(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 21.4.2009

SEC(2009) 450

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the

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 Impact Assessment

{COM(2009) 161 final} {SEC(2009) 449} {SEC(2009) 451}

Contents

1. Foreword 3

1.1. Context 3

1.2. Procedural issues 4

2. Problem definition 5

2.1. The intervention logic of Natural Handicap Payments within a modernised CAP. 6

2.2. The inconsistencies of the current delimitation system with the revised NHP objectives 7

2.3. Transparency and comparability of the current delimitation system 8

2.4. Effectiveness and targeting of the aid 8

3. Aims of the review 11

4. Options for review 12

4.1. Option 1: Status Quo+ 13

4.2. Common bio-physical criteria used in options 2, 3 and 4 14

4.3. Option 2: Common Criteria 14

4.4. Option 3: Eligibility Rules 15

4.5. Option 4: High Nature Value 16

5. Impacts of the Review 16

5.1. First results of the analysis: the need to fine-tune the options and to further involve the Member States in the impact assessment 18

5.2. Types of socio-economic impacts expected 19

5.3. Impacts on the viability of rural communities 22

5.4. Environmental effects of the LFA revision 23

5.5. Simplification potential 27

6. Comparing the options 28

6.1. The options judged in comparison to the objectives 28

6.2. The options judged by the stakeholders 30

6.3. Impacts on the issues at stake and on the interested parties 31

6.4. Summary table of pros and cons 32

7. Monitoring and evaluation 33

8. List of Annexes 36

9. Glossary 36

1. Foreword

1.1. Context

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

Approximately 57% of the overall Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) in the EU is classified as LFA. Mountain areas cover nearly 16% of the UAA and are designated according to a limited number of physical indicators See section 2.3 below . . 31% of the agricultural land of the EU is classified as less favoured area other than mountain, 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 treatment European Court of Auditors (2003), Special Report No 4/2003, OJ C 151 of 27 June 2003. . Annex 1 presents a map of the three categories of LFAs and a description of the main features of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs.[1][2]

See section 2.3 below .

European Court of Auditors (2003), Special Report No 4/2003, OJ C 151 of 27 June 2003.

Together with the areas with specific handicaps (9% of the EU agricultural area), intermediate LFAs account for 30% of the agricultural holdings, 31% of the agricultural labour force and 26% of the agricultural economic potential of the EU. Compared to non disadvantaged zones, agriculture in these areas is characterized by a high proportion of permanent grassland - reflecting difficult conditions for arable land – and by lower livestock density. Farms have on average a lower potential gross value added, despite a larger physical size necessary to compensate an average lower productivity.

A significant evolution of the LFA scheme took place in 2005, within the new strategic approach adopted for the Rural Development Policy (RDP) for 2007-2013 and in the broader context of modernisation and rationalisation of the CAP. LFA payments (since then called Natural Handicap Payments (NHP) in mountain areas and in other areas with handicaps) became part of Axis 2 of RDP, which aims at improving the environment and the countryside by supporting sustainable land management.

This changed context and the Court of Auditors' concerns called for a review of the approach for designating areas affected by natural handicaps other than mountain and than areas affected by specific handicaps (a category replacing the 'intermediate LFAs' previously defined by Article 19 of Regulation 1257/99) and of the method for calculating the payment: under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 both these elements are closely linked to natural handicaps for agriculture. The new legal framework could not however be completed by an agreement on a possible Community wide system for classifying the redefined 'intermediate LFAs', more in line with the new policy objectives.

The difficulties in assessing the impact of possible new delimitation criteria, the technical complexity of a delimitation based on natural handicap indicators and the political sensitiveness of possible changes in the current LFA delimitation were the main obstacles preventing the Council from achieving the review of the scheme in 2005. The need of an in-depth cooperation between the Commission and the Member States became evident, in order to strike a balance between a coherent and transparent approach ensuring equal treatment among beneficiaries and an appropriate consideration of regional peculiarities.

The Council therefore decided to maintain the previous LFA system in force and the Commission was asked to undertake a review of the implementation of the LFA scheme and to present a proposal for a future payment and delimitation system to be applied from 2010, subject to an act of the Council. The scope of the present review exercise is therefore to complete the process started in 2005. It does not aim at providing an in-depth analysis of the justification of the LFA scheme and of its position within the CAP, that was included in the impact assessment supporting the proposal for the rural development policy 2007-2013. However, the report presents the intervention logic of the NHP scheme in relation with other CAP instruments and includes some first reflections on possible future developments, against the background of the on-going process of CAP modernisation. In any case, it does not preclude future developments in policy design for beyond 2013.

Despite the intense analysis and consultation process carried out by the Commission since 2005, t he data limits explained in the following section do not allow the Commission to present a legislative proposal underpinned by a solid impact assessment of the new delimitation system. A thorough analysis can be carried out only by using the information available at national level. It is therefore envisaged to pave the way for a subsequent legislative proposal by the following three steps:

a. Adoption of a Commission Communication in spring 2009. The Communication aims at inviting the Member States to simulate the application on their territory of possible common criteria for LFA delimitation, identified during the impact assessment;

b. Transmission of the Member States' simulations to the Commission in autumn 2009;

c. Finalisation of the impact assessment and elaboration of the legislative proposal as soon as possible, following reception of Member States' simulations.

1.2. Procedural issues

The Commission services launched the LFA review exercise by an independent evaluation concluded in November 2006 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 . . [3]

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 .

Meanwhile the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of Ispra was tasked to derive a set of common soil and climate criteria which could support the 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. Based on FAO's agricultural problem land approach, the expert panel identified a number of soil and climate criteria indicating, at a certain threshold value, severe limitations for European agriculture.

The conclusions of the scientific experts were subject to a wide ranging consultation, namely in the framework of an LFA expert group made of the representatives of European Research Institutes and of the national authorities that met on 14.11.2007, on 23.04.2008 and on 25.06.08. In order to complement and deepen the works of the LFA expert group, approximately 80 technical bilateral meetings between the Commission services and the Member States have taken place since the second half of 2006, to discuss the current delimitation system and the applicability of possible common bio-physical criteria in each Member State.

An inter-service steering group (ISSG) was set up in December 2007 with the task of guiding the analysis of the economic, social and environmental impact of the revision. Made up of representatives from 14 Directorates General and Services of the Commission ( Annex 2 ), the ISSG approved its mandate on 22.01.2008 ( Annex 3 ). On the same day, it started a series of hearings (listed in Annex 4 ) aiming at gathering the views of experts and of stakeholders on the threats posed to the continuation of sustainable farming systems in areas with natural handicaps; on the drawbacks of the present modalities for designating LFAs and for granting the aids; on the changes that could be introduced to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the LFA scheme.

On 3 rd April 2008, the group presented four possible scenarios for revision of the LFA payment and delimitation system to the Advisory Group on Rural Development, made of representatives of stakeholders active in the field of rural development policies. An in-depth discussion of the options within an ad hoc working section of the same advisory group was held on 15 July 2008. The impact assessment process and the four review options were also presented to the Advisory Group on Agriculture and Environment on 17 June 2008.

On 22 May 2008 the ISSG invited interested parties and the civil society to submit contributions on the basis of a public consultation document describing the four review options, published on the Europa web-site. By 30 June 2008, 109 contributions were received, by NGOs, individuals, national and regional authorities. A list of the contributions and a summary of their content are presented in Annex 5 . When relevant, the responses are mentioned in the appropriate sections of the report.

The impact assessment could rely on several reports and studies drawn up in recent years as regards the LFA support scheme and a number of closely related issues. These sources are listed in Annex 6 . Quantitative data have been derived from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), the Farm Structure Survey (FSS) and from Member States communications gathered within the LFA expert group.

As mentioned above, a n important limit to the analysis was the absence of harmonized soil and climate data at detailed scale, taking into account the quite detailed territorial level commonly used for designating an area as LFA (in general LAU2 For info on the n omenclature of territorial units for statistics LAU territorial designation see http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nuts/home_regions_en.html. ). The pan-European data available on soil, climate and terrain MARS: Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing; ESDB: European Soil Data Base SRTM: Shuttle radar Topography Mission, Digital Elevation Model. are in fact too coarse to draw up a map of the agricultural areas that would be delimited by applying common biophysical indicators at a detailed territorial scale. Only the data available within the Member States could provide a reliable picture of a possible new delimitation. In some cases, further collection of data will also be required at the national data, since it is not (entirely) available.[4][5]

For info on the n omenclature of territorial units for statistics LAU territorial designation see http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nuts/home_regions_en.html.

MARS: Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing; ESDB: European Soil Data Base SRTM: Shuttle radar Topography Mission, Digital Elevation Model.

In these circumstances, the assessment can only provide indications and extrapolations of the types of impacts expected from the review options. This impact assessment should therefore be seen as a step of an ongoing analysis process, which requires the cooperation of the national administrations in order to be properly completed and serve as a basis for a Commission legislative proposal.

On 28 January 2009 the draft impact assessment report was presented to the Impact Assessment Board, a body made of high-level Commission's officials with the aim of ensuring high quality impact assessments of the Commission's most significant initiatives. The present version of the impact assessment report takes into account the recommendations made by the Board in its opinion of 3 February 2009, attached in Annex 7 .

2. Problem definition

As mentioned, the current review exercise has limited scope. Regulation 1698/2005 and its implementing rules have redefined the LFA intervention framework and have already addressed a number of critical points raised by the Court of Auditors (payment calculation, application of cross compliance, reinforced monitoring and evaluation system, more precise rules on management and controls). Within this revised framework, three main problems remain to be tackled and need immediate action, in line with the mandate given by the Council:

- The inconsistencies of the current delimitation system with the revised objectives of the NHP scheme;

- The extreme diversity of the criteria used by the Member States for designating intermediate LFAs, implying a lack of transparency that might lead to unequal treatment of beneficiaries;

- The insufficient targeting of the aid in the light of the objectives of the measure.

For a better understanding of these three issues and of the limited scope of this review exercise, an explanation of the intervention logic of the NHP scheme in relation with other CAP instruments is given in the following section.

2.1. The intervention logic of Natural Handicap Payments within a modernised CAP .

The logic of intervention of the LFA scheme has undergone a significant evolution since its inception in 1975 by the adoption of Directive 75/268/EEC: instead of addressing explicitly rural depopulation, payments compensating for natural handicaps have now a stronger focus on land management. They should contribute, through continued use of agricultural land, to maintaining the countryside and to maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems. Recital 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. [6]

Recital 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

Within the modernised CAP architecture, NHP have a distinctive role alongside other policy instruments, while being evidently interlinked with other land-based aid schemes, such as direct payments under the first pillar and agri-environment payments. Whereas the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) aims in the first instance to sustain farmers' income by providing direct income support, NHP do not serve socio-economic purposes but aim at preventing farmland abandonment in areas with natural handicaps, for sustainable land management purposes.

The removal of socio-economic objectives from the main aims of NHP should be seen in the light of the availability of more targeted measures for supporting farmers' income and the rural economy. In a market oriented context, farmers' income is sustained by decoupled direct payments and, in a long-term perspective, by rural development aids enhancing farmers' competitiveness. Economic and social development in rural areas is also promoted by measures under Axis 3 of Rural Development Policy, supporting the diversification into non-agricultural activities, the development of micro-enterprises and tourism activities, the provision of basic services for the economy and rural population.

The SPS includes the obligation to keep agricultural land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) to prevent under-management and abandonment. Complying with GAEC is potentially more onerous for farms in the LFA, where the presence of handicaps is often associated with low yields and returns per hectare, while the potential for scrub invasion and land marginalisation is relatively high. 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 continuation of agriculture per se in areas with natural handicaps addresses in most cases several environmental concerns: keeping open landscape, biodiversity conservation, water management, soil protection, fire prevention, maintenance of landscape values. However, unlike Agri-Environment Payments, which cover the income forgone and costs incurred by farmers that engage in specific and well defined environmental commitments going beyond the mandatory baseline, NHP are not designed towards achieving specific or differentiated environmental outcomes. They do not remunerate farmers for the efforts of complying with specific requirements in terms of farm management practices going beyond mandatory baseline requirements, but 'only' compensate the natural disadvantage by covering the additional costs and income foregone related to the natural handicap, providing a basic form of support to appropriate forms of agriculture to remain in activity.

In conclusion, NHP contribute to sustainable land management in synergy with other land-based payments. Their implementation requires however a specific attention to the interplay with agri-environment payments, namely when specific eligibility rules are applied for directing the payment to the farms which most contribute to sustainable land management. This point is discussed in section 5.4 with relation to the options identified for this review exercise.

2.2. The inconsistencies of the current delimitation system with the revised NHP objectives

In line with the revised rationale of the NHP scheme, Article 50, 3 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 defines the areas affected by natural handicaps other than mountain and than areas affected by specific handicaps (a category replacing the areas previously defined by Article 19 of Regulation 1257/99 and better known as 'intermediate LFAs') as areas affected by significant natural handicaps, notably a low soil productivity or poor climate conditions and where maintaining extensive farming activity is important for the management of the land .

Three types of indicators have been used for identifying intermediate LFAs since the setting up of the LFA scheme in 1975:

a) the presence of land of poor productivity ;

Land productivity indicators include some bio-physical criteria ( elevation, slope, soil characteristics…) which are certainly consistent with the revised objectives of the scheme. However, they are often used embedded into 'index systems' based on several criteria, including economic performance indicators. Furthermore, several Member States have used proxies of land productivity such as average yield, percentage of grassland, livestock density. These proxies are not inconsistent with the objectives, although they are not unambiguously linked to natural handicaps and are more subject to change than biophysical criteria . An attempt to use them as a possible basis for a common system of LFA classification was made in 2005, but an agreement could not be reached since their application would have led to inappropriate results.

b) an economic performance in agriculture appreciably lower than the average ;

Poor economic performance cannot be considered in itself as an indicator of natural handicap. However, in combination with physical indicators, some economic criteria relating to farm added value or gross margin are useful to assess whether a natural handicap is actually affecting agriculture.

c) a low or dwindling population .

Population criteria are no longer relevant to the objectives of the scheme.

In conclusion, it is necessary to redefine the delimitation criteria for intermediate LFAs by excluding the demographic indicators and some of the economic indicators inherited from the original approach of the scheme which is now out of date.

2.3. Transparency and comparability of the current delimitation system

Whereas the delimitation of mountain areas is based on a limited number of physical indicators - altitude, slope, a combination of the two and areas north of 62 nd Parallel - the Member States used a wide range of criteria for designating intermediate LFAs.

As described in Annex 8, most of these criteria are not comparable at a European level. This is not in contravention with the requirements of the EU legislation for 2000-2006 and still in force until a new Council decision. However it represents a serious drawback of the LFA scheme insofar it significantly reduces transparency with regard to the equitable distribution of compensatory allowances. As mentioned by the Court of Auditors, these wide disparities as a possible source of unjustified different treatment of beneficiaries between Member States. The opacity of the system jeopardizes also the monitoring, evaluation and control of the effectiveness and efficiency of the aid with regard to the objective of avoiding land abandonment.

In conclusion, there is a need to improve the transparency and objectivity of the criteria used by the Member States for designating LFAs, and their coherence throughout the EU, while giving due weight to national and regional peculiarities.

2.4. Effectiveness and targeting of the aid

Apart from the area delimitation, a number of ISSG hearings and of contributions to the public consultation suggested that the eligibility rules applied at farm level and the level of the payment represent an obstacle for the effectiveness of the scheme, insofar the aid is not targeted to the situations which are most at risk of land abandonment.

A lack of targeting may also be suggested by the differences in the income situation of LFA beneficiaries and in their dependency on the LFA payment, presented in section 5.2 and in Annex 12.

Eligibility rules

Despite the wide percentage of surface designated as LFA, only a limited proportion of farmers (13% of total EU farms) benefit from a compensatory allowance as shown in Annex 9. Approximately half of those are located in intermediate LFAs. The proportion of farms receiving a compensatory allowance in intermediate LFA is very variable among the Member States and there are cases where the proportion of beneficiaries is negligible despite a large part of the farmland in the country is designated as LFA, as shown in the graph below.

% of total UAA designated as intermediate LFA and % of total farms receiving an 'intermediate LFA payment'

(...PICT...)

Source: Member States communications following LFA expert meeting of 14.11.2007.

This variation is mainly due to the eligibility rules put in place by the Member States, reflecting a variety of objectives and administrative requirements. In a number of Southern member States for example, half the holdings in the LFA fall below the eligibility thresholds regarding the minimum size, in general fixed at two or three hectares. The exclusion of very small farms may impact on holdings offering landscape diversity in some regions, but this has to be balanced against the likely limited impact of very small payments and the administrative cost of making payments and monitoring a large number of small farms.

Eligibility criteria include restrictions on farmers over 65 years of age and part-time farmers from receiving payments, place of residence conditions, and a requirement to keep livestock. According to the evaluation, many of these are inessential to the main objectives of the measure and could exclude farmers contributing to the maintenance of agricultural land use. For instance, excluding part-time farmers may be counterproductive in terms of effectiveness of the aid if one considers that grazing livestock rearing generally presents a higher share of pluri-activity compared to other farming systems, but also provides valuable land management in poorly productive areas.

On the other side, the eligibility rules should take account of the possible coexistence of different farming practices in the same area presenting natural handicaps, as shown for instance in the image below. In this type of areas, granting the LFA aid to farming systems that are not extensive and do not make a specific positive contribution to sustainable land management is questionable with regard to the objectives of the measure. Questions may also arise on whether the payment can be granted to the most productive farms that have overcome the natural handicap.

Google image of irrigation expansion, Extremadura, Spain

(...PICT...)

The green areas are intensive agriculture based on irrigation. The surrounding areas are Dehesa habitats- extensive oak savannah exploited through grazing and cork production. While Dehesas are some of Europe’s most valuable habitats for biodiversity, the intensive arable landscape that replaces them implies an increase in use of water, fertiliser and pesticides while causing pollution and exhaustion of natural resources.

In conclusion, appropriate eligibility rules are a useful tool for an effective use of the aid. However, the wide variety of eligibility rules put in place by the Member States results in lack of transparency and in resources not being targeted sufficiently precisely on areas for which the hazard of abandonment is greatest.

Payment level

The average payment per hectare is also very variable, from 16 €/ha in Spain to 250 €/ha in Malta. This variation depends partially on the severity of the handicaps in each country; the payment is in general higher in Member States with a high proportion of mountain (or assimilated) areas in their territory like Finland, Austria and Slovenia, for instance. The average values often hide wide differences within the same country (see Section 5.2).

Average LFA payment in the EU25 (€/hectare )

(...PICT...)

The ISSG hearings and the public consultation suggested that the disparities in payment rates per hectare throughout the EU (and sometimes within the same Member State) may not reflect real patterns of disadvantage. For example, a number of responses to the public consultation highlighted that in some regions the LFA payments per hectare mirror patterns of pillar 1 payments per hectare (see maps in Annex 10 ), suggesting a disproportionate rewarding for the more productive parts of the LFA in that region as well as an insufficient targeting of the available resources on the areas most in danger of land abandonment.

The legislator has already provided a response to the problems related to the level of the payment and the risk of overcompensation raised by the Court of Auditors in 2003, by specifying that the payment calculation should be based on additional costs and income foregone Article 37 (1) of Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. . This provision has not shown its potential effectiveness until now since it will enter into force when the LFA review will be concluded.[7]

Article 37 (1) of Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

The views of the evaluation and of the experts heard by the ISSG suggest that the effectiveness of the LFA scheme is lower in the regions where the incentives for maintaining extensive farming activity important for land management are too low to maintain the business viability of the farms which are most at risk of land abandonment. This can occur either because the Member State, within its rural development financial envelope, has decided to prioritise other incentives or because the funds are not targeted to those most in need, or for a combination of the two elements.

In conclusion, the new payment calculation decided in 2005 and not yet in force should make a substantial contribution to enhancing the targeting of the aid. An appropriate targeting of the aid through the area delimitation and the eligibility rules can help to reach a critical level of resources available for the scheme in a Member State/region, and therefore allow maintaining the level of the incentives at an attractive level .

3. Aims of the review

Starting from the revised rationale of the LFA scheme decided in 2005 to enhance its contribution to the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, the current review stems from the need to adapt the LFA arrangements to the new policy approach and to fully pursue the objectives of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps, as cast in Regulation 1698/2005, i.e. to contribute, through continued use of agricultural land, to maintaining the countryside and to maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems.

The review is supported by the lessons learnt from the independent evaluation as regards the effectiveness of the aids and of the implementing rules adopted by the Member States. It takes into account the remarks of the Court of Auditors regarding the wide difference in the LFA implementation throughout the EU, confirmed by the evaluation, which might lead to disparity of treatment and inefficencies. It takes also into consideration the consistency of the LFA support scheme with the international, financial and budgetary commitments of the EU.

Given these broad orientations and constraints, the review of the aid scheme to farmers in areas with natural handicaps seeks to achieve the following aims:

– To adapt the intermediate LFAs delimitation and payment system to the approach decided in 2005;

– To improve the transparency, objectivity and the scientific ground of the criteria used by the Member States for designating intermediate LFAs as well as their coherence throughout the EU, in order to minimize the risk of unequal treatment while giving due weight to national and regional peculiarities;

– To improve the targeting of the aid on areas where natural handicaps represent an actual disadvantage for agricultural activity;

– To promote the targeting of the aid to extensive farming systems important for sustainable land management and to increase the effectiveness of the aid in areas for which the hazard of abandonment is greatest;

– To improve consistency and synergies with other CAP instruments and with other relevant policies and with the international commitments of the EU;

– To improve the transparency and the controllability of the aids;

– To limit, as far as possible, the administrative burden that the implementation of the new modalities will imply, while also limiting as far as possible the administrative burden linked to the implementation of the measure and the risk of errors and cost of control.

In order to reach these objectives, the revision aims at:

– Setting out a common framework for delimiting intermediate LFAs based on common objective criteria which are non-crop specific and could be used by all the Member States for delimiting areas where climate and soil conditions represent an handicap for agriculture;

– Introducing a common approach for excluding areas where natural handicaps have been overcome thanks to technical progress and/or specific farming practices;

– Establishing a common basic framework for targeting the aid, within a delimited area, to the farming practices which are most at risk of land abandonment, by excluding intensive farming systems.

4. Options for review

Four options were identified in support of the aims of this review exercise:

Status Quo+ represents a reference scenario . It keeps relying on national criteria for the area delimitation with the exclusion of the socio-economic indicators currently in use, which are not directly linked to natural handicaps for agriculture. It implies only limited adaptations to the current delimitation and payment arrangements, in order to be consistent with the new legal requirements.

The other three options enhance the transparency and the comparability of the area delimitation system by fixing common objective criteria to be used by the Member States for designating intermediate LFAs. They also aim to achieve a further targeting of the aid.

In Option 4 , further territorial targeting is obtained by shrinking the delimited areas to those having recognized high nature value, while in the case of options 2 and 3 the targeting is pursued by means of appropriate eligibility rules to be applied at farm level within the area designated as LFA

Option 2 would apply full subsidiarity insofar the setting up of eligibility criteria is optional for the Member States and is established at the national level.

Option 3 adopts a decentralised approach in the identification of the farming systems eligible for the aid, on the basis of a basic framework defined at Community level.

The options were identified keeping in mind the limited scope of the current review exercise, i.e. adapting the LFA delimitation and payment system within the legal framework defined in 2005. However, they have also been considered in the perspective of possible future developments of the LFA scheme against the background of the on-going modernisation of the CAP instruments.

A scenario consisting in moving the LFA aids from the Rural Development Policy to the first pillar of the CAP, as a top-up to direct payments for compensating farmers located in areas with natural handicaps, was considered as potentially effective in terms of simplification and consistent with the objective of maintaining continued land use in areas with natural handicaps. On the other hand, the modalities for granting the aid would no longer be defined within national/regional rural development programmes in partnership between the Member States and the Commission, and this may negatively affect the targeting of the aid on specific land management objectives defined in the national rural development strategy. In this regard, it can be considered that, within the present legal framework, the rural development policy (and Axis 2 in particular) provides an appropriate framework to take full advantage of the potential of the LFA scheme to contribute to sustainable land management.

In any case, a transfer to pillar 1 would require the definition of a clear and transparent approach for delimiting the eligible areas based on natural handicap indicators. Thus, the options considered in the current limited exercise might also serve any subsequent simplification scenario and do not preclude future developments for beyond 2013.

