member States depending on the quantity and the quality of 
the soil and climate data available.  

At  present  13  Member  States  use  'index  systems'  for  designating  intermediate  LFAs.  These 
are  methodologies  based  on  several  indicators  combined  for  calculating  an  index  used  for 
classifying  the  areas  according  to  specific  thresholds  or  classes.  There  are,  in  a  number  of 
cases, similarities between the index systems used in different Member States. However it is 
difficult to compare these systems against each other, since even when they are based on the 
same  type  of  information,  different  weighting  methods  or  classifications  are  then  used  to 
calculate the index. 

The degree of complexity of the 'index systems' is variable, but is in general higher than the 
biophysical  indicators  considered  for  this  review.  Many  of  the  index  methodologies  include 
the  biophysical  criteria  identified  by  the  experts  and  listed  in  the  technical  Annex 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
accompanying this Communication. In some cases the 'index systems' can be considered more 
sophisticated than the biophysical criteria and therefore able to better capture the presence of 
handicaps in an area. However, setting up a common index system to be applied consistently 
by  all  the  Member  States  would  require  a  huge  effort  in  terms  of  design,  data  collection, 
analysis and implementation. Therefore, the establishment of a pan-European index system as 
a  means  of  well  capturing  the  presence  of  natural  handicaps  would  neither  be  efficient  nor 
realistic. 

In  the  Member  States  where  the  current  LFA  delimitation  is  based  on  proxies  of  poor  land 
productivity,  an  area  designation  process  based  on  common  biophysical  criteria  would 
probably  require  an  effort  for  collecting  and  harmonizing  soil  and  climate  data  at  the 
appropriate scale. 

In  the  light  of  these  scale  data  issues,  trade-off  between  simplification  and  effectiveness  of 
new  delimitation  methods  could  be  identified  by  the  Member  States  when  simulating  the 
application of the biophysical criteria. If significant, they should be considered in the impact 
assessment preceding the legislative proposal of the Commission. 

7. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT 

This review exercise is neutral as regards the EU and the national budgets, since the financial 
allocation  of  the  LFA  scheme,  composed  of  the  contribution  of  the  European  Agricultural 
Fund for Rural development and of national co-financing, is decided in the framework of each 
Rural Development Programme, within the limit of the overall appropriations attributed to the 
Member State to support rural development in a given programming period. A change in the 
financial need  resulting from a better  targeting would move the resources available to other 
measures within the programme.  

8. 

CONCLUSIONS AND TIMETABLE 

The aid scheme to farmers in areas with natural handicaps needs to be reviewed in order to 
adapt  the  intermediate  LFA  delimitation  and  payment  system  to  the  land  management 
objectives  decided  in  2005,  to  improve  its  transparency  and  objectivity  while  giving  due 
weight  to  national  and  regional  peculiarities,  and  to  promote  the  targeting  of  the  aid  to  the 
situations for which the hazard of land abandonment is greatest.  

Setting  out  a  common  framework  for  classifying  areas  with  natural  handicaps,  other  than 
those which are mountainous in character and those with specific handicaps, on the basis of 
common objective criteria would enhance the transparency, the robustness and the coherence 
of the area delimitation system throughout the EU. 

The data available to the Commission at pan-European level are not sufficient for carrying out 
a simulation at detailed scale of the application of possible common criteria identified during 
the impact assessment, which should underpin a legislative proposal to make the NHP scheme 
more effective.  

In order to facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks, and in particular to provide a 
solid  basis  for  elaborating  the  required  legislative  proposal,  the  Commission  suggests  that 
Member  States  be  invited  to  simulate  the  application  on  their  territory  of  the  biophysical 
criteria  listed  in  this  Communication  and  to  produce  maps  of  the  areas  that  would  result 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
eligible under such simulations. The simulations should show the area that would be delimited 
according to the biophysical criteria appropriately fine-tuned, when necessary and according 
to the indications provided in the technical annex accompanying this Communication, in order 
to exclude the areas where the natural handicap has been overcome.  

The simulations should be carried out at a sufficiently detailed territorial level, e.g. LAU 2 in 
the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics.  

They will not be considered as a new LFA delimitation but will constitute a valuable means of 
gauging the feasibility of the review options identified and eventually underpin a future legal 
proposal setting up the framework for a new LFA delimitation in a long-term perspective. 

The Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions are invited to discuss the main lines of this Communication. The 
Member  States  should  be  invited  to  carry  out  the  above  simulations  and  send  the  resulting 
maps to the Commission services during the six months following the adoption of the present 
Communication. 

EN 

10 

   EN