4.1. Option 1: Status Quo+

Area designationIn this scenario the Member States would be asked to remove the socio-economic indicators currently in use for delimiting LFAs and to identify the criteria they deem the most appropriate for defining natural handicaps affecting agriculture. The Member States using index systems might be allowed to continue using them, having removed the socio-economic indicators embedded into these systems. The other Member States would be required to develop a system of soil and climate criteria adapted to their situation. The Commission would have to assess the appropriateness of the system used by each Member State in relation to the objectives of the LFA scheme. Payment systemThe Member States would have the possibility to fix eligibility rules at farm level in order to target the aid to specific farming systems in the framework of their RDP programmes. The Commission would have to assess that such criteria are objective, non discriminatory and consistent with the objectives of the measure and the international commitments of the EU.The payment would be calculated on the basis of the additional costs and income foregone related to the handicap in the area concerned, within the minimum and maximum amount fixed by the Council. |

A pure Status Quo is not a real option given that a number of the criteria currently used for delimiting LFAs do not refer to natural handicaps and therefore are longer consistent with the revised rationale of the scheme. A status quo+ scenario has thus be envisaged, requiring the minimum adaptation necessary to make the current delimitation system compatible with the new legal framework.

This option can be considered as a reference scenario for assessing the alternative review options: a majority of countries already use natural handicap indicators for their LFA designation (often embedded into index systems) and several Member States consider the economic criteria used as proxies for natural handicap indicators. It can reasonably be assumed that this option would not lead to significant changes in the eligible areas. In a few cases, there might be an expansion of the areas since, in the past, the population criteria might have led to the exclusion of some areas presenting natural handicap for agriculture.

This option would limit the aid to areas affected by natural handicaps. However, there would be a lack of transparency and comparability, which might lead to the same risks of unequal treatment pointed out by the Court of Auditors in 2003. The targeting of the aid to areas where the hazard of farmland abandonment is greatest would be left up to the Member States through the setting up of eligibility rules at farm level.

The objective of limiting the administrative burden could be met in the case of several Member States, as this option allows the use of available knowledge and data, while being able to capture regional specificities. Nevertheless, it would be extremely hard for the Commission, even supported by scientific advice, to assess, monitor and control the different national systems. This would imply a significant administrative burden in the long term for the Community institutions.

4.2. Common bio-physical criteria used in options 2, 3 and 4

Options 2, 3 and 4 are all built upon the same area delimitation method, based on eight common bio-physical indicators identified by a panel of soil, climate and land evaluation experts co-ordinated by the Institute for Environment and Sustainability of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

The expert panel reviewed a set of land evaluation methods in order to elaborate a common approach which could support the classification of intermediate LFAs. FAO’s agricultural problem land approach was selected and adjusted to come forward with the requested approach. The FAO approach was deemed appropriate because it is not crop-specific and for its simple assumptions regarding the mutual interaction of land characteristics on the overall suitability of the land, making it applicable for a territory as large and diverse as the EU. Two climatic and four soil criteria were retained and complemented by one integrated soil-climate criterion (soil moisture balance), with slope as the sole topographic criterion. Each criterion refers to factors having a major and sufficiently independent contribution to the suitability of land for agriculture. For each criterion a threshold value indicating severe limitation for agriculture is defined.

Þ An area is considered affected by significant natural handicaps if it meets at least one of the criteria listed in the table at the threshold value indicated therein.

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 justified by national circumstances. The JRC paper in Annex 12 provides a more detailed definition and the scientific justification of each criterion.

The impact assessment process, namely the bilateral meetings between the Commission services and the Member States, showed that the delimitation made on the basis of some criteria (in particular those referring to soil characteristics) requires an appropriate fine-tuning in order to avoid granting LFA status to areas presenting a natural handicap that has been overcome through appropriate investments or farming practices. The reasons and the approach envisaged for such fine-tuning are developed in section 5.1 of this report.

4.3. Option 2: Common Criteria

Area designationIntermediate LFAs would be designated by using the common bio-physical criteria listed in Annex 11, complemented, where appropriate, by a specific fine-tuning in order to remove the areas where natural handicaps have been overcome.Payment systemThe Member States would have the possibility, in the framework of their rural development programmes, to fix eligibility rules at farm level in order to target the aid to specific farming systems. The Commission would have to assess that such criteria are objective, non discriminatory, consistent with the objectives of the measure and with the international commitments of the EU.The payment would be calculated on the basis of the additional costs and income foregone related to the handicap in the area concerned, within the minimum and maximum amount fixed by the Council. |

The delimitation system would be objective, transparent, easily understandable and controllable, minimising the risks of unequal treatment as a result of the designation process. The aid would be targeted to farmers in areas that are actually suffering from natural handicaps.

The Member States would then have the possibility to further target the aid by fixing objective eligibility rules at farm level, provided that these are consistent with the aims of the scheme and with the WTO green-box. There would not be a common approach as regards further targeting to extensive farming systems important for land management, with a risk that support is not sufficiently concentrated through the application of eligibility rules, but also increased capacity to cope with local needs.

Although the system would be quite simple and based on few clear indicators, a financial and administrative effort would be required from the Member States, in particular those which do not collect all the necessary data. However, the indicators refer to bio-physical elements which tend to remain stable over a long period, therefore the administrative burden would represent a sort of start up cost, which will drastically reduce once the system is up and running.

4.4. Option 3: Eligibility Rules

Area designationIntermediate LFAs would be designated by using the common bio-physical criteria listed in Annex 11 complemented, where appropriate, by a specific fine-tuning in order to remove the areas where natural handicaps have been overcome.Payment systemThe Member States would be required to fix appropriate rules in order to target the support to extensive farming making a positive contribution to sustainable land management by excluding intensive farming systems from the aid. The Community legislation would provide a basic framework for the eligibility criteria indicating the principles and the type of criteria to be used for excluding intensive farming systems (e.g. maximum livestock density, average yield, standard gross margin). On this basis the Member States would choose the most appropriate indicators and set the relevant thresholds within their RDPs. The eligibility rules should be objective, non discriminatory, consistent with the objectives of the measure and with the international commitments of the EU. The payment would be calculated on the basis of the additional costs and income foregone related to the handicap in the area concerned, within the minimum and maximum amount fixed by the Council. |

As in option 2, the aid would be limited to areas actually affected by natural handicaps. The delimitation system would be transparent and comparable.

Compared to option 2, this option would systematically further target LFA support to extensive farming systems which are most at risk of land abandonment. The rationale behind is that a coexistence of intensive and extensive farming systems in the same area affected by natural handicaps is possible. In order to further target the LFA payments at farm level, intensive farming systems not making a specific positive contribution to sustainable land management and not bearing a significant risk of land abandonment would not be supported by the scheme, avoiding watering down LFA funds.

This option requires specific attention as regards the interplay between agri-environment measures and LFA support (see Section 5.4.2 of this report).

4.5. Option 4: High Nature Value

Area designationThis option would imply a more targeted delimitation of areas: only areas classified as High Nature Value (HNV) farmland within areas affected by natural handicaps would qualify as LFAs. The delimitation of intermediate LFAs would first be operated according to the same method used for options 2 and 3, on the basis of the common bio-physical criteria listed in Table 6 (see section 4.2 above), complemented, where appropriate, by a specific fine-tuning in order to remove the areas where natural handicaps have been overcome. The areas resulting from this first delimitation would subsequently be further reduced in order to cover only the areas classified as HNV farmland, defined as those areas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where agriculture supports or is associated with either a high species and habitat diversity, or the presence of species of European, and/or national, and/or regional concern, or both. The preservation of HNV farmland through the measures of Axis 2 of the Rural Development Policy is an objective identified in the Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development (Council Decision 2006/144/EC) ) and has a major role to play in stopping the decline in biodiversity. Member States would have the possibility to fix eligibility rules according to transparent, objective and non discriminatory criteria consistent with the objectives of the measure. Payment systemThe payment would be calculated on the basis of the additional costs and income foregone related to the handicap in the area concerned, within the minimum and maximum amount fixed by the Council. |

Under this option, the aid would be directed to the preservation of sustainable farming systems in areas affected by natural handicaps. In principle, the system would be transparent and controllable, but it should be kept in mind that the identification of HNV farming systems is an on-going process discussed in the framework of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Rural Development, which is not yet ready to be implemented.

The limitation to areas of recognized High Nature Value would target the aid to areas where agriculture is clearly associated with biodiversity and where farming abandonment would jeopardize the sustainable land management. However, it could exclude other areas affected by natural handicaps and characterized by a prevalence of extensive farming systems, where there is a significant risk of land abandonment which would be detrimental for the maintenance of the countryside.

5. Impacts of the Review

This part of the report describes the preliminary results of the analysis following a more thorough evaluation of the options, based on the technical discussions with the national authorities as well as in the light of the responses to the public consultation.

Difficulties in assessing Options 4 'HNV'

A first conclusion of the analysis is that there are significant and objective obstacles to the assessment of option 4 'High Nature Value'. The process of identification of HNV indicators within the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Rural Development is not enough developed at this stage and is progressing at very diverse pace in the different Member States. In these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to establish an outline framework joining natural handicap and HNV indicators that could be used as a basis for the assessment.

In the absence of sufficiently clear indications on the HNV indicators, it seemed therefore appropriate not to consider Option 4 in the short term, without discarding it as a potential longer term option, and reminding MS of their obligation to identify HNV indicators under the CMEF.

A number of elements play in favour of keeping this option open for further analysis. A case study presented during an ISSG hearing suggested that there would be a large overlapping between the current LFAs and HNV farmland in one large Member State (approximately 90% of HNV farmland is in LFA). More generally, the characteristics identified for HNV farming, i.e. extensive land use, presence of semi-natural features and presence of a land use mosaic, are very often associated with natural handicaps for agriculture. One could therefore expect the bio-physical criteria considered for defining areas with natural handicaps to be compatible with the criteria for defining HNV farmland. The presence of extensive farming important for land management is also a specific feature of 'intermediate LFAs' as defined by Regulation 1698/2005.

However, the presence of HNV farmland in areas not affected by natural handicaps is well possible; on the other hand, some handicapped areas might not present HNV features, and still need support for maintaining continued farmland use.

Apart from the overlapping between LFA and HNV farming, it remains to consider whether the HNV farming concept is best served through a delineation of areas. Several responses to the public consultation (including those favouring, in principle, a closer link between HNV and LFA) highlighted that farm-level criteria would be more appropriate to the HNV concept. According to some respondents, the best way to achieve a fit between the LFA measure and the delivery of HNV farmland element of Axis 2 is firstly through the criteria for excluding intensive farmers, as suggested in option 3. Others argued that supporting HNV farming systems fits more suitably in the (higher) agri-environmental scheme payments, which compensate farmers for costs incurred and income foregone associated with the provision of environmental services, while the (lower) LFA payments only compensate for the handicap.

Finally, it should be highlighted that the delimitation and payment system foreseen under options 2 and 3 clearly enhances the contribution of the NHP scheme to maintaining HNV farmland, both by the area designation (the eligible areas are only those actually suffering from natural handicaps, where the intensification of farming has not occurred because of physical constraints) and the eligibility rules fixed at farm level, although this contribution will depend very much on the eligibility rules selected.

In conclusion, more work is needed in order to explore whether HNV farmland can be meaningfully classified in the Member States according to a common set of criteria. This work needs to be finalised before considering the option of joining natural handicap payments and HNV farmland in the policy framework for post 2013. In any case, the assessment of such an option needs to consider also whether HNV objectives are not more effectively addressed by the well-established agri-environment measure, or whether a combination of the two measures can work well.

Data problems

A second conclusion regards the difficulties in drawing a map of the areas potentially classifying as intermediate LFAs following the application of the biophysical criteria studied under options 2 and 3 on the basis of pan-European datasets. A delimitation of zones with natural handicaps should be derived from measuring, at given reference points, the characteristics of the soil and the occurrence of climatic values. The amount, density as well as the semantic and spatial detail of the soil and climate data available in pan-European data sets is not sufficient for carrying out a reliable simulation at detailed scale. The Member States have started using their datasets for assessing the impact of the application of the biophysical criteria in comparison to the current LFA delimitation. It is necessary that the national authorities deepen this exercise following a coordinated approach in order to complete an assessment that could serve as a basis for a Commission proposal.

In the absence of indications on the areas that might be affected by a change in the LFA delimitation, the last three sections of this chapter describe the types of social, economic and environmental impacts that can be associated to the options.

5.1. First results of the analysis: the need to fine-tune the options and to further involve the Member States in the impact assessment

The common biophysical criteria identified by the expert group of scientists through the JRC network represent a promising approach for setting up an objective and transparent area delimitation system, as suggested in options 2 and 3. They are robust, based on sound science and allow classifying land homogeneously throughout the EU.

The assessment of the common criteria made until now can not however be regarded as exhaustive, because of the lack of adequate data and knowledge at EU level. The analysis of the outcome of their application could in fact reveal difficulties that the pan-European data available are not able to detect. For that reason and in order to avoid anomalous results, the active involvement of the national authorities in the impact assessment 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 (i.e. with a degree of spatial and semantic resolution capturing the characteristics of the agricultural land in an area at the territorial level LAU2, or as close as possible to LAU2).

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: thanks to technical progress and man 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 the area results constrained according to the biophysical criteria. However, the handicap does not impact on agricultural productivity and there is no justification for classifying the area as LFA.

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 together with appropriate production-related indicators.

The handicaps resulting from poor drainage, soil texture and stoniness, rooting depth and soil-moisture balance are those most commonly offset by farmers thanks to investments, farming techniques and appropriate crop choices. The delimitation made on the basis of these criteria should therefore systematically be fine-tuned. The definition and the assessment of appropriate fine-tuning arrangements need to be developed with the active cooperation of the Member States, since the knowledge and data available at EU level are too coarse for carrying out an LFA delimitation at the appropriate territorial level.

For instance, the criterion 'poor drainage' identifies areas constrained for agriculture because the excess of water reduces gaseous oxygen in the rooting zone. If not artificially drained, these wet areas are characterized by an extensive farming activity carried out in difficult conditions and favourable for preserving biodiversity. This type of areas clearly fulfils the requirement for being designated as LFA.

On the other hand, many wet areas in Europe were artificially drained and are now highly fertile. These areas do not suffer from a specific risk of land abandonment and there is no justification for classifying them as LFA, although the intrinsic properties of their soil remain objectively handicapped. The assessment suggests that, on the basis of the pan-European soil data available N.B.: Pan-European data are not suited for delimiting LFAs; they can only provide an indication of the relative location of areas constrained by some natural handicaps. , some areas with intensive agriculture (e.g. in England, Belgium and the Netherlands) may present a relatively high share of UAA meeting the criterion 'poor drainage'. There is therefore a need to fine-tune the delimitation in these areas, for instance by excluding the possibility of designating artificially drained areas on the basis of the poor drainage criterion. [8]

N.B.: Pan-European data are not suited for delimiting LFAs; they can only provide an indication of the relative location of areas constrained by some natural handicaps.

A case similar to artificially drained areas can occur in dry areas in South Europe were intensive and profitable farming systems have been developed thanks to irrigation investments Although drainage and irrigation investments are costly, they do not imply permanent costs, are often supported by public funds and favour an intensive agriculture which is not the object of the LFA scheme. . In this case, the areas would meet the soil-moisture balance criterion and the delimitation should be fine-tuned, for instance by excluding the possibility that areas with high proportion of irrigated land could be designated on the basis of this criterion. [9]

Although drainage and irrigation investments are costly, they do not imply permanent costs, are often supported by public funds and favour an intensive agriculture which is not the object of the LFA scheme.

Besides drainage and soil-moisture balance, an appropriate fine-tuning is needed in particular for the biophysical criteria relating to poor soil conditions , i.e. texture and stoniness (criterion 4 in table 6), rooting depth (criterion 5) and chemical properties (criterion 6). The first analyses conducted at EU and national level indicate that the handicaps linked to soil types can be overcome by means of different techniques or practices, like irrigation, fertilisation, appropriate crop choices.

For such situations, the hypothesis of using production-related indicators was considered in order to exclude from the LFA delimitation areas where the soil handicap is no longer exerting a negative effect on the agricultural activity. A preliminary analysis of possible indicators to be used in association with the soil-biophysical criteria was carried out. It suggests that the indicators relating to the average cereal yield, the livestock density and the standard gross margin per hectare can be used for excluding productive areas where an initial soil handicap has been offset. However the analysis faced many data limitations due to the large scale of the information available at EU level (NUTS 2 or NUTS 3) and needs to be developed on the basis of more detailed statistical data available in the Member States.

5.2. Types of socio-economic impacts expected

The main objective of the LFA aid is to maintain sustainable farming systems for land management reasons rather than promoting agricultural production for the market and the type of farming supported by the LFA scheme has a limited production potential Whereas non-mountain LFAs currently represent 39% of the total UAA in the EU 25, the agricultural economic potential of LFA beneficiaries in these areas (expressed in standard gross margin) can be estimated to an average of 6.5% of the total agricultural economic potential in the EU25 (see Annex 8.1). . The impact of the LFA revision on agricultural market supply and on agricultural prices is therefore likely to be negligible, independently of the option chosen. [10]

Whereas non-mountain LFAs currently represent 39% of the total UAA in the EU 25, the agricultural economic potential of LFA beneficiaries in these areas (expressed in standard gross margin) can be estimated to an average of 6.5% of the total agricultural economic potential in the EU25 (see Annex 8.1).

The options identified are also 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 by each Member State in the framework of its Rural Development Programme, within the limit of the overall appropriations attributed to that Member State to support rural development in a given programming period In the current programming period, Decision 2006/636/EC fixes the annual breakdown by Member State of the amount for Community support to rural development for the period from 1.1. 2007 to 31.12.2013. . A change in the financial need resulting from a better targeting would move the resources available to other measures within the programme.[11]

In the current programming period, Decision 2006/636/EC fixes the annual breakdown by Member State of the amount for Community support to rural development for the period from 1.1. 2007 to 31.12.2013.

The main type of socio-economic impact expected from the LFA review regards the income of farms in the areas concerned by the new delimitation and payment system. The information available at this stage does not allow identifying the areas that would be affected by a change of LFA status under the options identified for the LFA review. The analysis of the impact expected on farm income was therefore based on case type linked to the farm income level as well as to the importance of the LFA aid in the overall income of the farm.

FADN The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) is a European system of sample surveys collecting structural and accountancy data on the farms. FADN covers only the farms exceeding a minimum economic size in order to cover the most relevant part of the agricultural activity of the EU Member States. For more information on FADN: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/index.cfm data were used for assessing the income situation of the farms located in areas currently designated as non-mountain LFAs Intermediate LFAs + areas with specific handicaps. and their dependence on the LFA aid (average data 2004-2005). C ompared to non-LFA holdings, these farms (both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the LFA scheme) present a significantly lower income expressed in FNVA/AWU The Farm Net Value Added (FNVA) represents the remuneration of the land, labour and capital both owned by the farm or external. It equals total output, plus direct payments minus intermediate consumption and depreciation. From FNVA, wages, rents and interests still need to be paid, and subsidies and taxes on investments need to be added. It is expressed per Annual Work Units (AWU ) to take into account the differences in the total labour force to be remunerated per holding. This indicator allows comparing the farms irrespective of the family/non-family nature of the production factors employed. That is why it is preferred for this analysis involving Member States with different structural characteristics. (-27%) and a higher share of direct payments in the FNVA (51% against 32%). Nevertheless they do not have a significantly lower return on assets, indicator showing how effective is a farm in generating FNVA from its assets. [12][13][14]

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) is a European system of sample surveys collecting structural and accountancy data on the farms. FADN covers only the farms exceeding a minimum economic size in order to cover the most relevant part of the agricultural activity of the EU Member States. For more information on FADN: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/index.cfm

Intermediate LFAs + areas with specific handicaps.

The Farm Net Value Added (FNVA) represents the remuneration of the land, labour and capital both owned by the farm or external. It equals total output, plus direct payments minus intermediate consumption and depreciation. From FNVA, wages, rents and interests still need to be paid, and subsidies and taxes on investments need to be added. It is expressed per Annual Work Units (AWU ) to take into account the differences in the total labour force to be remunerated per holding. This indicator allows comparing the farms irrespective of the family/non-family nature of the production factors employed. That is why it is preferred for this analysis involving Member States with different structural characteristics.

3% of LFA beneficiaries in these areas depend on the LFA payments to ensure a positive FNVA. 6% of LFA beneficiaries have negative FNVA and can be considered, all other things being equal, at risk of abandoning farming or at least the current production type, with possible negative repercussions on sustainable land management. They are mostly located in Poland, Germany and Ireland. A possible link with an insufficient level of the aid should be based on a more detailed analysis at the regional level, while it is possible that a number of these farms are in a sub-optimal situation for reasons not depending on the aid level and that would in any case require changes in the long term. The risk of abandonment due to negative FNVA affects also 7% of the farms located in non-mountain LFAs but not receiving an LFA aid. This risk is particularly high in Poland, Spain and Hungary.

On average, the LFA payment per AWU is 1 448 €/AWU, i.e. 10% of the average FNVA. However, the EU averages hide high differences among the Member States , as shown in table 7. Variations within some Member States are also observed.

(...PICT...)

Source: EU FADN, average data 2004-2005. German and Italian data on LFA are estimates. Cyprus data were missing at the time of drafting the analysis.

Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria and Poland Denmark and Malta are not mentioned since no intermediate LFAs are delimited in these countries, therefore the data only refers to areas with specific handicaps. are Member States where LFA beneficiaries are, on average, less dependent on the LFA aid. However, this low degree of dependency might be explained by the moderate level of average LFA payments per AWU, which is significantly below the EU average in Greece, Spain and Poland. Conversely in Slovakia, Finland and Sweden, farms' income would be more severely affected by a loss or a reduction of the aid. For Finland the aid represents a high share of the farm income, because, similarly to Luxembourg, the average payment level is very high. However, in these two Member States (where the LFA beneficiaries represent the big majority of the farm population) the average values hide wide disparities. [15]

Denmark and Malta are not mentioned since no intermediate LFAs are delimited in these countries, therefore the data only refers to areas with specific handicaps.

The graph presented in Annex 12 illustrates the distribution of the share of LFA payments in FNVA (indicator of dependence to LFA scheme) for non-mountain beneficiaries by Member State. The degree of dependence to LFA scheme in the non-mountain LFA is rather low and concentrated around the average in Belgium, Greece, Spain and Italy. It means that the average share of LFA in FNVA represents well the situation of the farms in these Member States, whereas the average hides a wide range of degree of dependence in other Member States, especially in Finland, Slovakia, Denmark and Czech Republic.

In synthesis, it can be considered that the negative impact of a loss of LFA status for an area following the application of new delimitation criteria would vary according to the importance of the LFA payment in the farm income. In this regard, Status Quo+ appears to be the option with the most limited impact, as it does not entail significant changes compared to the current delimitation.

Under Options 2 and 3 changes in the area delimitation affecting farms' income both negatively and positively are possible, but cannot be assessed at this stage because of the lack of appropriate data. In any case, the loss of the LFA payment would have extreme consequences and lead to a negative income situation (in terms of FNVA) in a limited number of cases (3% of total beneficiaries).

The introduction of a common framework for the national eligibility criteria envisaged in Option 3, would concentrate the aid on extensive farming systems which are less profitable and present a higher risk of land abandonment. It is thus likely to have a positive impact on the farms with low income and a high degree of dependency on the LFA aid.

It should also be mentioned that in a number of Member States, farmers can benefit from a series of advantages (e.g. lower taxes based on national legislation) because they are located in LFA, even if they are not LFA beneficiaries stricto sensu . A change in LFA status for these areas can have considerable effects on farms' income, although these cannot be assessed at the EU level.

At the present stage of the analysis it is not known whether and where there would be farmers who will no longer benefit from LFA support as a result of the annulment of the socio-economic criteria. The probability and the dimension of such cases should be assessed on the basis of the simulations that should be provided by the Member States in autumn 2009. In that context, it should be considered:

a. If the other CAP measures available in the region, for instance under Axis 3 of the relevant Rural Development Programme, can compensate for the socio-economic handicaps up to now covered by the LFA support;

b. Whether possible ways of ensuring a smooth transition to the new delimitation should be put in place.

5.3. Impacts on the viability of rural communities

The impact of the review from the angle of territorial cohesion should consider the role of agriculture in the maintenance of a vibrant rural social structure and economy in the areas concerned. As already said, the areas that would be affected by the new delimitation and payment system are not identified at this stage. The assessment therefore describes the types of contribution that the LFA scheme can make to the socio-economic viability of rural communities and its potential relationship with a revision of the delimitation and payment scheme.

In principle, the LFA measure could contribute to the socio-economic viability of rural communities both directly through the payments received by farmers and indirectly through the maintenance of open landscapes and continuation of agricultural activity. Additional income and employment will arise from economic activities upstream and downstream of agriculture and from recreation and tourism dependent on open landscapes. Clearly, agriculture as the dominant rural land use in most EU countries, particularly in the predominantly rural areas which make the most of LFAs, has a role to play in maintaining the viability of rural communities through the creation of employment opportunities, and its broader contribution to the rural economy through the agri-food chain and various multiplier effects, even though it is just one sector in an increasingly diverse economic system.

The significance of farming and other activities related to agriculture in economic and social terms varies greatly between regions. Whilst it is now small in many areas, there are others, especially in the Member States that recently acceded the EU but also in Western Europe The case of marginal communities in Finland where farms account for 43% of the total number of small scale enterprises was mentioned by the LFA evaluation. where they remain the backbone of local economy. Here one would expect that a support payment making a significant contribution to the continued presence of agriculture and hence the agri-food supply chain in the area to contribute also to the viability of the whole rural community. A change in the delimitation and/or in the payment system would therefore be likely to have significant impacts on the overall development of these areas. [16]

The case of marginal communities in Finland where farms account for 43% of the total number of small scale enterprises was mentioned by the LFA evaluation.

Farming systems within LFAs are important in maintaining large tracts of the countryside and provide a range of valued environmental and landscape goods and services, as described in section 5.4. These are difficult to value in economic terms, but are important to the quality of life of local residents and in attracting tourists, in-migrants and businesses to these areas.

Some farming communities are more vulnerable than others to decline because of the production system, limited value added, the size of holdings and a peripheral location. These communities tend to exhibit a lack of dynamism that makes on-farm diversification or pluriactivity unlikely and, due to a lack of opportunity, local alternative off-farm employment options scarce. In several cases the vulnerability of the production system is a consequence of the natural conditions, therefore enhancing the targeting of the LFA aid to the areas most severely affected by natural handicaps can have positive impacts on the overall viability of the area.

In the cases where the decline is not linked to the presence of natural handicaps, measures aiming at fostering the competitiveness of the agricultural sector, promoting diversification and setting up integrated bottom-up development strategies seem to have more chances of being successful than a payment compensating farmers for the natural handicaps.

The role that the LFA measure can play in supporting rural communities should always be seen in complement to other rural development measures like for instance the agro-environment payments, the improvement of the processing and marketing of agricultural products, the improvement of the quality of life in the rural areas, the strategies developed based on the Leader approach.

5.4. Environmental effects of the LFA revision

Agriculture and environment in areas with natural handicaps

Agriculture’s impact on the environment is a result of farming systems and practices. In general terms, low intensity farming systems are associated with sympathetic environmental management, while more intensive and specialised farming systems employing high yielding farming practices with a scarcity of more natural features are often associated with negative environmental impacts Baldock et al ., 1994 . [17]

Baldock et al ., 1994

The literature supports the view that continued agricultural management is the best means of maintaining vegetation communities and broader ecological processes on a range of semi-natural habitats, predominantly those subject to low intensity farming. These habitat types are concentrated in areas where the intensification of farming has not occurred, usually because of physical constraints IEEP, (2006), LFA evaluation p. 204. . [18]

IEEP, (2006), LFA evaluation p. 204.

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. The continuation of agriculture per se in these areas addresses in most cases several important environmental concerns: keeping open landscape, biodiversity conservation, water management, soil protection, fire prevention, climate change mitigation, maintenance of cultural heritage and landscape values.

It has been estimated that more than half of Europe's most highly valued biotopes occur on low intensity farmland Bigna, E. & McCracken, D. 1996. Low- intensity farming systemsin the conservation of the countryside. Journal of applied ecology. 33:413-424. . Low-intensity farming creates a varied habitat, makes low use of biocides (pesticides and herbicides) and artificial fertilisers and land is regularly left fallow. Animal grazing is often mixed with cropping. In such habitats wild plants and insect thrive and birds find an abundance of seed and invertebrate food, ample shelter and nesting sites. Pain & Pienkowski, 1997; Hellicar, M.A.,2004. In general, farmland abandonment in extensively farmed areas has mostly negative effects from a biodiversity perspective, while it can increase species diversity in intensively farmed areas http://reports.eea.europa.eu/ e nvironmental_issue_repo r t_2004_37/en/tab_content_RLR .[19][20][21]

Bigna, E. & McCracken, D. 1996. Low- intensity farming systemsin the conservation of the countryside. Journal of applied ecology. 33:413-424.

Pain & Pienkowski, 1997; Hellicar, M.A.,2004.

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/ e nvironmental_issue_repo r t_2004_37/en/tab_content_RLR

Most farmland and farming systems of High Nature Value are found in areas with low input agriculture Andersen et al., 2004 . The majority of HNV farmland consists of semi-natural grasslands and is managed under farming systems characterised by low stocking densities, low levels of agro-chemical inputs and often labour intensive management practices such as shepherding. Typical examples of HNV farmland are extensive grazed uplands in the UK, alpine meadows and pasture, steppic areas in eastern and southern Europe and dehesas and montados in Spain and Portugal. These low intensity farming systems are associated with a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European and of national or regional conservation concern.[22]

Andersen et al., 2004

Natural handicaps for agriculture often increase the environmental vulnerability of an area.

In several dry areas in Southern Europe, scarce water availability is not only a problem for a sustainable water management but also an increased risk of forest fires. Extensive farming activity in general implies low water use because of low livestock or tree densities as well as better water quality because of reduced use of agrochemicals FAO, 2002. Land-water linkages in rural watersheds . Proceedings of the electronic workshop organised by the FAO Land and Water Development Division. 18 September – 27 October 2000. . Grazing on forest verges, controlling grassland and cropland encroachment, maintaining cropland patches acting as firebreaks effectively contribute to fire prevention , also in common lands. On the other hand, high livestock density grazing can encourage the use of fire for renovation of overgrazed grassland FAO et al. 2000. International forest fire news . No. 22, April 2000. .[23][24]

FAO, 2002. Land-water linkages in rural watersheds . Proceedings of the electronic workshop organised by the FAO Land and Water Development Division. 18 September – 27 October 2000.

FAO et al. 2000. International forest fire news . No. 22, April 2000.

Steep slopes are in general associated with higher risk for soil degradation and will accelerate water erosion if not managed appropriately, for instance through traditional terracing. Grazing pressure needs specific attention in these areas, as a possible source of soil erosion.

The farming systems widespread in areas with natural handicaps are characterised by a genetically-diverse populations of crops and livestock and by a significant presence of permanent vegetation. These elements give them a greater potential to adapt to climate change FAO, 2007. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: perspective, framework and priorities . . Besides, conserving permanent vegetation and other landscape elements which play a role in microclimate regulation and minimisation of the impact of extreme events, can contribute to mitigating the predicted effects of climate change.[25]

FAO, 2007. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: perspective, framework and priorities .

Valued landscape features are particularly widespread in the LFA because of their association with traditional farming : hedgerows and wood patches, unimproved grassland, features of historical or archaeological interest, presence of autochthonous breeds of livestock etc. http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2004/20041103/paper02.htm . In some areas agriculture contributes to landscape values by contrasting with urban or recreational development. In others, the contrast is with predominantly forested landscapes. In Finland, for example, a high value is placed on the protection of open landscapes in a relatively flat terrain where forestry dominates land use. Agriculture is the primary means of maintaining these open landscapes.[26]

http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2004/20041103/paper02.htm

The loss of landscape values is often considered as a negative consequence of farmland abandonment and is associated, in some cases, as a threat for the tourist potential of rural areas.

Implications of the options for the environment and sustainable land management

The previous section suggests that the LFA payments can, by favouring continued agricultural management, support environmental objectives in areas with handicaps if it is at an appropriate level of intensity.

The environmental dimension of the LFA scheme should be seen in the context of the overall architecture of Axis 2 of the Rural Development Policy and in relation with the prominent role played by agri-environment measures in the axis strategy 51% of EARDF contribution to Axis 2 for 2007-13 is allocated to agri-environment measures, while LFA payments (including mountain, intermediate areas and areas with specific handicaps) represent 31% of EARDF allocation to the Axis. . [27]

51% of EARDF contribution to Axis 2 for 2007-13 is allocated to agri-environment measures, while LFA payments (including mountain, intermediate areas and areas with specific handicaps) represent 31% of EARDF allocation to the Axis.

The LFA scheme compensate farmers who undertake continuing the agricultural activity for additional costs and income foregone resulting from the natural handicap in the area concerned. Maintaining agricultural land use in these areas deliver environmental and landscape benefits that would not otherwise be provided by the market alone. LFA payments do not compensate farmers for the costs incurred or income forgone resulting from complying with specific environmental requirements in terms of farm management practices.

Compared to agri-environmental schemes FADN data show that the environmental payments (agri-environment payments, animal welfare payments and payments for farmers subject to environmental restrictions) are significantly higher for the LFA beneficiaries than for other farmers (1 982 €/AWU in non-mountain LFAs against 659 €/AWU for farms non located in LFA). which reward the environmental services provided by farmers for commitments going beyond the mandatory baseline, the LFA allowance is not a tightly targeted measure, but can provide a broader form of support to appropriate forms of agriculture by:[28]

FADN data show that the environmental payments (agri-environment payments, animal welfare payments and payments for farmers subject to environmental restrictions) are significantly higher for the LFA beneficiaries than for other farmers (1 982 €/AWU in non-mountain LFAs against 659 €/AWU for farms non located in LFA).

· The territorial targeting, directing the aid only to the areas where the natural handicaps have hindered the intensification of farming and the natural habitat is particularly fragile;

· Setting eligibility conditions (such as stocking rates for grazing livestock, for instance) to exclude farming systems that do not make a specific contribution to sustainable land management and are less at risk of land abandonment.

A well tuned specification of the mandatory requirements forming part of the cross-compliance baseline (including, where appropriate, a differentiated application of the relevant GAEC in the areas concerned For instance Annex IV of Regulation 1782/2003 includes the standard 'minimum stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes' ), can potentially amplify the impact of the LFA payments.[29]

For instance Annex IV of Regulation 1782/2003 includes the standard 'minimum stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes'

At the same time, there are limitations on the contribution that LFA payments can make to the range of land management needs in rural areas, because they apply only on farmed land and the payments offered must be based on compensation for handicaps affecting agriculture. In some cases, the maintenance of agricultural land, subject to conditions under cross compliance (which may include grazing requirements for example), will be sufficient to meet land management needs. The maintenance of valued open landscapes is an example where the continuation of farming might be the crucial requirement. In other cases, requirements may be more complex, for example maintaining a mix of land uses, renovating collapsing terraces, sustaining transhumance systems, or maintaining farm boundaries. The LFA compensation payments are not intended for this purpose and the focus on handicaps makes them inappropriate for this. Other instruments within Axis 2 (like agri-environment payments or support to non productive investments) would be required for meeting the land management objectives in these cases.

A comparative assessment of the options for review in the light of the above considerations, would therefore lead to the following conclusions:

· A delimitation of LFAs based upon a homogeneous set of bio-physical criteria throughout the European Union would increase the probability of focusing the aid on extensive farming systems because the area designation is unambiguously linked to natural handicaps hindering agriculture. For this reason, Options 2, 3 are more efficient than Option 1 ;

· Option 2 would leave up to the Member States the choice of setting eligibility conditions linked to land management requirements. The area delimitation based on common biophysical criteria should direct the aid to areas predominantly characterised by extensive farming and LFA beneficiaries would have to respect cross compliance. However, the effectiveness of the scheme could be hampered by an insufficient targeting of the aid, in particular in areas where intensive farming systems, normally associated with greater environmental risk, coexist with extensive farming systems. Under Option 2, the LFA contribution to sustainable land management and to the environmental targets of the EU would therefore depend on the implementation made by the Member States.

· Compared to Option 2, Option 3 includes further requirements in terms of farm management practices and would limit the LFA support to those farming systems which make a specific positive contribution to sustainable land management. However, the payment would not cover the commitments going beyond the baseline but would only compensate for farmers' additional costs and income foregone related to the handicap. Option 3 appears therefore as the option having the highest potential to contribute to environmental objectives, provided that the LFA scheme is implemented in harmony with the other Axis 2 measures . However, the success of Option 3 in contributing to environmental objectives will depend on what criteria are included in the common eligibility rules. A well balanced implementation of Option 3 requires on the one hand that farmers should not be paid twice (under LFA and under other Axis 2 measures) for meeting the same commitment and, on the other hand, that farmers in LFA regions are not discriminated against by being excluded from agri-environment payments Agri-environment measures allow for higher maximum payments than LFA measure (200 to 900 €/ha compared to 25 to 250 €). that would apply to farmers meeting similar conditions outside the region.[30]

Agri-environment measures allow for higher maximum payments than LFA measure (200 to 900 €/ha compared to 25 to 250 €).

5.5. Simplification potential

Establishing a common set of delimitation criteria would simplify the implementation of the LFA 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 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 is 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 1257/99 for being designated.

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 data available.

In general, the Member States which use index systems for land classification already collect data on all the biophysical criteria proposed.

The degree of complexity of the 'index systems' in use in 13 Member States is variable, but is anyway higher than the biophysical indicators considered for this review. Many of the index methodologies include all the biophysical criteria. 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, they are not comparable and 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.

In the Member States where the LFA delimitation is based on proxies of poor land productivity, an effort for collecting and harmonizing soil and climate data at the appropriate level would probably be needed.

In the light of these 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.

6. Comparing the options

Following the analysis, the way in which the various options seem to correspond to the objectives of the review is briefly summarised here ( sub-section 1 ). It is also presented in a synthetic way in the table of the last section of this part. The advantages and the disadvantages of the options for the various categories involved are also measured by the stakeholders themselves, on the basis of the information provided in their contributions to the consultation or during the hearings organized by the ISSG ( sub-section 2 ), and by the ISSG ( sub-section 3 ). A table gives finally a synthetic vision of the main advantages and disadvantages of each of the options analysed ( sub-section 4 ).

6.1. The options judged in comparison to the objectives

In the light of the analysis process, the way in which the various options seem to support the objectives of the reform appears contrasted.

Evaluation Criteria|SQ+Option 1|Common CriteriaOption 2|Eligibility RulesOption 3|

The area delimitation is based on criteria referring to soil and climate handicaps for agriculture.|+|++|++|

The area delimitation is based on transparent and objective criteria, based on robust evidence.|--|++|++|

The area delimitation is able to take regional peculiarities into account.|++|+|+|

The area delimitation is able to exclude areas where natural handicaps no longer represent an actual disadvantage for agricultural activity.|-|++|++|

The aid is targeted to extensive farming systems which are at risk of land abandonment.|-|+|++|

The aid is transparent and controllable.|-|+|+|

The aid is consistent with other instruments of the CAP and with WTO-green-box requirements.|=|+|+|

The administrative burden linked to the revision of the delimitation and payment system is limited.|+|+|+|

++ Option fully meets the objective+ Option partially meets the objective= Option does not meet the objective but does not negatively impact on objectives- Option does not meet the objective-- Option negatively affects the objective|

The transparency, objectivity and scientific ground of the criteria used for classifying intermediate LFAs appears to be seriously threatened by the Status Quo+ option, which would protract the dullness highlighted by the Court of Auditors with regard to the equitable distribution of compensatory allowances. In addition, this option does not provide sufficient guarantees that the aid is concentrated on areas where natural handicaps represent an actual disadvantage for agricultural activity. The other review options would clearly enhance the transparency, the robustness and the coherence of the area delimitation system throughout the EU, minimising the risk of unequal treatment . They would also ensure that the aid is not watered down in areas where natural handicaps have been overcome by technical progress, investments and man intervention.

While the large flexibility left to the Member States under Staus Quo+ seems to have the highest potential for taking into account regional peculiarities , the delimitation approach envisaged by Common Criteria and Eligibility Rules is wide enough to capture the characteristics of a territory as large and diverse as the EU, while remaining simple and transparent. The flexibility left to the Member States on if and how setting up eligibility rules at farm level under Option 2 , implies a higher degree of subsidiarity and therefore an increased capacity to cope with local needs compared to Option 3.

A delimitation of LFAs based upon common bio-physical criteria would increase the probability of focusing the aid on extensive farming important for land management because the area designation is unambiguously linked to natural handicaps hindering agriculture. Under this regard, Options 2 and 3 appear more efficient than Option 1. Option 3 requires the Member States to exclude systematically intensive farming systems from the aid. It therefore appears as the option which provides more guarantees as regards the aid targeting to extensive farming important for land management. The potential for meeting that objective is also present with the Common Criteria option (Option 2), although the voluntary nature of eligibility rules means that there is no guarantee of actual targeting of the aid to the cases where the risk of land abandonment is greatest.

The setting up of a framework for eligibility rules at Community level under Option 3 could also facilitate a more selective distribution of the compensatory allowances by the Member States and therefore an adjustment of the aid level - within the limits fixed by the legislation - that would make the aid more attractive to farmers most at risk of land abandonment.

As regards the transparency and controllability of the payment system , the common framework for the eligibility rules to be applied at the national level make of Eligibility Rules the most transparent option. On the other hand, the enhanced targeting of the aid would introduce additional control points in the Member States who currently do not have eligibility criteria to exclude intensive farming systems. In these cases, the risk of errors and the costs of controls are likely to increase.

As regards consistency with other policy instruments , Options 2 and 3 would represent a progress in rationalizing the overall architecture of the CAP, insofar as they further target the LFA aid to sustainable land management, while direct payments under the first pillar aim in the first place t o sustain farmers' income by providing direct income support . All the options fulfill the objective of consistency with WTO-green-box requirements, through an appropriate assessment of the eligibility rules applied at farm level in the framework of the approval of the relevant rural development programmes.

The administrative burden linked to the revision of the scheme would be limited for several Member States under option 1, while on the other hand this option would aggravate the burden at Community level and for the Member States that mainly base their current delimitation upon socio-economic criteria. The common delimitation system introduced by options 2 and 3 would require administrative efforts from the Member States at the moment of the revision of the delimitation, but the administrative cost should drastically reduce once the system is up and running. In Option 3, the enhanced targeting through eligibility rules focusing on sustainable land management could complicate the management of different types of Axis 2 aids in some Member States, since it should be ensured that there is no double payment and that LFA farmers are not discriminated compared to farmers in other areas. On the other hand, a simplification of the overall LFA scheme at EU level should be achieved by the likely limitation of eligibility criteria which are currently numerous and diverse throughout the EU.

6.2. The options judged by the stakeholders

The advantages and disadvantages of the various options, as indicated by the respondents to the public consultation or those giving evidence at the hearings are summarized in the following table.

|||||

Farmers|++|+|-|--|

Environments and Sustainable Land Management|Biodiversity|--|+|++|+++|

|Natural resources|--|+|++|-|

|Landscape|--|+|++|-|

Land owners|++|+||-|

Regional/Local communities|Very diverse views reflected in the high number of responses to public consultation.|

Tax payers|°°|°°|°°|°°|

Consumers|°°|°°|°°|°°|

++ Preferred+ Satisfactory= Neutral- Negative-- Very Negative °° No contribution sent|||

6.3. Impacts on the issues at stake and on the interested parties

The following table evaluates the impact of the various Options on the issues at stake and on the interested parties. The positive and negative impact is evaluated against the current situation.

|Advantaged |Disadvantaged|

Status Quo+||BiodiversityNatural resourcesLandscapeRural TourismTaxpayers|

|Farmers Land ownersConsumers|

Common Criteria|LandscapeRural Tourism|BiodiversityNatural resources||

|Farmers G*Land owners G*Taxpayers|Farmers L*Land owners L*|

|Consumers|

Eligibility Rules|Farmers G*Land owners G*TaxpayersExtensive FarmsBiodiversityNatural resourcesLandscapeRural Tourism|Farmers L*Land owners L* Intensive Farms|

|Consumers|

* G = Gaining LFA Status – L = Losing LFA status

N.B.: Increased activity is to be expected for national soil mapping and agro-meteorological institutes, in particular under options 2 'Common Criteria' and 3 'Eligibility Rules' for data collection, elaboration, aggregation and digitalization.

6.4. Summary table of pros and cons

|Advantages|Disadvantages|

Option 1: Status Quo+|Limited administrative burden for MSAbility to capture regional specificities|Low transparency and comparability, which might lead to a risks of unequal treatment. Insufficient guarantees that the aid is concentrated on areas where natural handicaps represent an actual disadvantage for agricultural activityNo better targeting of the aid (most probably no significant changes in the eligible areas)Heavy administrative burden at EU level (difficult to assess the different national systems and ensure consistency) |

Same for Option 2 and Option 3|Enhanced transparency, robustness and coherence of LFA delimitation, minimising the risk of unequal treatment. Aid not watered down in areas where natural handicaps have been overcome by technical progress, investments and man interventionArea delimitation system captures the characteristics of a territory as large and diverse as the EU, while remaining simple and transparent|A dministrative efforts required from the Member States at the moment of the revision of the delimitation (but should drastically reduce once the system is up and running).|

Option 2: Common Criteria|Higher degree of subsidiarity since eligibility rules at farm level are optional for the Member States.|Risk that aid is not sufficiently targeted to extensive farming systems important for land management, as it depends on MS approach to eligibility criteria|

Option 3: Eligibility Rules|Further aid targeting to extensive farming important for land management as intensive farming systems are systematically excluded from the aid. More transparent eligibility rulesHigher impacts in terms of biodiversity and preservation of natural resources.Aid more attractive as common framework for eligibility rules facilitate Member states selective approach in granting the aid.|Less flexibility for Member States in fixing eligibility criteria at farm levelAdditional administrative burden due to the increased complexity of the system by the introduction of common LFA eligibility requirementsMore complex interplay between LFA aid and agro-environment paymentsAdditional control points since the aid is more targeted in member States |

7. Monitoring and evaluation

A Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) applies to all rural development interventions for the programming period 2007-13 (Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005). The CMEF is laid down in a set of documents drawn up by the Commission in close co-operation with the Member States and compiled in a handbook that includes a series of evaluation guidelines, a comprehensive set of monitoring and evaluation indicators, and guidance fiches for the use of such indicators. The handbook is available at the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/index_en.htm .

The indicators The indicators are included in Annex VIII of Commission Regulation 1974/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). measuring the progress, efficiency and effectiveness of rural development programmes in relation to their objectives are organised according to a hierarchy of objectives . The hierarchy of objectives and indicators envisaged for the payments to farmers in areas with handicaps other than mountain areas Measure Code 212 is organized as follows:[31][32]

The indicators are included in Annex VIII of Commission Regulation 1974/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

Measure Code 212

Common indicators|baseline|Biodiversity : high nature value farmland and forestryBiodiversity : population of farmland birds|

|input|Amount of public expenditure realised (total versus EAFRD)|

|output|Number of supported holdings in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas (division according to the type of handicap –wetland, hills…-)Agricultural land area supported (division according to the type of area and to the type of handicap)|

|result|Areas under successful land management contributing to:improvement of biodiversityimprovement of water qualitymitigating climate changeimprovement of soil quality avoidance of marginalization and land abandonment|

|impact|Reversing biodiversity declineMaintenance of high nature value farmland and forestry |

The link between the rationale of the measure and the envisaged indicators is expressed in the graph below.

The process of identification of HNV indicators that is taking place within the same CMEF is of particular relevance for assessing the impact of the LFA measure.

(...PICT...)

The CMEF also includes four specific evaluation questions related to the LFA measures that should guide the ongoing evaluation of the LFA scheme by the managing authority and the monitoring committee of the relevant programme, which are the following:

– To what extent have compensatory allowances helped in ensuring continued agricultural land use in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas?

– To what extent have compensatory allowances contributed to the maintenance of a viable rural community in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas?

– To what extent has the scheme contributed to maintaining or promoting sustainable farming systems?

– To what extent has the scheme contributed to maintaining the countryside and improving the environment?

The current approach envisaged for monitoring and evaluating the LFA measure, as described above, is already in line with the revised rationale of the scheme and seems adapted to a revised delimitation and payment system. At the same time, the current LFA impact assessment exercise can usefully enlarge the data basis for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the LFA scheme and its forthcoming review, through the harmonized collection of accurate geo-referenced data by the national administrations. The data collected to support the preparation of the LFA review can be subsequently used for assessing the distribution of the LFA aid in relation with the objectives of the measure.

8. List of Annexes

1. Facts and figures: main features of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs

2. The Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG)

3. ISSG Mandate

4. ISSG Hearings

5. Contributions received following the LFA public consultation

6. Studies, reports and contributions from ISSG members

7A. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board of 03.02.2009 on the draft impact assessment report

7B. Explanation of the follow-up given to the recommendations of the IAB

8. Criteria currently used for delimiting intermediate LFAs

9. Farms receiving an LFA payment in 2005

10. Maps payments SPS/LFA

11A.Table of common biophysical criteria and associated thresholds

11B. Common biophysical criteria to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe (JRC study)

12. Distribution of share of LFA payments in the FNVA in non-mountain LFAs

9. Glossary

CAP: Common Agricultural Policy

Cross Compliance: statutory management requirements and good agricultural and environmental condition referred to in Chapter 1 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 .

GAEC: Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 .

LFA: Less Favoured Areas

Intermediate LFAs: areas defined by Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/99

NHP: Natural Handicap Payments referred to I Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

RDP: Rural Development Policy

SPS: Single Payment Scheme

[1] See section 2.3 below .

[2] European Court of Auditors (2003), Special Report No 4/2003, OJ C 151 of 27 June 2003.

[3] 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 .

[4] For info on the n omenclature of territorial units for statistics LAU territorial designation see http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nuts/home_regions_en.html.

[5] MARS: Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing; ESDB: European Soil Data Base SRTM: Shuttle radar Topography Mission, Digital Elevation Model.

[6] Recital 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

[7] Article 37 (1) of Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

[8] N.B.: Pan-European data are not suited for delimiting LFAs; they can only provide an indication of the relative location of areas constrained by some natural handicaps.

[9] Although drainage and irrigation investments are costly, they do not imply permanent costs, are often supported by public funds and favour an intensive agriculture which is not the object of the LFA scheme.

[10] Whereas non-mountain LFAs currently represent 39% of the total UAA in the EU 25, the agricultural economic potential of LFA beneficiaries in these areas (expressed in standard gross margin) can be estimated to an average of 6.5% of the total agricultural economic potential in the EU25 (see Annex 8.1).

[11] In the current programming period, Decision 2006/636/EC fixes the annual breakdown by Member State of the amount for Community support to rural development for the period from 1.1. 2007 to 31.12.2013.

[12] The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) is a European system of sample surveys collecting structural and accountancy data on the farms. FADN covers only the farms exceeding a minimum economic size in order to cover the most relevant part of the agricultural activity of the EU Member States. For more information on FADN: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/index.cfm

[13] Intermediate LFAs + areas with specific handicaps.

[14] The Farm Net Value Added (FNVA) represents the remuneration of the land, labour and capital both owned by the farm or external. It equals total output, plus direct payments minus intermediate consumption and depreciation. From FNVA, wages, rents and interests still need to be paid, and subsidies and taxes on investments need to be added. It is expressed per Annual Work Units (AWU ) to take into account the differences in the total labour force to be remunerated per holding. This indicator allows comparing the farms irrespective of the family/non-family nature of the production factors employed. That is why it is preferred for this analysis involving Member States with different structural characteristics.

[15] Denmark and Malta are not mentioned since no intermediate LFAs are delimited in these countries, therefore the data only refers to areas with specific handicaps.

[16] The case of marginal communities in Finland where farms account for 43% of the total number of small scale enterprises was mentioned by the LFA evaluation.

[17] Baldock et al ., 1994

[18] IEEP, (2006), LFA evaluation p. 204.

[19] Bigna, E. & McCracken, D. 1996. Low- intensity farming systemsin the conservation of the countryside. Journal of applied ecology. 33:413-424.

[20] Pain & Pienkowski, 1997; Hellicar, M.A.,2004.

[21] http://reports.eea.europa.eu/ e nvironmental_issue_repo r t_2004_37/en/tab_content_RLR

[22] Andersen et al., 2004

[23] FAO, 2002. Land-water linkages in rural watersheds . Proceedings of the electronic workshop organised by the FAO Land and Water Development Division. 18 September – 27 October 2000.

[24] FAO et al. 2000. International forest fire news . No. 22, April 2000.

[25] FAO, 2007. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: perspective, framework and priorities .

[26] http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2004/20041103/paper02.htm

[27] 51% of EARDF contribution to Axis 2 for 2007-13 is allocated to agri-environment measures, while LFA payments (including mountain, intermediate areas and areas with specific handicaps) represent 31% of EARDF allocation to the Axis.

[28] FADN data show that the environmental payments (agri-environment payments, animal welfare payments and payments for farmers subject to environmental restrictions) are significantly higher for the LFA beneficiaries than for other farmers (1 982 €/AWU in non-mountain LFAs against 659 €/AWU for farms non located in LFA).

[29] For instance Annex IV of Regulation 1782/2003 includes the standard 'minimum stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes'

[30] Agri-environment measures allow for higher maximum payments than LFA measure (200 to 900 €/ha compared to 25 to 250 €).

[31] The indicators are included in Annex VIII of Commission Regulation 1974/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

[32] Measure Code 212

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 21.4.2009

SEC(2009) 450

ANNEX TO THE COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

accompanying the 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 Impact Assessment ANNEX 1 (part 1)

{COM(2009) 161 final} {SEC(2009) 449} {SEC(2009) 451}

ANNEX

Annex 1 (part 1) Facts and figures: main features of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs 3

Annex 1 (part 1) Facts and figures: main features of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs

Map 1 below shows the three categories of LFAs delimited in the EU 27. Under the legislation currently in force, each LFA category characterises a specific cluster of handicaps, common to certain areas of agricultural land across Europe, and which threaten the continuation of agricultural land use:

· Mountain Areas (Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/1999) are characterised as those areas handicapped by a short growing season because of a high altitude, or by steep slopes at a lower altitude, or by a combination of the two. Areas north of the 62nd parallel are also delimited as mountains.

· Other Less Favoured Areas (so-called 'intermediate LFAs', Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/1999) are those areas in danger of abandonment of agricultural land-use and where the conservation of the countryside is necessary. They exhibit all of the following handicaps: land of poor productivity; production which results from low productivity of the natural environment; and a low or dwindling population predominantly dependent on agricultural activity.

· Areas Affected by Specific Handicaps (Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/1999) are areas where farming should be continued in order to conserve or improve the environment, maintain the countryside, preserve the tourist potential of the areas; protect the coastline .

(...PICT...)

According to the most recent data provided by the Member States following the LFA expert meeting of 14 November 2007, approximately 57% of the overall Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) in the EU27 is classified as LFA. Table 1 shows the relative importance of the three types of less favoured areas as part of the total Utilized Agricultural Area in the Member States.

(...PICT...)

N.B.: 2007 data for Bulgaria and Romania -Source: Member States Communications following LFA expert meeting of 14.11.2007 - For Member States who did not report any data directly, CAP-IDIM data were used.

The following sections summarize the main features of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs, intended as the areas classified as intermediate LFAs as well as areas with specific handicaps The analysis includes also areas with specific handicaps, since FSS distinguishes LFA data according to two categories only: mountain LFA and LFA other than mountain, where the latest category includes intermediate LFAs and areas with specific handicaps. However, given the limited size of areas with specific handicaps, the picture of the main features of agriculture in non mountain LFAs resulting from FSS statistics is considered relevant for intermediate LFAs. . [1]

The analysis includes also areas with specific handicaps, since FSS distinguishes LFA data according to two categories only: mountain LFA and LFA other than mountain, where the latest category includes intermediate LFAs and areas with specific handicaps. However, given the limited size of areas with specific handicaps, the picture of the main features of agriculture in non mountain LFAs resulting from FSS statistics is considered relevant for intermediate LFAs.

1.1. Importance of non-mountain LFAs

According to the Farm Structure Survey (FSS) of Eurostat, in 2005 non mountainous LFAs accounted for 30% of the agricultural holdings, 39% of the utilised agricultural area In the Farm structure Survey of Eurostat, the UAA is the area covered by arable crops, permanent pastures, permanent crops and kitchen gardens. It also covers area maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions. The Total area of the holdings covers UAA and area not used for agricultural production such as former UAA, wooded land, ponds, and artificial area. , 31% of the agricultural labour force Labour force is expressed in Annual Work Units (AWU). An AWU is equivalent of the full-time employment. 1 AWU corresponds to the work performed by a person undertaking fulltime agricultural work on the holding over a 12 month period. It corresponds to 1800 hours (225 working days of 8 hours per day), unless national provisions governing contracts of employment are specified. and 26% of the agricultural economic potential expressed in terms of economic size The economic size reflects the potential gross value added of the farms. It is evaluated using the Standard Gross Margins. The total Standard Gross Margin of the farms, measured in €, is expressed in terms of European Size Units (ESU). The value of one ESU is defined as a fixed number of EUR of. Since 2002, 1ESU=1200€. (graph 1).[2][3][4]

In the Farm structure Survey of Eurostat, the UAA is the area covered by arable crops, permanent pastures, permanent crops and kitchen gardens. It also covers area maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions. The Total area of the holdings covers UAA and area not used for agricultural production such as former UAA, wooded land, ponds, and artificial area.

Labour force is expressed in Annual Work Units (AWU). An AWU is equivalent of the full-time employment. 1 AWU corresponds to the work performed by a person undertaking fulltime agricultural work on the holding over a 12 month period. It corresponds to 1800 hours (225 working days of 8 hours per day), unless national provisions governing contracts of employment are specified.

The economic size reflects the potential gross value added of the farms. It is evaluated using the Standard Gross Margins. The total Standard Gross Margin of the farms, measured in €, is expressed in terms of European Size Units (ESU). The value of one ESU is defined as a fixed number of EUR of. Since 2002, 1ESU=1200€.

Graph 1: Importance of non-mountain LFAs in the EU 25 – 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005.

The structural adjustment of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs between 1995 and 2005 does not differ systematically from non LFAs The analysis of the time development when considering the LFA character is limited to EU-14 (EU-15 without Germany), due to the lack of data for Germany in 1995 farm structure survey of Eurostat. . Similarly to other areas, non-mountain LFAs recorded a decrease in the number of agricultural holdings. However, in comparison to non disadvantaged areas, the decrease of farms in non-mountain LFAs was higher in some Member States (BE, ES, IT) and lower in others (IE, FR, AT, PT, SE). Overall for the EU, when comparing with non handicapped areas, the decrease of the number of holdings in non mountainous LFA is higher but there is no decrease of utilised agricultural area Only in Italy, a significantly higher decrease of utilised agricultural area in non mountainous LFA is observed but it is more probably an artefact produced by changes in the methodology of the survey in this country. . However, Europe-wide data mask some more significant trends at a micro-scale (see box on page 13).[5][6]

The analysis of the time development when considering the LFA character is limited to EU-14 (EU-15 without Germany), due to the lack of data for Germany in 1995 farm structure survey of Eurostat.

Only in Italy, a significantly higher decrease of utilised agricultural area in non mountainous LFA is observed but it is more probably an artefact produced by changes in the methodology of the survey in this country.

[1] The analysis includes also areas with specific handicaps, since FSS distinguishes LFA data according to two categories only: mountain LFA and LFA other than mountain, where the latest category includes intermediate LFAs and areas with specific handicaps. However, given the limited size of areas with specific handicaps, the picture of the main features of agriculture in non mountain LFAs resulting from FSS statistics is considered relevant for intermediate LFAs.

[2] In the Farm structure Survey of Eurostat, the UAA is the area covered by arable crops, permanent pastures, permanent crops and kitchen gardens. It also covers area maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions. The Total area of the holdings covers UAA and area not used for agricultural production such as former UAA, wooded land, ponds, and artificial area.

[3] Labour force is expressed in Annual Work Units (AWU). An AWU is equivalent of the full-time employment. 1 AWU corresponds to the work performed by a person undertaking fulltime agricultural work on the holding over a 12 month period. It corresponds to 1800 hours (225 working days of 8 hours per day), unless national provisions governing contracts of employment are specified.

[4] The economic size reflects the potential gross value added of the farms. It is evaluated using the Standard Gross Margins. The total Standard Gross Margin of the farms, measured in €, is expressed in terms of European Size Units (ESU). The value of one ESU is defined as a fixed number of EUR of. Since 2002, 1ESU=1200€.

[5] The analysis of the time development when considering the LFA character is limited to EU-14 (EU-15 without Germany), due to the lack of data for Germany in 1995 farm structure survey of Eurostat.

[6] Only in Italy, a significantly higher decrease of utilised agricultural area in non mountainous LFA is observed but it is more probably an artefact produced by changes in the methodology of the survey in this country.

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 21.4.2009

SEC(2009) 450

ANNEX TO THE COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

{COM(2009) 161 final} {SEC(2009) 449} {SEC(2009) 451}

ANNEX

Annex 1 (part 2) Facts and figures: main features of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs 3

Annex 1 (part 2) Facts and figures: main features of agriculture in non-mountain LFAs

1.2. Structure and economic situation of LFA farms

Graph 2: Characteristics of average farm in LFA (EU25 -2005- all farms=100%)

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005.

As regards the characteristics of the farms (graph 2), FSS data show that:

1. Despite a larger average physical size in non mountainous LFA, necessary to compensate an average lower productivity, the average economic size of the farms, reflecting their potential gross value added, is lower in non mountainous LFA than in non LFAs.

2. As the average labour force per farm does not vary significantly according to the type of areas (on average 1 labour force unit per holding), the average potential gross value added per labour force unit appears lower in non mountainous LFA than in non LFAs.

Between 1995 and 2005, it seems that the economic situation of the holdings evolved globally better in non mountainous LFA than in non disadvantaged areas: the average physical size has increased by 21% (against 13%) and the area productivity has increased by 37% (against 23%) (graph 3) Due to methodological changes in the Farm Structure Survey in IT, FI and UK between 1995 and 2005 and the absence of information for DE in 1995, the comparison has been made without these 4 Member States. . Despite this evolution, which is partial since it concerns only 11 Member States, farms in these areas are still lagging behind the areas without handicaps, as shown in graph 2. [1]

Due to methodological changes in the Farm Structure Survey in IT, FI and UK between 1995 and 2005 and the absence of information for DE in 1995, the comparison has been made without these 4 Member States.

Graph 3: Development of the characteristics of average farm in "EU-11" (EU-15 without DE, IT, FI and UK) – 2005 – 1995 = 100

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey.

1.3. Farmland use and production patterns in LFAs

As regards the main uses of agricultural land, arable land represents only 54% of the UAA in non-mountain LFAs, against 74% in non-disadvantaged areas, since when natural conditions become more difficult, arable crops are in general replaced by permanent grassland and meadows. An increasing share of the total area of farms is dedicated to non agricultural production (forestry, natural areas, unused, etc) when the less favoured character increases: 17% in non mountainous LFA and up 44% in mountainous LFA.

Graph 4: Type of farmland use in EU-25 – 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005.

Between 1995 and 2005, in non mountainous and mountainous LFA, the share of permanent pastures increased and the share of arable crops decreased while an opposite change occurred in non disadvantaged areas. However, this global picture hides different developments in land use in some Member States: the share of permanent pastures decreased in LFAs in Ireland, France, Luxemburg and Austria and increased in not LFA in Spain, Italy and Portugal.

Finally, as regards the intensity of farming , several indicators reveal that the intensity of farming is lower in LFA:

3. Livestock stocking densities are lower, at least in EU-15 whereas in EU-10 the density is equally low among all types of areas (graph 5),

4. Between 1995 and 2005 for EU-14 The analysis of the time development when considering the LFA character is limited to EU-14 (EU-15 without Germany), due to the lack of data for Germany in 1995 farm structure survey of Eurostat. , the livestock stocking density for all animal production remained stable in all types of area whereas the stocking density of grazing livestock Grazing livestock covers cattle, sheep and goats. Forage area corresponds to permanent grassland (pastures and meadows) and forage crops area (temporary grass, grass & maize silage, etc). decreased significantly in "not LFA" and in non mountainous LFA (graph 5); [2][3]

The analysis of the time development when considering the LFA character is limited to EU-14 (EU-15 without Germany), due to the lack of data for Germany in 1995 farm structure survey of Eurostat.

Grazing livestock covers cattle, sheep and goats. Forage area corresponds to permanent grassland (pastures and meadows) and forage crops area (temporary grass, grass & maize silage, etc).

5. Concerning crops production, many (NUTS-2) regions where non mountainous LFA are important are characterised by low-input farm types (map 2).

Graph 5: 1995-2005 development of livestock stocking density according to LFAsin "EU-14" (EU-15 without Germany).

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005.

Map 2: Importance of low-input farming in EU-25 – 2005 and change 1995-2005

(...PICT...)

The information provided in Map 2 is based on the methodology used for indicator 15 of IRENA operation European Environmental Agency Report n°6/2005. . It is limited to inputs for crops production and the change has been evaluated in "volume", eliminating the effects of the inflation and of price development of inputs It should be considered that a decrease in volume does not take into account possible increase in the input concentration. . It should be taken with caution since the trends are considered for NUTS-2 regions, a territorial level that is too large to detect actual trends specific to less favoured areas. However, it is interesting to note that in several regions with large parts of non-mountain LFAs like Eastern Germany, Ireland, Spain, South-West France, Southern Italy an increase of the use of inputs has been observed between 1995 and 2005. Conversely, a decrease is observed in West and South Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.[4][5]

European Environmental Agency Report n°6/2005.

It should be considered that a decrease in volume does not take into account possible increase in the input concentration.

As in the rest of the EU territory, agriculture in non-mountain LFAs is facing a rapidly changing environment. The portrait drawn above should not be considered as a stabilised situation. The abandonment of previously extensively grazed land in the most marginal areas, the intensification and specialisation trends in response to market demands and the pressure to non agricultural land uses are, according to the evaluation, the expertise gathered and the stakeholders indications, the main threats to the nature value of these areas. Further liberalization of agricultural markets could in particular put pressure on the less productive livestock systems and reinforce these trends in the areas characterized by permanent pastures (currently covering 41% of UAA in non-mountain LFAs in the EU25).

[1] Due to methodological changes in the Farm Structure Survey in IT, FI and UK between 1995 and 2005 and the absence of information for DE in 1995, the comparison has been made without these 4 Member States.

[2] The analysis of the time development when considering the LFA character is limited to EU-14 (EU-15 without Germany), due to the lack of data for Germany in 1995 farm structure survey of Eurostat.

[3] Grazing livestock covers cattle, sheep and goats. Forage area corresponds to permanent grassland (pastures and meadows) and forage crops area (temporary grass, grass & maize silage, etc).

[4] European Environmental Agency Report n°6/2005.

[5] It should be considered that a decrease in volume does not take into account possible increase in the input concentration.

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 21.4.2009

SEC(2009) 450

ANNEX TO THE COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

{COM(2009) 161 final} {SEC(2009) 449} {SEC(2009) 451}

ANNEXES

Annex 2. The Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) 3

Annex 3. ISSG Mandate 4

Annex 4. ISSG Hearings 10

Annex 5. Contributions received following the LFA public consultation 11

Annex 6. Studies, reports and contributions from ISSG members 42

Annex 7A. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board of 03.02.2009 on the draft impact assessment report 43

Annex 7B. Explanation of the follow-up given to the recommendations of the Impact Assessment Board 46

Annex 2. The Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG)

SECGEN|Stefano GRASSI|

AGRI |Mathilda ABERGPiotr BAJEK Willemien BOERSMAIman BOOTChristiane CANENBLEYGuido CASTELLANOJuan-Antonio GONZALEZ SALASPeristera KREMMYDAElsa LAVALNotis LEBESSISAndreas LILLIGJosefine LORIZ-HOFFMANNJohn LOUGHEEDPascale MATHESAlex PAGEZelie PEPPIETTECaroline RAESThierry VARDInge ZAISERAntonella ZONA|

BUDG|Elena PANICHICatherine Vanbeuren|

ECFIN|Michael GRAMS|

EEA|Elena CEBRIAN CALVO|

ELARG|Christine MEISINGER|

EMPL|Diana JABLONSKA|

ENV|Anna BARNETT|

|Eva VIESTOVA|

EUROSTAT|Hubert CHARLIERPol MARQUER|

FISH|Michel TILLIEUT|

JRC|Jean-Michel TERRESKristin Bôttcher|

OLAF|Yves DISCORS|

REGIO|Wladyslaw PISKORZ|

RELEX|Daniel GUYADER|

RTD|Hans-Jorg LUTZEYER |

Annex 3. ISSG Mandate

|EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Directorate F. Horizontal aspects of rural developmentF.3. Consistency of rural development|

Brussels, 22 January 2008

MANDATE

Inter-Service Group for the Impact Assessment of the review of the payments system to farmers in areas with handicaps 'Less Favoured Areas'

1. Context and IssueS at stake

1.1. Background

The Rural Development Policy for 2007-2013 includes a significant evolution of the support scheme to farmers in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs). The L FA scheme in place since 1975 had been subject to strong concerns from the European Court of Auditors in 2003 European Court of Auditors (2003), Special Report No 4/2003, OJ C 151 of 27 June 2003, http://www.eca.europa.eu/audit_reports/special_reports/docs/2003/rs04_03en.pdf . . The Court recommended a complete and in-depth review of the existing classification of LFAs as well as an overall evaluation of the aid scheme. [1]

European Court of Auditors (2003), Special Report No 4/2003, OJ C 151 of 27 June 2003, http://www.eca.europa.eu/audit_reports/special_reports/docs/2003/rs04_03en.pdf .

In 2005, when designing the new strategic approach for Rural Development Policy and taking into account the Court of Auditors' concerns, the Council set out a new direction for the LFA scheme: the aid to farmers in areas with handicaps See Article 36 (a) (i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, OJ L 277 of 21.10.2005, p. 18. is now part of Axis 2, which aims at improving the environment and the countryside by supporting sustainable land management. Article 50 of Regulation 1698/2005 therefore characterises the eligible areas as areas affected by natural handicaps However, a specific mention to the need of preserving the tourist potential is made as concerns areas with specific handicaps, which should not exceed 10% of the area of the Member State concerned. , and no reference is made to the socio-economic criteria widely used in the past for designating LFAs According to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 "an economic performance in agriculture appreciably lower than the average" and "a low or dwindling population" had to be used for designating intermediate LFAs. .[2][3][4]

See Article 36 (a) (i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, OJ L 277 of 21.10.2005, p. 18.

However, a specific mention to the need of preserving the tourist potential is made as concerns areas with specific handicaps, which should not exceed 10% of the area of the Member State concerned.

According to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 "an economic performance in agriculture appreciably lower than the average" and "a low or dwindling population" had to be used for designating intermediate LFAs.

However, in 2005 the Council could not find an agreement on a possible Community wide system for LFA classification more in line with the new policy objectives. It therefore decided to maintain the previous LFA system into force until 1 January 2010 and called for the Commission to undertake an extensive review of the LFA measures implementation and present in 2008 a report and proposals concerning the future payment system and designation of LFAs for a Council decision Presidency's compromise of 20.6.2005, Council doc. 10352/05 of 23.6.2005, p. 5. .[5]

Presidency's compromise of 20.6.2005, Council doc. 10352/05 of 23.6.2005, p. 5.

The Commission's departments launched the LFA review exercise by an independent evaluation concluded in November 2006 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 . . At the same time, the Joint Research Centre has been developing a framework to identify a number of biophysical criteria indicating significant handicap for European agriculture. 27 bilateral meetings between DG AGRI and the Member States were held and an expert meeting between the Commission and the Member States took place on 14 November 2007 concerning the delimitation of areas affected by significant natural handicaps. [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 .

1.2. Problems to be tackled

Community support to farmers in LFAs is a longstanding aid scheme which, according to the evaluation findings, has contributed to the continuation of farming in marginal areas. Its logic of intervention has undergone a significant evolution since its inception in the 1970s: instead of addressing explicitly rural depopulation, natural handicap payments are devised as a land-management tool that should contribute to maintaining the countryside through sustainable farming systems. See Recital 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 [7]

See Recital 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

In the wider approach designed in 2005 for the new Rural Development Policy, more targeted measures are available to tackle socio-economic handicaps and rural depopulation, through income improvement, job creation, better quality of life in rural areas and the building of local capacity for growth and jobs. In this perspective, the socio-economic criteria used up till now for classifying the eligible area do not seem relevant anymore. The LFA designation and payment system should be overhauled in line with the revised objectives and the strategic approach decided for the Rural Development Policy for 2007-2013 .

Since 1975 the eligible areas have tended to increase and the delimiting criteria to become more and more varied. The wide variety of criteria used by the Member States to qualify as LFA may lead to disparity of treatment among beneficiaries and the Court of Auditors criticized the lack of firm evidential criteria which are comparable and justified.

In many cases the classification criteria have not been reviewed to take account of the developments occurring in the areas concerned, although the situation may have changed significantly over the years. In addition, many indicators used up to now may be flawed and in particular:

o It is difficult to say if farm productivity indicators reflect the presence of land of poor productivity or simply result from bad management skills or lack of training.

o Proxy indicators, such as the proportion of grassland, may lead to inappropriate results.

o Physical indicators relating to soil and climate handicaps are widely used by the Member States, but their definition and application is extremely diverse from one Member State to the other.

More generally, the classification and allocation criteria used up till now are only partially adapted to recognised environmental priorities and region-specific land management requirements.

Finally, there is need to strike a balance between a coherent and transparent approach ensuring equal treatment among beneficiaries and the request for subsidiarity put forward by a majority of Member States in order to take into account regional peculiarities.

2. Analyse d'impact

2.1. Cheminement

En suivant le cheminement prévu par les lignes directrices de la Commission, l'analyse d'impact devra chercher à:

– identifier les situations-type où le système actuel de délimitation des zones défavorisées et d'attribution des aides ne correspond pas aux objectifs et conditions retenus lors de la révision de la politique de soutien au développement rural en 2005, et analyser les conséquences du point de vue de la cohérence et de l'efficacité de l'intervention communautaire ;

– identifier des orientations pour un alignement plus précis des modalités du régime d'aide sur les situations visées par le nouveau règlement en tenant compte des priorités des stratégies de Göteborg et de Lisbonne, transcrites dans les objectifs de la PAC réformée et dans les orientations stratégiques pour le développement rural. Les orientations pour la révision tiendront également compte :

– des contraintes liées aux engagements internationaux, financiers et budgétaires de l'Union ;

– de la recherche d'une meilleure complémentarité et cohérence avec d'autres soutiens de la PAC qui concourent au maintien de l'agriculture et/ou à la promotion de modes de gestion des terres plus durables (les aides agro-environnementales, les paiements Natura 2000, le paiement unique par exploitation, les paiements supplémentaires au titre de l'article 69, les aides couplées à la production) ;

– le cas échéant, d'une meilleure complémentarité et cohérence avec d'autres objectifs et interventions de l'Union au titre de ses politiques ;

– des engagements de la Commission en matière de simplification et de réduction de la charge administrative ;

– élaborer des options pour la délimitation des zones défavorisées et l'attribution des aides qui accordent une priorité différente aux orientations identifiées pour la révision du régime et qui adoptent des approches différenciées selon le degré de subsidiarité, le niveau de ciblage et de concentration de l'aide, l'articulation avec les autres formes de soutien, ou d'autres dimensions jugées pertinentes pour explorer l'étendue des choix possibles et mettre en évidence leurs conséquences;

– évaluer l'impact des options analysées sur les parties prenantes et sur différentes catégories d'objectifs et d'enjeux ;

– comparer les avantages et les inconvénients des différentes options à l'aide de critères correspondant aux orientations de la révision.

2.2. Moyens

L'analyse pourra notamment s'appuyer sur :

– le rapport spécial n°4/2003 de la Cour des Comptes consacré au soutien du développement rural aux zones défavorisées JO C 151 du 27.6.2006 ;[8]

JO C 151 du 27.6.2006

– l'évaluation indépendante du régime d'aide finalisée en novembre 2006 par l'IEEP Cf. Note 6 ;[9]

Cf. Note 6

– l'étude sur l'impact territorial de la PAC et de la politique du développement rural réalisée dans le cadre du réseau ESPON http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/277/index_EN.html ;[10]

http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/277/index_EN.html

– l'étude réalisée par l'IEEP sur les indicateurs pour délimiter les zones à haute valeur environnementale (HNV) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/evaluation/report.pdf ;[11]

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/evaluation/report.pdf

– les études commanditées par le CCR sur la définition des systèmes agraires à haute valeur environnementale et sur l'identification des zones menacées d'abandon des terres;

– le rapport des services de la Commission sur les méthodes mise en œuvre par les Etats membres pour délimiter les régions affectées d'handicaps naturels ;

Pour compléter le diagnostic sur les conséquences de l'inadéquation du système actuel de délimitation et de distribution des aides et pour faciliter la conception d'options de révision, le groupe auditionnera des experts dans le cadre d'un atelier.

Chemin faisant, ESTAT compilera des données statistiques des zones défavorisées jugées utiles pour l'analyse tirées de l'enquête 2005 sur la structure des exploitations agricoles et éventuellement 2007.

L'analyse bénéficiera des résultats du travail d'un groupe d'experts coordonné par le CCR, chargé de définir des critères biophysiques communs pour délimiter les zones affectées de handicaps naturels importants pour l'agriculture ainsi que du travail engagé avec les experts des Etats membres sur l'applicabilité de ces critères http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/RWER/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22735_EN.pdf .[12]

http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/RWER/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22735_EN.pdf

La contribution des parties intéressées à l'analyse de la faisabilité des options analysées et à l'étude de leurs conséquences sera sollicitée dans le cadre d'un appel lancée à l'occasion d'une réunion du Comité consultatif pour le développement rural, au besoin élargi à d'autres parties prenantes ou porteurs d'enjeux.

Pour la quantification de l'impact des options analysées sur la distribution des aides, l'activité et le revenu des agriculteurs, il est prévu de faire appel aux données et aux outils de modélisation du RICA, et, dans la mesure où la définition des options le rendrait pertinent, à d'autres outils de modélisation.

2.3. Composition et échéances

Le groupe sera composé de Stefano Grassi (SG), Elena Panichi & Catherine Vanbeuren (BUDG), Michael Grams (ECFIN), Christine Meisinger (ELARG), Diana Jablonska (EMPL), Anna Barnett & Eva Viestova (ENV), Hubert Charlier (ESTAT), Michel Tillieult (FISH), Jean-Michel Terres (JRC), Patrick Salez & Johan Magnusson (REGIO), Yves Discors (OLAF), Daniel Guyader (RELEX), Hans-Jörg Lutzeyer (RTD), Andreas Lillig , , Iman Boot , Aniko Nemeth , John Lougheed , Mathilda Aberg , Inge Zaiser , Pascale Mathes , Christophe Derzelle , Josephine Loriz-Hoffmann , Alex Page , Michael Pielke , Antonella Zona , Notis Lebessis , Thierry Vard, P iotr Bajek , Guido Castellano & Peristera Kremmyda (AGRI).

Les travaux commenceront en décembre et de dérouleront au rythme moyen d'une réunion par mois jusqu'à la fin juillet, date prévue pour l'introduction du rapport à l'IAB, selon l'échéancier suivant :

décembre – janvier|Constitution du groupe de pilotage, approbation du mandat, organisation et programmation des travaux |

janvier - février|Identification des problèmes, des acteurs et des impacts à analyser|

février|Atelier / audition avec des experts|

janvier - Mars|Définition des orientations et des options|

mars - mai|Consultation des parties prenantes sur les options et les impacts|

mars - juin|Evaluation des options, éventuellement auditions complémentaires|

juillet|Transmission du rapport à l'IAB|

Annex 4. ISSG Hearings

Euromontana|Eider ARRIETA LANGARIKAFrank GASKELLMarie GUITTONPetr KROGMANSylvain MARMIER|

European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism|Guy BEAUFOYGwyn JONESXavier POUX|

Institute for European Environmental Policy|Tamsin COOPER|

Solagro|Philippe POINTERAU|

Annex 5. Contributions received following the LFA public consultation

The consultation paper published on 22 May 2008 is available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/lfa/index_en.htm .

The 109 responses received are summarized anonymously, as announced in the public consultation.

Respondent|Preferred Option |Objective of LFA and Assessment of Options|Elements of the method and technical suggestions|

Member States||||

|Status Quo|Unprofitable Agriculture must be compensatedA loss of Agriculture will lead to a loss of landscape protection Only option 1 delivers the objectives|Wish to use combined criteria|

|No Preference|All options are in line with the objectivesThe JRC criteria are sufficient to delimit LFAs A large disparity amongst MSThe intervention mechanism should be used to ensure continuation of farming |The size of delimitation should be at least a whole farm or business entityRefining criteria should be based on average yields or crop gross marginsHNV should not be used|

|Status Quo|Compensatory allowances are very important for preserving agriculture in handicapped areasAll options would cause a change in the currently defined area.|"Gemarkung" = part of a commune = part of NUTS 5/LAU 2 should be used for the size of delimitationStep 2 of option 2 should only be optional and only applied if it is clear that step 1 does not comply with the actual circumstancesThe definition of the criteria for options 2-4 should be flexible and allow the possibility to take into account also regional characteristicsA new delimitation should come into force only in 2013|

|Common Criteria or Eligibility Criteria|LFA areas should be based on EU common criteria.LFA should have common financing and equal treatment across the EUMedium term the LFA scheme should be integrated to CAP pillar I with appropriate financial arrangements.Option 1: variety of criteria used and not comparability across the EU, does not meet objectives of review. Option 2-3: would make the LFA scheme comparable across the EUOption 4: HNV are defined differently in each MS and are not always equivalent to LFA areas. Biodiversity challenges are AE issues whereas LFA should focus on sustainable land management|Scale of delimitation should be Local government (commune) level.|

|No Preference|No particular comments|No particular comments|

|Status Quo|Status quo -no problem except maybe not replying to CoA criticisms. For common criteria 2nd step not relevant for Finland. Eligibility rules at EU level not possible due to differences in the the MS.Extensification not fair.HNV not compensating for natural handicaps.Community wide consistent data should be obligatoryEU level could establish the minimum area and level of cross complianceHNV not meeting the objectives to compensate for natural handicaps.|Extensification should be addressed in AE-scheme not in LFAShould be full MS flexibilityCurrent timeframe not possible to have a functional system by 2010Differentiation between different level of handicaps to be reflected in different support levelsEligibility rules impossible at EU levelForests, lakes, rivers etc should be additional criteria. Additional cost of livestock production in northern conditions should be compensated for.Level of delimitation should be NUTS 3Northern location criteria neededProduction costs should be taken into consideration|

|No Preference|Most important threats are the bad chemical soil properties, the acidity and the arid climate.Irrigation, liming, draining etc. are useful but expensive methods which have to be applied continuously. Therefore, farmers who overcame the natural handicap must not be excluded|Second step of the delimitation is unnecessary because complete NUTS 5 regions, qualified according to the biophysical indicators, could be excluded.Scale of delimitation should be Physical block, the bigger size, like the NUTS 5 level, obscures the differences|

|No Preference|Some questions remain over the JRC methodology which will need to be clarifiedLand abandonment is related to various factors with socio economic playing a roleScattered structures and small farms are found most often in LFAsAll options are inline with the objectives of the reviewA single method for delimitation may be hard to achieveIndex systems maybe better suited to delimit LFAs although some of these have socio economic criteria embedded |NUTS 5 should be used as a level to delimitJRC criteria are adequate to be able to be used Should allow MS flexibility especially allowing for socio economic indicators to be usedSuggest having a scattered structure criteria|

|Status Quo or Common Criteria|Consider that both Option 1 and Option 2 are well responding to the Court of AuditorsLand soil and climate indicators and production should be set in place at community level for ensuring equal treatment between Member StateA clear demarcation with HNV philosophy is obligatoryIf any intensive farmers are required to be excluded, then not working intensively must to be compensated by comparison with intensive farm activity.|Option 2, it should be made clear that soil-water balance will consider only the available water which is present in the soils at maximum rooting depth.Slope threshold should be established at 12%, as most of nationals GAEC`s details are imposing requirements starting with this valueLand fragmentation is a relevant indicator, as only large farms are intensive, this indicator being also very easy to collect and can be use at a certain values across EU.Indicators proposed these are very hard to collect and present a very high risk of variations between MS because of the reference level, jeopardizing the aim of Court of Auditors in establishing equal criteria treatment among Member States (a reference level can be only at European level)|

|No Preference||Foresee a difficulty with implementing at the LAU2 level due to lack of data.Level of delimitation at NUTS5|

|Common Criteria|Focus on farming activities and not farming systemsDiscontinuation of cultivation and grazing creates biodiversity losses and loss of landscape valuesFine tuning of eligibility rules giving enough flexibility for MS to take into account regional situationsOption 1: does not meet objectives of review.Option 2-3: Need to collect necessary data. Important to find principles for eligibility rules with sufficient flexibility. Option 4: HNV not yet agreed and mix of objectives|Common criteria and eligibility rules be set-up nationallyHNV is too unclear still and harmonisation difficultOption 4 would be very administratively burdensomeConfusion between AEM and LFA in some optionsThreshold important1 criterion is enough to classifyLowest level of administrative borders would be best to delimit areas|

|No Preference|LFA measure needs to reward those carrying out extensive farming that delivers environmental and landscape benefits that would not otherwise be provided by the market aloneUK’s less favoured areas are particularly highly valued for their environmental features and agricultural landscapes, forming a key part of our national heritage.Support the need for a review of the Less Favoured Area measureHowever, as the apparent scope of this review has moved beyond a narrowly-focused technical review of the delimitation criteria to include a review of the eligibility conditions, the UK feels it is important to spend sufficient time in getting this rightLFA is achieved through the use of objective criteria identifying natural handicapSupport the principle of achieving consistency of approach across the EU through common criteriaNot convinced that a “one-size-fits-all” methodology achieves thisLFA is also only delimited where “ maintaining extensive farming activity is important for the management of the land” . This is a critical requirement necessary to focus LFA designation on those areas important for environmental and landscape objectives.Current proposals do not yet ensure parity of treatment for beneficiariesMember States have sufficient flexibility to apply the EU criteria, it is also important to provide flexibility within Member States|Recommend that further work is needed on the criteria and methodology being proposedCurrent proposals do not accurately reflect areas that suffer genuine natural disadvantage in UKIndicators relating to rainfall/soil wetness/soil water balance/field capacity need further consideration, as do interactions between certain criteriaMajor issues with data availabilityProduction-based data would need regular updating to remain validUK recommends that further work is needed to explore which approach would deliver the broader objectiveEssential to retain Member States’ existing flexibility to determine their own eligibility conditions within the LFAFlexibility to focus LFA support on those areas or production systems defined as important within the LFAFlexibility to designate LFA at land parcel or (sub) holding size level should we wish to do so rather than restricting it to a higher administrative level or ward|

Farming Organisations||||

|Status Quo and Common Criteria|Believe that socio economic indicators should be included in new system Main criteria should be areas capability for agricultural productionShould be a peer review processShould recognise wider concept of handicap remoteness, access to marketConcern about the lack of data availabilityPolitical concerns about significant changeSupport efforts to find objective and relevant criteria|Option 3 is not feasibleShould not dilute the LFA measure with pseudo Ag Env elementsShould postpone implementation until next programming periodCommunity framework with full subsidiarity should be the way forwardCommune level is the most appropriate for mappingShould produce an analysis of the impacts and effects of any policy change|

|Status Quo|Largely accepts the European Commission’s view that use of physical criteria will provide a more objectively verifiable approach to LFA classification and that socio-economic handicaps and rural depopulation could be addressed using targeted measures made available under the Rural Development PlanLand exposed to structural handicaps such as peripherality and remoteness are at a genuine and legitimate disadvantage which is likely to remain a permanent attribute of that land.Suggest delaying the implementation of this exercise until the current RDP period comes to a close and new budgets and direction of CAP support have been established.Recommend the Commission install a means of ‘quality control’ or peer review to ensure a rigorous and consistent approach towards LFA classification across the EU.EU should ensure that sufficient core funding is allocated to each Member State/region to meet the minimum costs of LFA measures and avoid dilution of payments to LFA scheme participants.|Most appropriate scale for assessing natural handicap is at a parish/commune scaleGenuine merit in adopting option 1Member States have the flexibility to delimit LFAs according to national indicators of natural handicaps allows for selection of the appropriate physical criteria which are well suited to each Member State. We endorse this level of flexibility acknowledging that Member States have different yet valid reasons for identifying natural handicap criteria.Option 1 may fail to succeed in delivering the Commission’s objectives of transparency and commonalityOption 2 would appear to offer a more transparent approach to delimitation in keeping with the EC objectivesJRC criteria do not reflect UK conditions being more relevant to Mediterranean and Continental climates rather than OceanicEC broadens this list and identify further criteria of natural handicaps such as rainfall, aspect and altitude.Doubt that a single criterion should trigger LFA statusPermit individual Member States the flexibility to identify threshold values at a regional or state level in order to establish what is truly a handicap.Not supportive of adopting option 3 or 4|

|Status Quo|The current system of delimiting LFAs across Scotland has resulted in the correct areas of land being designated as ‘LFA’. If the Commission is concerned about the consistency of designation amongst Member States, it should take these concerns up with the Member States involved. If Scotland is coerced to revise the area of land delimited as LFA, the criteria used must reflect true physical and climatic handicaps to agricultural production. That is, the combination of (predominantly) soil and climate factors that dictate the ‘workability’ of land in Scotland and therefore limit its productive potential or agricultural capability.The basis for payments of the delimited LFA must allow for the inclusion of the additional costs that are caused by socio-economic factors, such as distance to market, peripherality and low service provision.The system for designation must ensure that only areas that face legitimate and real handicaps to agricultural production, and where active farming underpins the economic, environmental and social dimensions of rural development, are included in future LFAs and are therefore eligible for support. Delimitation of LFAs should be done at the most appropriate administrative level. Devolved administrations should have responsibility for their own LFAs within the UK. Actual mapping of LFAs should be done at the most accurate mapping level appropriate to the resources and capacity of the administration.LFA delimitation must result in a distinct or continuous less favoured ‘area’, not fragmented or punctured, whilst LFA payments must be made at the farm level in order to reflect the contribution of individual businesses that active farming makes to delivering rural development benefits. If the area of land designated as LFA subsequently increases within regions as a result of the delimitation exercise, Member States should not be permitted to dilute the payments to existing LFA scheme participants - new funds should be secured to accommodate new LFA claimants. As there are no agreed EU guidelines on what constitutes ‘high nature value’ farming, it is inappropriate to include this as a realistic option. The position is to support Option 1 on the condition that the option to use socio-economic indicators to designate LFAs is offered to administrations where appropriate.|The greatest threat to the continuation of farming systems, and the multiple benefits they deliver is further decline in the returns to those who depend on livestock production for their living, eventually resulting in land abandonment.The relative importance of LFA scheme, given the historically low productivity of such areas, elevates the importance of LFA support to a level that effectively straddles both Pillars 1 and 2.LCCA to delimit the LFA boundary, together with socio-economic parameters to reflect real additional costs, is exactly what is required.The other Options fail to recognise the link between active and productive farming and the rural economy, its environment and its people.Concerned that Option 2 could seriously puncture the existing LFA. This could result in some areas that clearly deliver the full range of rural development benefits derived from extensive livestock grazing systems falling out of the LFAOption 3 will deliver neither improved efficiency nor effectiveness of the LFA mechanismOption 4, the notion of HNV remains very much a ‘concept’ under discussion and does not yet lend itself to serve as the basis for designation of intermediate LFAImpact of the options presented would be the misalignment of LFA delimitation with appropriate levels of LFA supportEssential that Option 1 also includes socio-economic parameters as part of the basis of LFA payment.The main criteria to take into account when delimitating the intermediate LFAs should be the area’s capability for agricultural activityConsiders biophysical criteria are of primary importanceHowever, they have to be appropriate to the soil and climatic conditions that give rise to the agricultural capability of Scotland, and not those that are better suited to ‘Mediterranean’ LFAs.Delimitation of LFAs should be done at the most appropriate administrative level.LFA delimitation must result in a distinct or continuous less favoured ‘area’, not fragmented or puncturedThe only way to assess whether natural handicaps have been overcome is to confirm the viability of farm businesses and the sustainability of farming systems that deliver a comprehensive range of economic, environmental and social benefits.Considers it essential that both LFA delimitation and subsequent payment schemes remain free from major upheaval and adhere to areas and structures that are currently well understood - not least for what they deliver by way of significant benefits for rural Scotland.|

|No Preference|Agrees with common position of Copa Cogeca, but replies to the consultation in relation to the national, regional and local specifities of SwedenSwaying between option 1 and 2. Common criteria are an advantage since it gives freedom, but must be in a non distortive wayLFA should be linked to productionMain objective is to compensate for production disadvantages. Environment important, but not main objective. Option 1: Easiest, but difficulties with CoA. Option 2: Great freedom, but risk of competition distorting implementation. Option 3: Environmental and EU steering creates implementation problems, too difficult.Option 4: No advantages, risk of over bureaucracy|Option 3-4 will introduce an environmental cross-compliance only for LFA areas creating extra burden on farmers. HNV indicators too different in EU.Farm layout has to be included (scattered land) as a criteria. A scattering index could be introducedScale of delimitation should be at Parish level with room for exceptionsReview also compensation levels, consider an increaseCouple support to production in order to reduce passive farmers receiving support|

|Status Quo|HNV does not meet the objectives of LFA schemeNorthern climate handicap can not be overcome cultivation technologiesDifferentiation between different level of handicaps to be reflected in different support levelsLivestock producers should get special treatmentEconomic impact assessment should be carried out|Extensivness not suitable for Finland. Status quo fine but additional criteria of 'distance' to be included. Common criteria 2nd step not suitable for Finland -adaptation to northern climate is taking place but the high costs can not be overcome. Eligibility to be defined in general terms at EU level.Need for common indicators, common criteria OK but need to be guaranteed that the indicators are fairDisadvantage in status quo that farmers in areas based to socio-economic criteria would suffer.Common criteria, introduction of a 2nd step would exclude some farmers but costs to alleviate the natural handicaps would not be compensated for. Eligibility rules would not allow differentiation between different regionsLevel of delimitation should be Nuts 3|

|Status Quo|The handicapped areas in Bavaria are mostly dependent on tourismCompensatory allowances help to maintain the land and keep the landscape in attractive conditionA new delimitation would lead to decreasing of the LFAs and therfore reduce the farmers' incomeThe delimitation of LFAs should not be changed.|Land Value Indicator should be used|

|Status Quo|LFA review should be postponed until 2013 as the natural handicap criteria are not yet clearly definedMember states should be allowed to define their natural handicap based upon guidelines laid down from the EUMember States should be allowed to choose from a number of criteriaExisting less favoured areas which have already qualified under stringent rule must continue to qualify for payments and that the review should only take into account the addition of new areasLack of available data|Option 3 this option would clearly not work as natural handicap criteria are not the same from one Member State to anotherOption 4 this option is too narrow and it is already mainly covered through the Natura 2000 Network.Also linking it to HNVs would effectively make the LFA scheme into an agri-environmental scheme.|

|Common Criteria|Should exclude intensive systemsOption 1 is not consistent with the objectives of the reviewOption 4 will creep into the remit of Ag EnvDo not includes socio economic criteria Tackle the problem of delimited areas receiving preferential treatment in other measures of RD, this is the reason farmers are so wedded to reaming in the LFA|Target payments at grassland farmersOption 2 is fairEligibility rules should be left to MS to fixFind a criteria to show areas of extensive farming and target the aid there (combination of grassland and livestock density)NUTS 5 should be the level of delimitation|

|No preference (Not HNV option)|Land abandonment has a negative effect on environment and landscapeOption 1,2 and 3 meet the objectives of the reviewJRC criteria are alone not enough to cover the range of farming in the CommunityLack of data availability|The eligibility rules should not be fixed at Community levelHNV option is not consistent with LFA policyIn reality criteria interact to create a handicap not just one Flaw in the calculation methodology of cost and income forgone as different regions can have differing costs|

|Status Quo|The implementation of option one would result in the majority of Welsh LFA being maintained, while avoiding the heterogenisation of large areas in terms of land classification.Option one would also have the least impact in terms of the bureaucratic burden placed upon the Welsh Assembly Government.Loss of LFA land categorised as such due to socioeconomic factors would have a significant impact on communities and the environment, particularly at a local scaleA reduction in the size of the Welsh LFA would also reduce the framework within which other broad-scale EU objectives, such as water catchment area based schemes, can be facilitatedConcerning aspects of the proposals is the likelihood that it would result in heterogeneous categorisations|Socio economic factors are an intrinsic part of the complex relationship that exists between agriculture, rural communities, and the environment, and that ceasing to recognise this interdependency could result in economic pressures that would damage traditional communities, leading in turn to environmental damage, due to land abandonment. This would clearly run contrary to the objectives of the LFA.Virtually impossible to equitably establish or agree upon delimiters according to bio-physical criteria identified by the JRC, and Member States or regions are far better suited to make their own assessments as to what constitutes appropriate criteria.Options 2-4 based upon criteria would require significant public money in order to assess what areas of land, if any, should be removed, and considerable administrative and monitoring costs for the taxpayer thereafter|

|No Preference|Option 3 and 4 are going beyond the remit of the reviewFarmers are already complying with Cross Comp and GAEC No creep into Ag Env and N2KCertain flexibility in the delimitation of the less-favoured areas will have to be ensuredCreate heterogeneities in the delimitation of the areas with "holes" that it will be difficult to justifyOption 1 is favoured as this will create less changeOption 2 makes it possible to target aid towards those which need it most to maintain an agricultural activity in these areasProduction indicators are not relevantµ|Member States should be able to choose the selection criterion that they consider relevant to designate the most affected areas and in particular, that they could use a criterion of comparison of the incomesCommune seems to be the most suitable level for delimitation|

Environmentally targeted NGOs | |||

|Eligibility Rules|There is an evident need to reform LFA support.As currently implemented in many Member States and regions, the measure does not adequately address the Axis 2 objective. Many national LFA schemes are still focused only on addressing socio-economic issues in rural areas, and payments are used as ‘income support’ for farmers, with no clear policy objective other than retaining rural populations. The positioning of LFA support within Axis 2 of the RDR means that its policy objective must relate to the environmental delivery of agricultural land management. The types of extensive farming systems that are important to the maintenance of countryside features and high levels of biodiversity, and typify areas of natural handicap, can be called ‘High Nature Value’ (HNV). These systems are currently under very real threat of abandonment, in many parts of Europe, but may also be subject to pressures to intensify or amend their HNV practices Delimiting ‘Intermediate’ LFAs based on objective physical criteria that denote natural handicap, and not on subjective socio-economic criteria, is an important part of the process of reforming support Re-drawing the intermediate LFA boundary using new criteria should be seen as the first stage in the process of identifying recipients of LFA support. A delimitation exercise alone will not allow the direction of LFA support to farms that contribute to managing our rural land in a way that delivers environmental benefits. There is a need to identify which farms should be supported by LFA Believes that all LFA support should evolve into a system of support for HNV farming. This should be supplemented by higher-tier support provided through agri-environment, which would pay for the delivery of specific public benefitsIt is essential that a clear longer term vision for LFA support is identified as part of the ongoing reforms of the CAP, However, the current structure of LFA support requires that geographic areas of natural disadvantage are identified (within which support can be targeted more closely). As such, a mapping exercise to delimit boundaries is necessaryThe HNV map produced by JRC using Corine and other data sources, serves a number of useful policy purposes, but its use cannot be extended to determining eligibility for LFA support. Advocates a focus for LFA support on meaningful eligibility criteria that serve to select HNV practices. This is close to what is proposed in Option 3. |Eligibility criteria that should be required elements within the EU framework would include:Minimum and maximum stocking densitiesLimits on drainage Limits on irrigation Limits on field size A minimum percentage of semi-natural habitat and landscape elements in the holdingA minimum percentage forage area in the holdingLimits on fertiliser useLimits on indoor keeping of livestockIt will be important to ensure that Member States and regions are clear about the types of farming activity they would seek to classify as ‘HNV’ and therefore support with LFA funding.The relationship between types of farming and Axis 2 objectives within rural development plans should be made clear, as should the contribution of the detailed eligibility criteria Member States and regions draw up to select HNV farming. Detailed eligibility criteria should be drawn up at Member State or regional level, within a tight framework of required elements set at EU level EU Regulation should require Member States to categories of eligibility criteria, as appropriate, on the bases of an identification of the HNV farming practices relevant for the specific country. The actual detailed eligibility criteria (e. g. actual stocking densities or % of semi-natural habitats) will necessarily have to be determined at national or regional level.There should be no limits on eligibility by age or part-time status of farmers, as these characteristics do not have a bearing on HNV land management practices.The identification of handicap for designation purposes would be best achieved at the level of the agricultural ‘parish’ or similar unit.|

|Common criteria|LFA scheme has ensured the continuation of farmingShould become more environmentally focused in the futureAny new system has to be evidentially soundOption 1 not defensibleOption 3 and 4 is to be applauded but in practice they see the difficulty in implementing this approach|Criteria need to be robust |

|Common Criteria or Eligibility Rules|Concerned about general impact in Mountains of CAP reformLike coupled animal paymentsLFA scheme must ensure that there is a critical mass of farmers to manage land in the uplandsLFA should support farming organisationsLFA payments are vital in the fight against climate changeOption 1 does not meet the objectivesOption 2,3 and 4 do go some way to meeting theseSocio economic factors can not be ignored|Remoteness should be considered as a criteriaThe level of delimitation should be LAU 1 or 2Additional criteria could suggest that a handicap has been overcome number of farmers and workers, ration of revenue compared to elsewhere, production related indicatorsPart time farmers should not be excluded |

|Eligibility Rules|LFA is central to the achievement of the Axis 2 objectives, so the LFA reform must result in a robust and easily defensible set of rules which can play a strengthened role in the CAP over future programming periods.LFA payments should aim to support farming that is a) handicapped by natural conditions and b) operates within these physical handicaps in such a way that ecological values are conserved (“sustainable land management”).Criteria for setting the boundary of the LFA should be transparent and rigorously enforced, but should not be tightly drawn. Effective targeting of LFA payments is best achieved through farm–level eligibility criteria.The LFA cover vast areas and funds are limited, so eligibility criteria and payment scales should aim to target most support on the types of farming that are best placed to deliver the environmental priorities defined for a given LFA. Many Member States have a semi-natural grassland inventory, which some have incorporated into their LPIS/IACS systems. Others have cadaster-based systems which can be adapted to give information which better identifies semi-natural vegetation. As part of their preparation for the new LFA measure (and to facilitate their monitoring of the HNV indicators in their RDPs), all Member States should ensure that their LPIS/IACS system is able to identify all semi-natural farmed vegetation used by farmers (including grazing land off the UAA).As for all CAP support, the basic requirements of the LFA scheme should be the minimum specified in GAEC. The interaction of the LFA measure with agri-environment measures and also with SFP and Article 69 measures should be made explicit in the RDPs, with a clear justification of the costs and benefits being paid for through each measure.We do not support an approach which involves attempting to map and delineate HNV farmland areas, either as a suitable tool for targeting support at HNV farmland, or as a substitute for LFA boundaries. |Criteria for farm eligibility and for setting payment levels should be drawn tightly. They should be set at Member State level but conform to a set of common EU guidelines, and be clearly related to Axis 2 objectives. Criteria which are unrelated to Axis 2 objectives, such as a requirement to be a full-time farmer or being below the age of retirement, should be disallowed.Farms which are not disadvantaged, or have been able from market returns or CAP support to overcome the natural disadvantage of an area through intensification, should not receive payments, whether or not they fall within the LFA boundary.Eligibility rules and the requirements which applicants must fulfil should be clearly separated in the logic of schemes. To ensure sustainable land management, a maximum stocking density limit might be applied as a requirementSustainable land management should not be interpreted merely as compliance with GAEC and SMR. The LFA have particular fragile environments and the conservation of these environments depends on the continuation not of farming in general, but of specific types of farming, generally characterised by a low intensity of input use and land exploitationPayment levels must be closely aligned to the requirements and to the cost of meeting these requirements in the specific natural conditions in which the farm operates.All payments within a particular scheme should aim as far as reasonably possible to compensate additional costs and income foregone to the same extent and in the same proportion in all areas; Member States should be required to demonstrate this in RDPs.For livestock farms, the proportion of semi-natural forage should be a criterion for both eligibility and the setting of payment levels. This is the best way to link the LFA measure to the delivery of the HNV farmland objectives of Axis 2.The necessary tightening in cross-compliance criteria must be matched by improved targeting and more tailored payment calculations in LFA schemes and better use of Pillar 1 support.Remoteness from markets and key services should be included in the set of natural factors recognised as leading to disadvantage. Remoteness is clearly a natural and physical factor beyond the control of the farmer and is as important in defining marginality as the other factors proposed by JRC.|

|Eligibility Rules|Farming in these areas is economically marginal. It is constrained by a harsh climate and poor soils and is under pressure from many social and economic influences.Less Favoured Area payments have helped to maintain less intensive and unprofitable farming where it is important for the environment, but farming activity in theses areas is severely declining.LFA payments support these systems, but their targeting needs to be improved, so that the payments are more closely associated with explicit environmental outcomes.LFA payments should be part of a broader strategy for a sustainable multi-functional agriculture in these areas, based on (e.g.) targeting the Single Farm Payment, National Envelopes and the other components of a Rural Development Plan.Technical difficulties involved in setting criteria that are relevant to all Member StatesDrawing maps of HNV farming is difficult, not least in that the data on which these should be based is not uniformly availableThe setting of criteria and common thresholds for delimiting LFAs raise doubts that it is possible, or, in view of the variation in climate and soils across the EU, that it will achieve any real uniformity of approach. It might be more appropriate to specify the criteria in broad terms at the EU levelAgree with the removal of the socio-economic indicators from the criteria for designating the LFA, it is important to recognise that environmental factors are interlinked with social and economic ones.|A compensatory income payment for farming in areas affected by physical and environmental handicaps, on offshore islands, and perhaps other remote places.A higher level of payment in areas of High Nature Value.All LFA payments should be subject to conditions that ensure the continuation of extensive and other environmentally benign farming methods. Additional environmental conditions should apply to payments in HNV areas, designed to maintain the environmental value of these areas.Re-drawing the LFA boundary to include those areas where farming is essentially extensive in nature and makes an identifiable contribution to the environment (for example because it includes a high proportion of more or less natural rough grazing).Impose additional conditions on payments that ensure the recipients take some positive steps to ensure that they do ‘…contribute, through continued use of agricultural land, to maintaining the countryside…’Phase any changes over a periodMake a relatively small compensatory payment for merely being inside the boundary, but make a rather more substantial payment to those recipients who were prepared to take on more demanding environmental commitment with a view to maintaining (or increasing) the environmental benefits.Criteria themselves could be made more relevant to Scotland by taking more account of temperature and rainfall.Main level of delimitation should be the agricultural parishThere are serious disadvantages associated with remoteness, particularly for farmers on offshore islands.|

|Status Quo|Concerned from an environmental viewpoint if an outcome of the Commission’s Review was to reduce to any significant degree, the land area covered by any future LFA scheme.Areas delimited on socio-economic grounds as LFA in 1975 manifest a range of natural handicaps as to justify continuing aid as a counter balance to the risk of losing environmentally beneficial farming activity therein.Considerable merit both in terms of consistency of designation and the minimisation of the Commission’s scrutiny role in applying common criteria across all Members States|Over intensification and abandonment particularly where remoteness and rising transport costs combine as a burdenAdministration burden with options 3 and 4 as opposed to other optionsDifficult to see how adoption of option 3 and 4 could overcome the concerns of the Court of Auditors regarding equality of treatment across Member StatesPuzzled as to why rainfall is not considered appropriate as a criterion of climate|

Regional or Local Authorities||||

|No Preference|A risk that the low productivity land areas are abandonedWhen implementing the options internal issues within Member States could be difficult to cope withIslands with no road links to the mainland face a lot of geographical problems that affects agricultural production.|An indicator reflecting remoteness as a factor that is a disadvantage and a difficulty for island areas should be consideredLevel of delimitation should be Commune level|

|None should have another option|Given the undeniable and unavoidable issues effecting islands, they should be by default considered for LFA designation.The manner in which LFA designation is applied must also recognise the existence of other handicaps faced by islands, such as mountainous areas and acknowledge that the level of support must be calculated accordingly.||

|No Preference|No doubt that land management in these areas faces significant physical and climatic handicaps, and that active management of this land is necessary for the delivery of related environmental benefits and the maintenance of traditional agricultural landscapes.|Countries are given adequate and sufficient time to prepare for effective implementation.|

|No Preference|The interlinkage between CAP pillar 1 and LFA Milk sector is very important for LFAsIncrease in the handicap, particularly salinityMS flexibility is importantDon’t confuse LFA with Ag Env particularly in the case of HNVDon’t extend GAEC for LFA farmersLFA is in essence an income support|MS is the appropriate level for delimitationSmall parcel are a big factor in LFA areasCost and income forgone is not the best way to calculate the level of payment|

|No Preference|Option 1 matches most with the objectives of the reviewConsider the wider context of CAPData availability might be an issueThe payment ceiling (€150/ha) in NL is not enough to change farmers habitsLFA scheme provides long term stability to farmers|Additional criteria such as organic texture, limited possibilities to drain, salinity, permanent high water level, small fields need to be consideredMS is the most appropriate level at which to delimitCost and income forgone is not a good way of calculating the payment levelEconomic comparison is the best method for determining if the handicap has been overcome|

|Common Criteria|Vast majority of surface in fodder crops and generally permits only meat and milk productionCan only be maintained if one compensates for the loss of income for the majority of the farmersCompensation contributes to the maintenance of an agricultural activity which by its more extensive character is capable of contributing to environmental and biodiversity protection.Only option 2 seems to meet the aims of the revisionOptions 3 and 4 go well beyond the objectivesPriority to the principle of subsidiarity for the fixing of the eligibility rulesBiophysics criteria are sufficient to serve as a base to the delimitation of the new areasAll communes for which more than 30% of their UAA is handicapped by at least one of the criteria should be able to be considered potentially disadvantaged. flexibility is essential in the application of these criteria in order to be able to delimit continuous and/or more homogeneous territories on the plan on biophysics|Commune level should be used as the area for delimitationincome appears us to be the most adapted criterion for excluding areasYield is not an appropriate criterion for exclusion|

|Status Quo|Agree with central Govt views|The proportion of grassland should be taken into account as an additional criterionProposes to use the exclusion of intensive land use systemsHealth Check and abolition of milk quotas will have a significant effect on LFA farms|

|Eligibility Rules|Options 1 and 2 do not go far enough in terms of addressing the concerns with the operation of the present schemeMain threat is that agricultural activity in these areas will fall to a level below the critical mass needed to sustain farming systems and the associated infrastructure such as hauliers, marts, slaughter houses and feed suppliers in these areas.Data availability issues|‘Eligibility Criteria’ approach but merged with ‘High Nature Value’ ethos as the second step in area designation.Eligibility rules under option 3 should be designed to ensure that the payments actually deliver at farm level in terms of public goods and sustainable farming practices.‘Mountains and Islands’ should be added as should ‘Remoteness’ as bio-physical criteriaAvoid becoming an Ag Environment schemeLevel of delimitation should be 'Regional'|

|No Preference|The importance of small farms in mountainous areas in Germany is underestimatedCompensatory allowance can be an important instrument of compensation for local disadvantages|The compensatory allowances should in the future be considerably more spread and concentrated on the areas with actual disadvantages. This way the maximum allowance could be substantially increased.Compensatory allowance should be determined according to actually cultivated areas of individual farms. Current technology in Germany would allow this without any substantial additional costs.|

|No Preference|Encouraged by the inclusion of natural handicap as an objective criteria, but are very concerned over the lack of reference to islands and peripherality within the natural handicap criteriaIslands suffer from severe and permanent geographic handicaps||

|No Preference|Threats to LFA farming are numerousImportance of the ovine livestock-farmingSmall structures of the farms in crop productionThe market alone is not enough to maintain the activity cannot treat in a homogeneous way the Nordic areas and the Mediterranean areas|Best level for delimitation is commune or the portion of communeEligibility should depend on where the main farm holding is situatedRemoteness and desertification should be considered as further indicatorsThe specificity of transhumance should be studied |

|Status Quo|LFA policy should be based on natural disadvantagesLand management in LFA means higher productivity costs than in other areasIf farmers are not compensated, farming activities will declineCompensatory allowances should reflect the degree of production difficulties|Only option 1 takes account of peripheralityOption 3 and 4 are getting confused with Ag EnvCompensation of disadvantages in LFA must be calculated according to a whole range of different factors of natural and constant disadvantages|

Pan European or Regional Organisations||||

|High Nature Value|Encouraged by the inclusion of natural handicap as an objective criteria, but are concerned by the lack of reference to islands and peripheralityLFA scheme can also provide targeted support to underpin activity and sustainable farming and crofting in these marginal and remote areas where the threat of land abandonment is very real.Sustainable farming systems can be achieved with the help of a better targeted LFA scheme that will help support active land management in the most disadvantaged areas|Option 1 which does not address the need for better targetingCore data not availablePolitical pressures may also prove to be a difficultyOption 1 and 2 do not go far enough in terms of the refocusing and better targeting required of an effective LFA schemeOption 4 would appear to target the aid to areas where agriculture is clearly associated with biodiversity and where farming abandonment would jeopardize the sustainable land management'Exposure’ should be added as a bio-physical criteria‘Remoteness’ should also be added as a bio-physical criteriaComparing agricultural activity in new LFA areas with other areas can a determination be made as to whether the handicap has been overcomeLevel of delimitation should be 'Regional'Avoid becoming an Ag Environment scheme via option 3|

|High Nature Value|Agriculture in mountain areas, especially the alms farms, risk discontinuation and land abandonment with biodiversity losses as a consequenceMountain farming to be better recognised in LFA and AEM schemes and in support in general|Traditional agricultural areas and practices, which are specific for northern Europe; the mountain, forest and outland agriculture. These areas need to be sufficiently targeted and included in the context of HNV when reviewing the LFA. The set-up of AE support is problematic.|

|Status Quo|Redefinition of LFAs to reflect areas that face a true physical and climatic handicapThe redefinition should address the European Court of Auditors’ concerns over the classification of LFAs.Identify the real monetary value of public goodsBasing payments on income forgone is not sufficient to keep people farming in LFA areas, or to maintain environmental benefits or public goods. Recognition of the complex and interdependent linkages between environmental management, provision of public goods and socio-economic issues.The provision of socio-economic, environmental management and public goods outcomes should all be considered within the redefined LFA. From a Scottish perspective, the EU common bio-physical criteria is a less useful and relevant approach than the long-standing method of classifying agricultural land in Scotland|Option 1 does pose difficulties with transparency and controllability of the aid scheme across Europe.However option 1 is the most appropriate to encourage the ‘preservation of sustainable farming activities in areas affected by natural handicaps’Options 2 and 3 afford greater levels of transparency and controllability, the administrative burden and cost of implementation is high for both of these options, especially for countries with less developed datasets. We believe that the development of one EU criteria would be impossible owing to the diverse landscape, habitats and public goods provided across Europe. We do not believe that the High Nature Value is a viable option as its focus is too narrow.Concerned that the EU timetable may force a decision which has not been fully considered.Believe that the EU criteria are more suited to Mediterranean conditions. Believe that the slope criteria is too lenient and the EU criteria does not cover soil climate interactionsTo prevent further abandonment of the upland landscape and loss of associated public good, we must fully cost the goods.If the SFPS is to be abolished, then the LFA funding needs to address the shortfall by ensuring larger LFA paymentsIssue needs to be considered alongside the CAP Health Check and the future of CAP to achieve a clear and focused vision for the future of our uplands.|

|Status Quo|Concerned that there is no data on the impact of the proposal so are unable to make a valued judgementSuggest a transition periodDanger that land in areas that are currently designated as LFA Disadvantaged Areas will go out of agricultural production or at least will remain in very low productivity due to lack of appropriate investment.Need additional sources of funding|Groups of “winners” and “losers” from the proposals would generate significant political opposition to the changesThe indirect contribution of the current system of payments to the maintenance of important biological habitats and high quality landscape areas has not been sufficiently addressed in any of the optionsMore information on the details of how the criteria are to be defined would be welcomed.The most appropriate unit in the UK we believe to be the rural Parish|

Political Parties|Eligibility Rules|The proposals for the necessary new delimitation of LFA can be considered as good, as long as they are focused on natural conditions of the cultivation of agricultural areasAttention has to be paid to sensible national legislationAdditional conditions connected with cross compliance should not occur within the framework of delimitation.The existing and confirmed basis for establishing biophysical criteria are to be applied.|The current market prices combined with national and EU funds are not sufficient to cover the costs of cultivation.The option 'High nature value' is not considered acceptable, because a high level of protection of nature is already achieved by applying biophysical criteriaconservation of nature can only occur when respective farmers want them and when they have appropriate financial resources made available.|

Local Action Group|High Nature Value|Land abandonment and lack of grazing animals are causing loss of biodiversity and loss of landscape valuesPresent LFA not sufficient to compensate for the natural handicapsCreate an LFA for sustainable agriculture with natural constraintsSteer the LFA support towards extensive agriculture and areas with risk of land abandonment|More work needs to be done to assess the value of Mountain areas|

Academic Institutions||||

|No Preference|Concur that an environmental rationale for LFAS is reasonableHowever, there are many situations where, if market forces were to prevail in the farm sector, the environmental qualities of less favoured areas would be likely to declineA system of rewarding delivery of these public goods and services is likely to be necessary to sustain their provision into the futureThe introduction of the Single Farm Payment system, coupled with weak implementation of GAEC rules has enabled farmers to largely de-stock their land and still receive SFP and LFAS paymentsDo not consider such trends to be desirable for both environmental and socio-economic reasonsSceptical about any payment vehicle for compensating farmers based on the cost of overcoming biophysical disadvantagesAdministrative burden is likely to be least with Option 1Option 4 will incur the greatest administrative burdenQuestion whether an LFA policy which is not explicitly based on the delivery of environmental public goods really ‘belongs’ in Axis 2 of Pillar 2Concerned that the economic logic for an LFA based on biophysical criteria is weak, but understand why a biophysical basis for designation is more likely to be consistent than one based on HNV farming.Critical that the basis for designation is equitable across the EU and we are unconvinced that this is the case with the proposed EU system|The proposed biophysical criteria do not adequately represent the limitations imposed on production systems by the biophysical conditions in rural Scotland.Any change is not without welfare implications on the farming community and we argue that degressive payments should lighten the burden on those who are excludedIf the LFAS is to sit legitimately within Pillar 2 Axis 2, three of the four options are not consistent with the aim to justify LFAS as a component of Axis 2. The only valid option is that outlined in Option 4Option 1 presents major problems of equity in that different Member States may use different criteria for selecting LFAs.Option 2 is ostensibly fairer but it is absolutely critical that the criteria reflect the genuine disadvantages of operating in areas where there are substantial bio-physical challenges. The nature of the constraints will vary from place to place.Option 3 modestly refines option 2 and the same issues apply.Option 4 presents enormous problems of classification, greater perhaps than any classificatory challenge under options 1-3.The climatic criteria are much more appropriate for continental (length of growing season and soil-water balance) or Mediterranean conditions (heat stress and soil-water balance) than the Scottish climatic conditions.These climatic criteria do not cater for the cool, wet equable maritime climate which still limits severely the land use options.There would be large changes in the LFA boundary and we anticipate a need for degressive transition payments to such farmers should they be excluded from a revised LFAS.Most appropriate level of delimitation is the holding|

|Status Quo|Not a realistic option for the Member States to collect all the necessary data for the common bio-physical criteria in a comprehensive comparable wayThe “regional” approach would allow for the LFA to be more clearly addressed in their main spatial characteristics and would provide scope for subsequent differentiation for the Member States.Classification target might be the level of municipalities or parts of municipalitiesThe scheme should pay particular attention to the degree of production difficultiesDifferentiation of support on farm levelNeed to ensure that there is no policy creep from LFA into Ag EnvPluriactivity is an important feature of farm householdsThe close relationship of farm management with the regional situation is particularly expressed in LFAs.|Option 2 the disadvantage of this proposal is that the single criteria provide very detailed information and don’t address the LFA character of an area.useful to pinpointing to specific situations, but less meaningful for a geographical classificationOption 3 is not an option for the classification of the LFA but for the application of the scheme within the areaOption 4 as such it would not take account of the aspects to remunerate farm management under specific natural production difficulties.As the natural handicap is not changing over time and irreversible the scheme has to be conceived as a long-term measure with objectives well beyond the agricultural sector alone.|

Private Individuals||||

|No Preference|||

|High Nature Value|HNV does not take sufficiently into account mountain and forests areas, especially forests close to farms.The specific farming traditions, practices and conditions are not enough reflected in the current HNV definition.|The areas linked to traditional agricultural areas and practices, which are specific for the northern Europe; the mountain, forest and outland agriculture. These areas need to be sufficiently addressed and included in the context of HNV when reviewing the LFA|

Professional Organisations/ Bodies||||

|High Nature Value|'High Nature Value', be replaced with the term 'High Environmental Value'.||

Land Owner Organisations||||

|Status Quo|Concerned about the proposed timetable for implementing LFA redesignation. Think it is most important to get the principles right in how LFAs define Important interaction with integrated livestock systems with uplands and lowlandsLFA farmers deliver important public goodsNone of the proposed options for LFA redesignation are able to address the key issues surrounding LFAs.None of the options addresses the wider issue of how to keep rural communities in the LFAs to manage the land.Data issueImportant to develop criteria which relate to the second part of Article 50, 3(a) that is to focus on the positive side of the concept of LFAs namely the extensive farming systems which are a vital part of the management of these semi-natural habitats and landscapes|Propose that the revised LFA designations should be timed to come into effect in 2014Important that the Commission does not disregard socio-economic developmentAny reform of LFA needs to take a balanced approach whereby sustainable land management is coupled with ensuring people are able to live and work in these areasStrongly advocate the importance of Food and Environmental Security, vital that this concept is incorporated into LFA discussionsOption 1 is chosen if the implementation of the review is by 2010 however option 3 would be the preferred option if the implementation was post 2014Income forgone payment is not a sufficient mechanism to keep people farming in LFAsOption 1 model does not allow transparency or controllability of LFA payments across EuropeOptions 2 & 3 are focusing on land affected by natural hardships but the model assumes ‘one size fits all’ and does not necessarily account for the huge variation in land and the threats to these areas across EuropeOptions 2 and 3 do adapt the current LFA delimitation and have a good level of transparency and controllability but the administrative burden is high for both of these optionsGreater flexibility would be neededOption 4 does not recognise the wide range of public goods that farming deliversThe payment resource allocation needs to be re-examined|

Non Statutory Public Body|No Preference|Any changes to the current scheme may have far reaching consequences for the red meat industryTo sustain farming systems in areas with natural handicaps needs policy intervention that recognises the increased costs and lack of productivity that are a consequence of farming in these areas. Equally, policy measures are needed that encourage succession in these areas. In some cases there may be a need restructuring of the industry.Climate, integrated soil-climate, soil and terrain are suitable criteria to establish natural handicap.Removal of socio economic indicators should be carefully considered|Challenge is to clearly identify the beneficiary of the paymentsPayment is made to those who are actually managing the land supportedPayment calculation based on additional costs and income foregone related to the handicap needs to be heavily researchedTransition would need to be managed equitablyFurther work is needed to be able to quantify and value public goodsMerit in considering support for high nature value farming, this should not be the sole criteria for a policy to aid land mangersRainfall and number of days with rain, days of snow cover, cold stress and possibly wind should also be considered as a criteriaNUTS level three administrative regions as the basis for assessmentMeasures of enterprise productivity, farming income, population retention and growth of agricultural GDP could all be used as measures to assess whether a natural handicap has been overcome.|

Annex 6. Studies, reports and contributions from ISSG members

The impact assessment could rely on several reports and studies drawn up in recent years as regards the LFA support scheme and a number of closely related issues.

The evaluation report commissioned by DG AGRI, 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 prov ided quantitative and qualitative information on the implementation and the impacts of the LFA scheme;

The Special Report No 4/2003 of the European Court of Auditors (OJ C 151 of 27 June 2003 ), the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Compensation payments for disadvantaged areas beyond 2010 (own-initiative opinion CESE 881/2007 fin ) and DG AGRI report presented at the LFA expert meeting of 14.11.2007 DG AGRI F.3, Delimitation of areas affected by significant natural handicaps according to Article 50.3 (a) of Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Technical Expert Meeting of 14.11.2007 were used, together with the ISSG hearings listed in Annex 4 and the responses to the public consultation in Annex 5, as source for analyzing the drawbacks of the current system and its evolving objectives. [13]

DG AGRI F.3, Delimitation of areas affected by significant natural handicaps according to Article 50.3 (a) of Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Technical Expert Meeting of 14.11.2007

Complementary sources were the JRC study Analysis of f armland abandonment of 2008 JRC IES (2008), Analysis of farmland abandonment and the extent and location of agriculture areas that are actually abandoned or are in risk to be abandoned, EYR 23411EN-2008 . , the SIGULDA study on land abandonment DLG (2005) Land Abandonment and Biodiversity in relation to the 1 st and the 2 nd Pillars of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, 7-8 October2004. DLG, Utrecht. ; the ESPON study on the territorial impact of the CAP http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/277/index_EN.html . [14][15][16]

JRC IES (2008), Analysis of farmland abandonment and the extent and location of agriculture areas that are actually abandoned or are in risk to be abandoned, EYR 23411EN-2008 .

DLG (2005) Land Abandonment and Biodiversity in relation to the 1 st and the 2 nd Pillars of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, 7-8 October2004. DLG, Utrecht.

http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/277/index_EN.html

The following contributions were prepared by ISSG members:

Main features of the agriculture in non mountainous Less favoured Areas;

Overview of the Less favoured Areas Farms in the EU-25 (2004-2005) based on FADN;

Focus on LFA-other than mountain in the EU-25 (2004-2005) based on FADN;

Fine-tuning of the LFA delimitation system;

LFA and the environment;

Assessment of natural (soil, climate and terrain) handicaps to agriculture in Europe.

Annex 7A. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board of 03.02.2009 on the draft impact assessment report

(...PICT...)

Annex 7B. Explanation of the follow-up given to the recommendations of the Impact Assessment Board

Following the IAB opinion of 3 February 2009, the draft LFA impact assessment report has been revised. The adaptations made to the report to take the IAB's recommendations into account are indicated below after each recommendation:

(1) Clarify the political context of the LFA review exercise, the objectives of the Communication and the envisaged follow-up action.

The report should explain why the Commission does not present a legislative proposal at this stage, and should present a roadmap on the envisaged follow-up actions with an indicative timetable.

Section 1.1 has been revised and includes a roadmap.

In addition, the report should define concisely the problems which need immediate action (incomparability/lack of transparency of the LFA delimitation criteria, ineffective targeting of aid), so that the limitations of the current review exercise, as set by the Council in 2005, would be more explicit.

Sections 2.2 to 2.4 have been shortened and redrafted to this end.

Without prejudice to these limits, the report should reflect on possible future developments of the LFA scheme against the background of the current and future modernisation of the CAP instruments. In this respect the report should firstly address the plausibility of Option 4 (Applying High Nature Value criteria in addition the LFA criteria) in a long-term perspective and discuss whether the proposed biophysical criteria would be compatible with the principles to be applied in a possible definition of the High Nature Value Areas.

The first part of Section 5 has been enlarged to discuss this issue.

Secondly, the report should reflect whether in the future some alternative CAP instruments (such as topping up direct payments) could be more effective/efficient for reaching the objectives of the LFA scheme.

This point is addressed in the introduction of Section 5, before the description of the options.

(2) Pay more attention to the consistency/complementarity of the revised LFA scheme with other CAP instruments. Given that improved consistency with other agricultural policies is one of the objectives of the review exercise, the report should provide a thorough discussion of potential overlaps or synergies of the LFA support options with other CAP instruments.

A new Section 2.1 has been added to explain the intervention logic of Natural handicap Payments in relation to other CAP instruments.

(3) Assess further the simplification potential of the proposed set of common biophysical criteria and address subsidiarity issues . The report should discuss whether the biophysical criteria are simpler than the current national socio-economic and land productivity criteria. It should also examine whether, considering the regional peculiarities, the common biophysical criteria would be more effective and how these criteria would comply with the principle of subsidiarity in terms of implementation.

A new section 5.5 'Simplification potential' has been added

(4) Assess the economic and social impacts on farmers who will no longer benefit from LFA support as a result of the annulment of the socio-economic criteria. The report should explain briefly but clearly whether, and if so which, measures would be applied or put in place to compensate for the socio-economic handicaps up to now covered by the LFA support.

A new paragraph has been added at the end of Section 5.2

(D) Procedure and presentation

The report should respect the 30 page limit, follow the format for the Commission IA reports and be accompanied by an Executive Summary in the form of a separate staff working document as set by the IA guidelines.

The length of the report has been substantially reduced by redrafting and transfer in annex of more technical elements. It makes now 34 pages including the cover page, the list of content, the list of Annexes and the tables and figures included in the text. The Executive Summary will be prepared according to the guidelines in time for the interservice consultation.

[1] European Court of Auditors (2003), Special Report No 4/2003, OJ C 151 of 27 June 2003, http://www.eca.europa.eu/audit_reports/special_reports/docs/2003/rs04_03en.pdf .

[2] See Article 36 (a) (i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, OJ L 277 of 21.10.2005, p. 18.

[3] However, a specific mention to the need of preserving the tourist potential is made as concerns areas with specific handicaps, which should not exceed 10% of the area of the Member State concerned.

[4] According to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 "an economic performance in agriculture appreciably lower than the average" and "a low or dwindling population" had to be used for designating intermediate LFAs.

[5] Presidency's compromise of 20.6.2005, Council doc. 10352/05 of 23.6.2005, p. 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 .

[7] See Recital 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

[8] JO C 151 du 27.6.2006

[9] Cf. Note 6

[10] http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/277/index_EN.html

[11] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/evaluation/report.pdf

[12] http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/RWER/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22735_EN.pdf

[13] DG AGRI F.3, Delimitation of areas affected by significant natural handicaps according to Article 50.3 (a) of Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Technical Expert Meeting of 14.11.2007

[14] JRC IES (2008), Analysis of farmland abandonment and the extent and location of agriculture areas that are actually abandoned or are in risk to be abandoned, EYR 23411EN-2008 .

[15] DLG (2005) Land Abandonment and Biodiversity in relation to the 1 st and the 2 nd Pillars of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, 7-8 October2004. DLG, Utrecht.

[16] http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/277/index_EN.html

(...PICT...)|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES|

Brussels, 21.4.2009

SEC(2009) 450

ANNEX TO THE COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

{COM(2009) 161 final} {SEC(2009) 449} {SEC(2009) 451}

ANNEXES

Annex 8. Criteria currently used for delimiting intermediate LFAs 3

Annex 9. Farms receiving an LFA payment in 2005 7

Annex 10. Maps payments SPS/LFA 8

Annex 11A. Table of common biophysical criteria and associated thresholds 9

Annex 11B. Common biophysical criteria to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe (JRC study) 10

Annex 12. Distribution of share of LFA payments in the FNVA for non-mountain LFAs 71

Annex 8. Criteria currently used for delimiting intermediate LFAs

Since the setting up of the scheme in 1975, the Community legislation has fixed three typologies of indicators for identifying intermediate LFAs See Article 3.4 of Directive 75/268/EEC, Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/97 and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/99. : a) the presence of land of poor productivity; b) a n economic performance in agriculture appreciably lower than the average; c) a low or dwindling population.[1]

See Article 3.4 of Directive 75/268/EEC, Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/97 and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/99.

a) Land productivity criteria

These criteria can be broadly classified into three categories: "physical indicators", "farm structure indicators" and "index systems".

Table 1: Land Productivity Criteria

Indicator used|Member States that apply the indicator|

A) "Physical indicators"|

1|Altitude|2 (BE, AT)|

2|Number of days without frost|1 (BE)|

3|Unfavourable drainage|1 (LU)|

B) "Farm structure indicators"|

4|Comparative arable yield against national average|7 (BE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, SK)|

5|% of grassland in the UAA|4 (BE, FI, SK, UK)|

6|Proportion of forage in the UAA|3 (FR, LU, SE)|

7|% of rough grazing in the UAA|2 (EL, IT)|

8|% of arable land in the UAA|1 (ES)|

9|Livestock density|1(LU)|

10|% of irrigated land in arable areas|1 (ES)|

11|% of land fallow in arable areas|1 (ES)|

12|Ploughed area |1 (IE)|

13|% of UAA with serious handicap |1 (PT)|

C) "Index methodologies"|

14|Poor soil/climate productivity index (4 different methodologies)|4 (HU, LV, SK, SE)|

15|Agricultural comparability index – BZ|1 (AT)|

16|Agricultural comparability index – LVZ |1 (DE)|

17|Bonitate system index|1 (EE)|

18|Land index system - BPEJ|1 (CZ)|

19|Index of Nikula |1 (FI)|

20|Land quality index - LQI|1 (PL)|

21|Land suitability map index|1 (CY)|

22|Productivity index 'L. Turc'|1 (ES)|

23|Soil quality index|1 (SI)|

The first category includes few physical indicators related to soil and climate conditions, e.g. altitude, number of days without frost, unfavorable drainage. In most cases, these types of indicators are embedded into index systems, as explained further.

Not less than 12 Member States used " farm structure indicators " as proxies of land productivity. Only two indicators - arable yield and percentage of grassland – were used by more than three Member States. Each Member State has in fact chosen the indicators it deemed more appropriate for its own situation.

In 2005, a Council working group discussed a non-paper suggesting that a number of proxies to reflect poor soil qualities and unfavorable climatic conditions (e.g. average cereals yield, % of permanent grassland, stocking density, etc.) would be able to be a basis of a possible Community wide system for classifying intermediate LFAs. However, an agreement on this basis could not be found, as the application of the indicators presented might have led in many cases to inappropriate results.

A third category of criteria designating intermediate LFAs can be defined as 'index systems' . These are methodologies based on several indicators (e.g. existing land/soil classification systems). An index is then calculated and used for classifying the areas according to specific thresholds or classes. In some cases, such methodologies use only physical indicators. More frequently, index systems are based on both physical and farm structure indicators and often a mix of physical, farm structure, infrastructure (e.g. distance from market place, energy and water supply) and economic performance indicators is used. It should be noted that in several cases the index systems do not only have the purpose of designating intermediate LFAs, but are also used for a number of administrative applications, e.g. for tax purposes. There are, in a number of cases, similarities between the index systems used in different Member States (e.g. Germany and Poland). 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.

b) Economic performance criteria

Several indicators are used for identifying an economic performance in agriculture appreciably lower than the national average. Table 3 groups these indicators under 14 categories, including the index systems with economic indicators embedded, applied in four Member States (AT, DE, FI, SE). The level of income per labour unit compared to the national average is the most common economic indicator, utilized in five Member States (BE, CY, FR, EL, IE). The level of the income tax paid and the gross production compared to the national average are both taken up by two Member States (EE and LV and HU and LT respectively). The remaining indicators are peculiar to individual Member States and are quite diverse, from the agricultural income of the administrative area to the total farm income related to the livestock density.

Table 2: Economic performance criteria

Indicator used|Number of Member States that apply the indicator|

1|Income per labour unit not exceeding % of National average amount |5|

2|Index systems with economic indicators embedded|4|

3|Amount of Income tax paid not exceeding threshold of National average level |2|

4|Gross production not exceeding % of National average|2|

5|Livestock gross margin compared to National average|1|

6|Farm rents compared to the National average|1|

7|Land tax not above % of national average|1|

8|Whole farm income compared to National average|1|

9|Cost of production|1|

10|Total farm incomes lower than National average as related to livestock density|1|

11|Income tax paid not exceeding threshold|1|

12|Net value added at factor cost per Ag worker not exceeding % of European Community average |1|

13|Standard Gross Margin of worker of worker does not exceed % of National average|1|

14|Agricultural income of Administrative Area not above a threshold|1|

Similarly to farm structure indicators, poor economic performance cannot be considered in itself as an indicator of natural handicaps, since other drivers, such as input availability, training and capacity to adapt to rapidly evolving market conditions, can significantly affect economic results. However, the association of physical indicators and of farm structure and/or economic performance criteria, might be useful to assess if a natural handicap is actually affecting agriculture in a specific area, namely in those cases where soil or climate handicaps can be overcome through investments of specific farming practices.

c) Population criteria

Table 3: Population criteria

Indicator used|Number of Member States that apply the indicator |

1|Population density limits per Km²|25|

2|Working population engaged in agriculture|18|

3|Annual depopulation rate exceeds|10|

4|Annual Ag works depopulation exceeds|2|

All the Member States applied the population density for designating intermediate LFAs, as provided for in Article 19 of Regulation 1257/99. The density ceilings applied range from 15 inhabitants/km² in Estonia to 130 inhabitants/km² in Germany. The percentage of working population engaged in agriculture is also widely used; here again the limit value used as a threshold for designating a disadvantaged area varies from 15% in BE, DE, FR, IT and LU to 50% in EL. These disparities result, at least partially, from the particular situation of each Member State but are also mentioned by the Court of Auditors as a possible source of unequal treatment. It should be underlined that the evolution of such data has not been taken into account when updating the delimitation, despite the significant changes occurring in population trends since 1975.Moreover in the context of the new legal framework set up by Regulation 1698/2005, where tackling rural depopulation has disappeared from the objectives of the LFA scheme and the intermediate LFAs are characterized by natural handicaps, population criteria are no longer relevant for designating eligible areas.

Annex 9. Farms receiving an LFA payment in 2005

(...PICT...)

Annex 10. Maps payments SPS/LFA

Average payments per parish in Scotland in 2005

a) for Single Farm Payment

b) for Less Favoured Areas support

Source, data from Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, 2005 – received as

contribution to the public consultation).

(...PICT...)

Annex 11A. Table of common biophysical criteria and associated thresholds

Common Biophysical criteria identified by the scientific experts|

Criterion|Definition|Threshold value|

1. Low Temperature|Length of Growing period (number of days) defined by number of days with daily average temperature > 5°C (LGPt5) OR|180 days |

|Temperature sum (degree-days) for Growing Period defined by accumulated daily average temperature > 5°C|1500 degree-days|

2. Heat Stress|Number and length of continuous periods (number of days) within the growing period for which daily maximum temperature (Tmax) exceeds the threshold|One or more periods of at least 10 consecutive days with daily Tmax > 35°C|

3. Drainage|Areas which are water logged and/or flooded for significant duration of the year (lack of gaseous oxygen in soil for root growth or land not accessible for tillage).|Poorly drained as defined by Soil Survey Division Staff - 1993 OR wet soil within 80 cm for over 6 months|

4. Texture and Stoniness|Relative abundance of clay, silt, sand, organic matter (weight %) and coarse material (volumetric %) fractions in top soil material.|Soils classified as: unsorted or medium sand, coarse loamy sand or organic OR 15% of topsoil volume is coarse material OR Heavy clay (>60% clay) or Vertisol, clay, silty clay or sandy clay with vertic properties.|

5. Rooting depth|Depth (cm) from soil surface to coherent hard rock or hard pan|30 cm|

6. Chemical properties|Presence of salts, exchangeable sodium and gypsum in the topsoil|– Salinity : 4 deci-siemens per meter (dS/m)|

||– Sodicity: 6 Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) |

||– Gypsum: 15%|

7. Soil Moisture balance|Number of days within growing period as defined by temperature > 5°C (LGPt5), for which the amount of precipitation and water available in the soil profile exceeds half of potential evapotranspiration|90 days|

8. Slope|Change of elevation with respect to planimetric distance (%)|15%|

Annex 11B. Common biophysical criteria to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe (JRC study)

(...PICT...)

Common bio-physical criteria to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe

Task1: Definition and scientific justification for the common criteria

Editors: Jos Van Orshoven, Jean-Michel Terres, Åse Eliasson

Contributors: Robert Jones, Christine Le-Bas, Freddy Nachtergaele, David Rossiter, Jos Van

EUR XXXX EN - 2008

Orshoven, Harrij van Velthuizen

(...PICT...)

Common bio-physical criteria to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe

Task 1 : Definition and scientific justification for the common criteria;

Technical Fiches

Editors: Jos Van Orshoven 1 , Jean-Michel Terres 2 , Åse Eliasson 2

Contributors: Robert Jones 3 , Christine Le-Bas 4 , Freddy Nachtergaele 5 , David Rossiter 6 , Jos

Van Orshoven, Harrij van Velthuizen 7

EUR EN - 2008

1 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

2 Rural, Water and Ecosystems Unit, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy

3 Cranfield University, United Kingdom

4 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Orleans, France

5 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

6 International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede, the Netherlands

7 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

The mission of the Institute for Environment and Sustainability is to provide scientific-technical support to the European Union’s Policies for the protection and sustainable development of the European and global environment.

European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Contact information

Address: JM Terres, Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Tel.: +39 0332 78 5230 Fax: +39 0332 78 5230

http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Legal Notice

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/

JRC YYYY

EUR XXXXX EN ISSN ZZZ-ZZZZ

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Printed in Italy

Cover photograph: Courtesy of D Mulligan

Foreword

This work is part of the Administrative Arrangement (n° AGRI-2008-0181) (JRC ref. n°30969-2008-05 NFP ISP) between DG Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Environment and Sustainability. The purpose of this Administrative Arrangement is to provide support for the “ Assessment of criteria for the identification of Less Favoured Areas ” through 6 inter-linked task packages.

This report relates to Task 1: Provide a clear definition and scientific justification for the common criteria”; it presents potential common bio-physical soil and climate criteria that were identified by a group of experts to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe.

The report is based on several pieces of scientific information:

• The review by a panel of soil, climate and land evaluation experts of land evaluation methods in order to elaborate an approach that could support the delineation of the “intermediate less Favoured Areas” for agriculture in EU27.

• The working expert meeting held on 7 th Dec 2007 by the Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy including the panel of experts contributing to this report, 4 representatives of DG Agriculture and Rural Development and 5 experts from the Joint Research Centre.

• Findings of the expert meeting that was organised by the Joint Research Centre and occurred on the 19 th and 20 th of April 2007 in Ispra, Italy. The meeting included 33 participants, including 14 experts from various scientific institutes, four participants from DG Agriculture and Rural Development and 15 experts from the DG Joint Research Centre.

• Findings of the expert meeting held in May 2006 on land quality assessment, which was organised to anticipate the technical work from the Joint Research Centre for DG Agriculture and Rural Development in the new definition of the Intermediate Less Favoured Areas.

This report includes: background information to the Less Favoured Areas (objectives of the project and context); an abstract / executive summary; an introduction; a problem statement; materials and methods; results; conclusions; references.

For each criterion proposed by the panel of experts, the agronomic rationale, the definition, the scientific background, the assessment, the values for severe / very severe thresholds, the conclusions and some references are provided as fact sheets in the annexes.

This scientific information is aimed to be a base for DG Agriculture and Rural Development in their consultation with Member States and future proposal for identifying the Intermediate Less Favoured Areas from biophysical criteria, seen as natural handicaps to agriculture.

Acknowledgements

This work results from the compilation made by J Van Orshoven from contributions provided by a

panel of experts (Robert Jones, Christine Le-Bas, Freddy Nachtergaele, David Rossiter and Harrij van

Velthuizen). Thank you to all of them to have dedicated some of their limited available time to this

review, in particular to R Jones and F Nachtergaele for whom it was particularly difficult for different

reasons.

The panel of experts have themselves relied on studies carried-out by colleagues as well as previous

literature and references which shall be acknowledged.

Many thanks to Ase Eliasson who initiated the scientific network and whose scientific reports have been used in this work.

Abstract / Executive summary

A panel of soil, climate and land evaluation experts reviewed a set of land evaluation methods in order to elaborate an approach which can support the definition and delineation of the so called “Intermediate Less Favoured Areas for agriculture (iLFA)” in EU27. The driver for this exercise is Article 50.3 of EC-Regulation 1698/2005 calling for the revision of the existing system based on criteria related to low soil productivity and poor climate conditions for agriculture. FAO’s agricultural problem land approach was selected and adjusted to come forward with the requested approach. The FAO approach was deemed appropriate because it is not crop-specific and for its simple assumptions regarding the mutual interaction of land characteristics on the overall suitability of the land, making it applicable for a territory as large and diverse as EU27. Two climatic and four soil criteria were retained and complemented by one integrated soil-climate criterion (soil moisture balance), with slope as the sole topographic criterion. For each criterion two critical limits were defined dividing the criterion range into three sub-ranges: not limiting , severely limiting and very severely limiting for agriculture.

The criteria and the associated critical limits or threshold values can be used anywhere to discriminate land with biophysical constraints to agricultural production on the basis that soil and climate data of sufficient spatial and semantic detail are available. Whereas such datasets are held at regional and national levels, Pan-European soil and climate data sets also exist to which the criteria and threshold values can be applied. However, their spatial and to a lesser extent semantic resolution is too restricted to classify land fully in line with terrain reality. The pan-European assessments are however useful as a reference backdrop for assessment of consistency of exercises which use national or regional data sets.

1 Policy background

1.1 Objectives of the LFA scheme

Certain rural areas are classified as Less Favoured Areas (LFA) because conditions for farming are more difficult due to natural constraints, which increase production costs and reduce agricultural yields. The aid for the LFA in the European Union (EU) dates back to 1975 and has since then undergone several reforms from being focused on addressing rural depopulation towards increased focus of maintaining certain agricultural land use and environmental protection. In addition, over time Member States have been offered increased flexibility of the implementation of the measure, i.e. Member States are responsible for changing the LFA classified, which has resulted in regional differences on how the measure is applied within the Member States.

The LFA measure is currently under the legislation of EC, Council Regulation (1999) No. 1257/1999, where the aims of the LFA measure are:

• to ensure continued agricultural land use

• to maintain the countryside

• to maintain and promote sustainable farming

• to ensure environmental requirements and safeguarding of farming in areas with environmental restrictions

• to contribute to viable rural communities in the LFA

1.2 Categories

There are three categories classified as LFA. Each category covers a specific cluster of natural handicaps in Europe in which the continuation of agricultural land use is threatened.

• Mountain areas (Article 18) – are characterised as those areas handicapped by a short growing season because of a high altitude, or by steep slopes at a lower altitude, or by a combination of the two.

• Other LFA (Article 19) – are those areas in danger of abandonment of agricultural land use and where the conservation of the countryside is necessary. They exhibit all of the following handicaps: land of poor productivity, production which results from low productivity of the natural environment, and a low or dwindling population predominantly dependent on agricultural activity.

• Areas affected by specific handicaps (Article 20) – are areas where farming should be continued in order to conserve or improve the environment, maintain the countryside, and preserve the tourist potential of the areas, or in order to protect the coastline.

5 The areas concerned are called 'Intermediate LFAs' to be distinguished from mountain LFAs and from LFAs with specific handicaps'

2 Support activity from JRC to DG AGRI

2.1 New definition of the Other LFA – DG AGRI mandate for JRC support

In 2006, DG Agriculture and Rural Development and the JRC have agreed on a joint technical activity

to support the identification of possible common criteria for the designation of the “Intermediate

LFAs”.

The JRC is providing technical support by (1) defining a Common framework of Soil and Climate

criteria for defining agricultural areas which are less favourable for Agriculture in Europe and (2)

assessing the spatial impact of the proposed criteria in term of agricultural areas affected by the new

designation.

The boundary conditions as specified by DG Agriculture and Rural Development clearly mentioned:

• The classification relates to areas that have natural handicaps to agriculture and not to how the land is managed (e.g. irrigation or drainage are not considered).

• Criteria have to apply to agricultural activity in general, not to specific production/crops. They implicitly refer to conventional agriculture.

• The criteria concern the area designation and not the LFA scheme as whole (eligibility rules, payment calculation).

• Criteria have to be adapted for pan-European assessment. They have to provide a common framework and cover the whole range of European bio-physical conditions.

• Criteria must be clear, simple, robust, and easily understandable.

2.2 Source of information - working procedures

• Previous research projects: crop modelling, land quality evaluation, agro-meteorological zoning.

• Compilation from scientific literature

• Network of experts in the field of land quality assessments, soil, climate, environment, agriculture. 3 ad-hoc expert meetings at JRC

• Consultation with international organisations, research institutes and universities: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Katholieke Universitet Leuven (KUL), International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC).

• An ad-hoc consultancy was organised by JRC with top European experts, specialist in agro- meteorology (soil and climate issues in agriculture).

2.3 Technical framework

Soil, climate and terrain are the major determinants of the suitability of land for agricultural use. Every crop type has a set of requirements with regards to soil and climate. To yield a harvest, a crop needs sufficient physical stability, sufficient but not too much heat and photo-synthetically active radiation, oxygen, water and nutrients, in the absence of toxic substances or damaging impacts from storms or pests.

The fact that crop requirements for stability, heat, radiation, oxygen, water, nutrients and absence of toxins and damaging agents must be met by the conditions or ‘services’, supplied by the prevailing soil and climate, is the basis for the science and practice of physical land evaluation (FAO 1976; Bouma 1989; van Diepen et al., 1991).

For keeping the method simple, robust and transparent, a restricted selection of elementary soil, climate and terrain characteristics is made which are judged to be most pertinent for distinguishing land according to its suitability for the generic agricultural activity, and the interaction of the selected land characteristics on the growth of crops is accounted for by one additional characteristic, the soil moisture balance. The reasons for choosing the modified “Problem Land approach” rather than a more elaborated Land Quality approach (a part from its simplicity) can be explained by the objectives pursued i.e. to identify areas with constraints to agriculture and not to identify all necessary conditions to reach optimal production for each kind of crop. Also, the work has been focussed on the common criteria, their definition and thresholds for indicating biophysical constraints to agriculture; the application of criteria would be done in a different stage.

3 Problem statement

Regulation EC No 1698/2005 provides for payments to farmers in areas with handicaps. Article 50.3 (a) of the same regulation defines the so-called “Intermediate Less Favoured Areas (iLFA)” 5 as areas “affected by significant natural handicaps, notably a low soil productivity or poor climate conditions and where maintaining extensive farming activity is important for the management of the land”. This document refers to a possible common approach that could be used for assessing and defining natural handicaps for agriculture in the EU27.

There are several issues which make this apparent simple endeavour less evident:

1. Agriculture in Europe encompasses a wide range of crops.

Requirements for services from soil and climate are mostly crop dependant. In its original and revised frameworks for land evaluation, FAO (1976; 2007) highlighted the difficulty to assess detailed suitability maps for agriculture as such. In line with the framework, suitability maps would have to be created for all individual crops or cropping systems present in the EU, then combined and interpreted. As a result it is quite difficult to present one single suitability map encompassing the huge variety of crops in a territory as large and diverse as EU27.

2. Many soil and climate characteristics co-determine suitability and mutually interact.

A great many elementary soil and climate characteristics affect the behaviour of crops and they do so in multiple ways (Thomasson and Jones, 1989). For example, soil depth is not only a measure of the volume which is available for growing roots, hence creating stability, but also co-determines the capacity to supply water and nutrients. In addition, many of the characteristics interact strongly. In general, the presence of a clayey layer limiting root development reduces suitability, but the presence of such layer at medium depth may be beneficial for sandy soils to create a perched water table that can compensate for the low water storage capacity of these soils. In order to overcome the potentially complex problem of matching multiple and interacting land characteristics (LC) with crop requirements, FAO (FAO 1976) introduced the concept of Land Quality (LQ). A LQ is defined as a combination of land characteristics which acts upon the suitability of the land for a given use (an agronomic function). A typical example of a land quality is “Water supply capacity”. This LQ is determined by soil characteristics such as depth, granulometry, bulk density, stoniness and by climatic characteristics such as amount and regime of precipitation and evaporative demand. The definition and quantification of all relevant LQs and their matching with the requirements of the multitude of crops is however beyond the scope of most land evaluation exercises covering large zones like EU27.

3. Delimitation of zones is conditioned by available data.

Soil and climate characteristics are land attributes which typically show gradual change over space. For example, average temperature gradually decreases with increasing elevation, and average winter temperature increases with decreasing distance from the sea, while the opposite is often true for summer conditions. One consequence is that measurements of depth to rock or temperature are valid only for the measurement location (soil sample locations, meteo-stations). In order to define land units and delimit zones, the point observations must be interpolated using specific techniques. These may be mathematical equations or based on expert-judgement. Soil maps are routinely created by an expert based approach, by which soil polygons are delineated with the point observations as reference marks

and landscape features providing the spatial basis for interpolation. The amount and density of data and the semantic detail available from the point observations determine the spatial and semantic resolution of the results that can be obtained. Few available point data, with few characteristics recorded with little detail, can only give rise to coarsely delineated areas. Climatic data are often interpolated in a mathematical way. The assumption of gradual change of the climate characteristics between the available measurement locations is however often not exactly in line with reality since also elevation, slope and orientation of slope i.e. co-determine climatic values (Ragg et al., 1988).

As a consequence, the problem of defining and delimiting land areas with low soil productivity and poor climate conditions can be resolved into 3 sub-problems:

- What are the soil and climate characteristics or qualities having a major and sufficiently independent contribution to the suitability of land for agriculture in a European perspective? How can these characteristics or qualities be assessed?

- What are the threshold values or critical scores for these characteristics or qualities to distinguish soils with low productivity from other soils and climates with poor conditions for agriculture from other climates?

- How can the scores for each of the selected characteristics or qualities be used and combined as criteria to classify and rank land?

3.1 Materials and methods

In order to address the stated objectives, a panel of soil, climate and land evaluation experts was established by the EC’s Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC). Between May 2006 and December 2007, this panel met, on three occasions, with representatives of EC’s DG Agriculture and Rural Development and JRC’s Rural, Water and Ecosystem Resources Unit (RWER). DG AGRI is administratively in charge of implementing Regulation 1698/2005 while JRC is coordinating the scientific support.

The starting point for the expert panel was a review of possible land evaluation methods including the Land Capability Classification (Klingebiel and Montgomery, 1961), Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, 1976; 2007), Agro-Ecological Zoning (FAO, 1978; 1996; Fischer et al., 2002), Agricultural Problem Land Approach (FAO, 1990 and Nachtergaele, 2006), Expert System for Constraints to Agricultural Production in Europe - ESCAPE (Le Bas et al., 2001; 2002).

A JRC Scientific and Technical Report (European Commission, 2007) and several working documents were produced to summarize progress made and conclude these discussions.

3.2 Results

With the aim of supporting the designation and delimitation of “Intermediate Less Favoured Areas”, based on a set of simple harmonized and EU-wide applicable soil and climate criteria, the expert panel reached a consensus on an approach according to the following statements:

1. No crop specificity . Suitability was considered for a European conventional capital-intensive, mechanised, family unit of adapted grain crops or adapted grasses for hay or silage;

2. Suitability assessment is based on a limited selection of soil and climate characteristics complemented with one topographic characteristic (Table 1), in line with the agricultural problem land approach (FAO, 1990; Nachtergaele, 2006) . A restricted selection of elementary soil and climate characteristics is made which are judged to be most pertinent for distinguishing land according to its suitability for the generic agricultural activity, and the interaction of the selected

land characteristics on the growth of crops is accounted for by one additional characteristic, the soil moisture balance. The reasons for choosing the modified “Problem Land approach” rather than a more elaborated Land Quality approach (apart from its simplicity) can be explained by the objectives pursued i.e. to identify areas with constraints to agriculture and not to identify all necessary conditions to reach optimal production for each type of crop;

3. Characteristics are either not limiting, severely or very severely limiting. Two critical limits are proposed to classify the value of each of the selected individual characteristics into 3 sub-ranges (Table 1). Below the severe threshold value, the characteristic is judged not to be sufficiently limiting to be considered as a handicap for agriculture. Above the ‘Very Severe’ threshold, the characteristic is judged to be very difficult for agriculture so that corresponding areas should not be envisaged for agriculture. Values of the characteristics in the range between the severe and very severe thresholds are considered to present a biophysical handicap to agriculture, without making agriculture impossible;

4. Criteria are combined according to the agronomic law of the minimum (Liebig’s law). After classification in one of the 3 sub-ranges, characteristics can be used as diagnostic criteria to identify areas with constraints to agriculture from other types of land. The guiding principle for combining the criteria is the law of the minimum. As soon as one of the considered criteria is rated as ‘very severely limiting’, the corresponding land is judged to present very severe limitations for agricultural production. Similarly, as soon as one criterion is rated as ‘severely limiting’ and no other criterion is rated as ‘very severely limiting’, the corresponding land is assessed to be severely limiting;

5. Climate-related criteria are treated in a probabilistic way. In order to account for between-year variability of temperature accumulation, heat stress and soil moisture balance, determining the length of the growing season, those three characteristics are classified as either not limiting, severely limiting or very severely limiting in a probabilistic approach. A characteristic is classified as being severely limiting if the probability of exceedance of the severe limit is more than 20% and if the probability of exceedance of the very severe limit is lower than or equal to 20%;

6. Maps of resulting biophysical constraints are not produced. Although the biophysical criteria and their critical limits are ultimately meant to produce suitability maps, they were defined and selected based on scientific and agronomic considerations independent from a concrete mapping exercise. Mapping is left at the discretion of other stakeholders to apply the criteria and threshold values presented here to available soil and climate geo-datasets.

Table 1: Overview of diagnostic criteria and critical limits

(...PICT...)

Discussion

The method presented here is mostly in-line with FAO’s agricultural problem land approach (FAO, 1990; Nachtergaele, 2006). The difference is that the FAO approach:

- Does not include an integrated soil-climate criterion such as the soil moisture balance;

- Has defined for each criterion one threshold value only, to distinguish between no-problem and problem land;

- Does not include a probabilistic approach for dealing with climate-related criteria;

- Includes the soil characteristic ‘Heavy cracking clay’ as a separate criterion. Here it is merged with the ‘Soil texture and stoniness’ criterion.

The assumption of mutual independency of the characteristics and the application of the law of the minimum is common to both.

The climatic criteria pertain to the need for sufficient heat in the absence of damaging hot periods.

The soil drainage criterion is selected based on the need for sufficient but not too much water being available.

Texture, stoniness and rooting depth are selected for their influence on nutrient availability, available water capacity, drainage and plant stability.

The three chemical soil characteristics refer to the required absence of toxic agents. The integrated soil-climate criterion ‘soil moisture balance’ expresses the fundamental interaction between soil and climate for water availability. Water will be supplied outside periods of precipitation by the soil water store.

Finally, slope has been retained as the sole topographic criterion for its decisive impact on the potential use of agricultural machinery. All this follows a very similar rationale adopted for forestry (e.g., Ray 2001).

Given the generalized nature of this exercise, the ‘problem land’ approach was selected for its simplicity, robustness, transparency, ability to identify areas with natural handicaps (rather than estimating agronomic potential) and was adapted to be non crop specific. The Land Capability system (Klingebiel and Montgomery 1961) has been developed for farm planning purposes assuming an implicit hierarchy of desirability of crops rather than for regional assessments. The Land Quality (LQ) approach as prescribed by the FAO framework for land evaluation (FAO 1976) was not adhered to for its explicit crop specificity and the complexity of identifying and assessing the LQs. Although suitability assessment by the ESCAPE system (Le Bas et al. 2001 and 2002) starts from similar elementary land characteristics as the problem land approach, it adds the definition of combinations of characteristics in a crop-specific matching exercise. From the Agro-ecological zone approach (FAO 1978; 1996), the innovative concept of length of growing period and soil-water balance and the probability-based approach for climate-related characteristics have been adopted for the adjustment of the methodology proposed here.

The application of the ‘law of the minimum’ to the criteria presented here, with associated threshold values, is a simple but consistent way of categorizing locations or areas for which the selected characteristics have been observed, measured or estimated with a compatible semantic resolution, as locations or areas with (or without) significant soil and climatic constraints to agriculture.

Both for the semantic and the spatial dimensions, the accuracy of applying the criteria to separate constrained areas from other zones, is data dependent. If the semantic resolution of the available observations, measurements or estimates is higher (more classes) or different (class boundaries) than what is proposed, a re-assessment by (dis)aggregation is necessary. This implies a certain loss of information and increase of uncertainty. If the available observations, measurements or estimates pertain to specific points in space, interpolation to contiguous areas is required in order to produce maps which can be further processed using GIS-technology, e.g. to estimate the share of agricultural land use on these areas. The amount and density of the available point data will determine the applicable, meaningful spatial resolution for interpolation.

Member States or other responsible agents will be required to apply the criteria using the most appropriate available data sets. The results will differ from those obtained by applying the criteria with available pan-European soil (European Soil Database-King et al., 1994; 1995) and climate data sets (MARS-Vossen and Meyer-Roux, 1995), although the general patterns and proportions should be consistent. If applied judiciously, results of national or regional applications will outperform the pan-European application in terms of accuracy of the position of boundaries between zones, the accuracy of the labels attributed to the zones and in terms of omission or commission of zones.

Changing climate is a reality in Europe (IPCC, 2007). Zones for which current climate and combined soil-climate conditions justify their designation as constrained to agriculture, may no longer match the criteria in the near future and vice versa. However, the set of diagnostic soil and climate criteria presented, with critical limits, remains valid. Application of the criteria to updated climate data, or to “likely” data as derived from climate change scenarios, will help to estimate future changes to the extent of the natural constraints to agriculture and to revise boundaries accordingly.

Conclusions

A panel of experts in physical land evaluation has reached agreement on a set of soil and climate characteristics, with associated critical limits, and on Liebig’s law of the minimum for their combination, so that they can be used as criteria to classify land in three broad classes: land without soil and climate constraints to agriculture, land with severe soil and climate constraints and land with very severe soil and climate constraints that preclude agricultural activity. The set of criteria are in-line with an extension of FAO’s agricultural ‘problem land’ approach, while the threshold values have been derived from and justified by state-of-the-art scientific knowledge and expert peer-review. The results can be used to effectively delimit the three types of areas and portray them in map form on condition that reliable base data (observations, measurements or estimates) are available with a sufficient spatial and semantic resolution. The amount and density of point observations, the spatial resolution of area estimates and the semantic resolution of all data do inevitably have a decisive influence on the spatial and semantic quality of the final maps.

4 References

Bouma, 1989. Land qualities in space and time. Proceedings of a symposium on ‘Land qualities in space and time’, organized by the International Society of Soil Science (eds. J. Bouma and A.K. Bregt), Wageningen, the Netherlands, August 22-26, 1988: 3-13.

Eliasson, Å.,Terres J.-M. and Bamps, C., 2006. Land quality assessment for the definition of the EU Less favoured Areas focusing on natural constraints, proceedings from expert meeting 16 th -17 th May 2006, JRC, Iispra, Italy. JRC technical Note.

Eliasson, Å. , 2007. Review of Land Evaluation Methods for Quantifying Natural Constraints to Agriculture, The Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, Ispra. Italy. EUR 22923 EN-2007.

Eliasson, Å.,Terres J.-M. and Bamps, C., 2007. Common Biophysical Criteria for Defining Areas which are Less Favourable for Agriculture in Europe, Proceedings from the Expert Meeting 19-20 th of April, 2007. The Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy, EUR 22923 EN-2007.

European Commission, 2007. EUR 22735 – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Common biophysical criteria for defining areas which are less favourable for agriculture in Europe. Proceedings from the expert meeting 19-20 th of April, 2007, The Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. Eliasson A., Terres J.M. and Bamps C.. (eds.), 2007. JRC scientific and technical reports. Office for official publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg: 80 pp. Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593.

FAO, 1976. A framework for land evaluation. Soils Bulletin 32, Rome, Italy.

FAO, 1978. Report on the Agro-Ecological Zones Project. World Soil Resources. Report 48, FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO, 1990. Problem soils of Asia and the Pacific. RAPA Report 1990/6. FAO/RAPA Bangkok. 283 pp.

FAO, 1996. Agro-ecological Zoning, Guidelines, FAO soils bulletin 73, Rome, Italy. 78 pp.

FAO, 2007. Land evaluation: towards a revised framework. Land and Water Discussion Paper 6. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: 107 p. http://www.fao.org/nr/lman/docs/lman_070601_en.pdf .

Fischer, G., H. van Velthuizen, M. Shah and F.O. Nachtergaele, 2002. Global Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century: Methodology and Results. Research Report RR-02-02. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. pp 119 + CD ROM.

I EEP, Institute for European Environment Policy (2006a) An Evaluation of the Less Favoured Area Measure in the 25 Member States of the European union, a report prepared by the, Institute for European Environmental Policy, for DG agriculture, November 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/lfa/full_text_en.pdf

IEEP, Institute for European Environment Policy (2006b) (2006) Implementation of Articles 18, 19, 20 and 16 of Regulation (EC) no. 1257/1999 in the 25 Member States of the European Union, Report Report prepared by the, Institute of European Environmental Policy, for DG Agriculture, August 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/lfa/full_annex_en.pdf

IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Summary for policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/ .

Jones, R.J.A. and A.J. Thomasson, 1987. A computer-oriented system to evaluate the suitability of European land for common arable crops. In: Agriculture: Simulation models for cropping systems in relation to water management. 165-181. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, EUR 10869 EN.

King, D., J. Daroussin and R. Tavernier, 1994. Development of a soil geographical database from the soil map of the European Communities. Catena, 21, 37–56.

King, D., R.J.A. Jones and A.J. Thomasson (eds), 1995. European Land Information Systems for Agro-environmental Monitoring. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, EUR 16232 EN, 285pp.

Klingebiel, A.A., and Montgomery, P.H., 1961. Land-Capability Classification. Agricultural Handbook 210, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 21 p.

Lambert, J.J, Daroussin, J., Eimberck, M., Le Bas, C., Jamagne, M., King D., Montanarella, L.; Soil Geographical Database for Eurasia & The Mediterranean: Instructions Guide for Elaboration at scale 1:1,000,000 version 4.0. ( http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/eusoils_docs/esb_rr/n08_GuideEurDBv40111202.pdf )

Le Bas, C., L. Boulonne and D. King, 2001. Expert system for Constraints to agricultural production in Europe, Rapport final. INRA and European Soil Bureau. (in French).

Le Bas, C., L. Boulonne, D. King and L. Montanarella, 2002. A Tool for assessing land suitability for Europe. INRA and European Soil Bureau. 17th world congress of Soil Science, 14-21 of August 2002, Bangkok, Thailand, Symp. 48, 256: 1-11.

Nachtergaele, F., 2006. The FAO Problem Land approach adapted to EU conditions. Presentation at the expert meeting “Land quality assessment for the definition of the EU Less Favoured Areas focusing on natural constraints. Ispra, Italy, 16-17-May-2006.

Ragg, J.M., R.J.A. Jones and M.E. Proctor, 1988. The refinement and representation of spatial data in an information system using statistical and DBMS procedures, and trend surface analysis. Geologisches Jahrbuch. A104, 295-308. Hannover.

Ray, D., 2001. Ecological Site Classification Decision Support System V1.7. Forestry Commission -Edinburgh.

Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993. Soil survey manual. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 18. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

Thomasson, A.J. and R.J.A. Jones, 1989. Land evaluation at regional scale. In: ‘Land qualities in space and time’, (J. Bouma and A.K. Bregt (eds.), Proceedings of a symposium on ‘Land qualities in space and time’, organized by the International Society of Soil Science (IUSS), Pudoc, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 231-240.

van Diepen, C.A., Van Keulen, H., Wolf, J. and Berkhout, J.A.A., 1991. Land evaluation: from intuition to quantification. In: B.A. Stewart (Editor), Advances In Soil Science. Springer, New York, pp. 139-204.

Vossen, P. and Meyer-Roux, J. 1995. Crop monitoring and yield forecasting activities of the MARS Project. In: European Land Information Systems for Agro-environmental Monitoring. D. King, R.J.A. Jones and A.J. Thomasson (eds.). EUR 16232 EN, p.11-29. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

5 Annexes: Fact Sheets of the proposed criteria

Criterion 1 “Low temperature”

Authors: Guenther Fischer, Edmar Teixeira and Harrij van Velthuizen, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria,

Edited by: Jos Van Orshoven (K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and Jean-Michel Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy),

Agronomic importance

Low temperatures limit crop growth and development through the impact on important physiological processes such as photosynthesis and leaf appearance. Land in which thermal-time accumulation systematically is not sufficient for crops to complete the production cycle is unfavorable for agriculture.

Definition

Low temperature is defined as the condition in which crop performance or survival is compromised by temperatures during the growing period which are insufficient for optimal growth and development of crops.

In the context of less favourable areas for agriculture in Europe, low temperature is a characteristic of land for which thermal-time accumulation during the growing period is insufficient for plants to complete the production cycle.

Scientific background

Agricultural crops are able to grow and develop only within well defined ranges of temperature (Porter and Gawith, 1999). The most common agricultural crops in Europe are (i) C3 crops adapted to cool temperatures ranging from 5-30 o C (e.g. wheat, potato), C3 crops adapted to warm temperatures ranging from 15-35 o C (e.g. soybean, rice) and (iii) C4 crops adapted to moderately warm temperatures ranging from 10-35 o C (e.g. maize, sorghum) (FAO, 1978-81). These climatic thresholds are mostly explained by the impact of temperature on enzymatic activities that regulate the rates of important plant physiological processes, such as photosynthesis and leaf appearance (Bonhomme, 2000). Growth rates and yields are maximized when crops are grown near the species-specific optimal temperature (T opt ) but gradually decrease at lower temperatures until the base temperature (T b ) is reached, at which no development occurs. Similarly, at temperatures higher than T opt development rates decline until a critical temperature (T crit ), near lethal levels (Hodges, 1991). Negligible growth occurs for most agricultural crops at temperatures below 5 o C or above 35-40 o C (Porter and Semenov, 2005). When crops are grown under lower than optimal temperatures, yields can be reduced by various mechanisms (Porter and Gawith, 1999) including: limited light interception (e.g. due to slow leaf area expansion), inefficient conversion of intercepted light into biomass (i.e. reduced photosynthesis rates), or direct damage to plant tissues caused by early or late frosts.

To successfully complete the growth cycle and fully attain their yield potential at harvest, crops have to be able to reach full canopy expansion and pass through specific phenological stages such as germination, flowering and maturity (Hodges, 1991). The rate of progress towards each of these phenological stages is largely regulated by temperature (Jamieson et al., 1995; Bonhomme, 2000). This explains why the length of the growth cycle of crops is variable when expressed in ‘days’ from emergence to maturity but conservative when expressed in ‘thermal-time’ (degree-days, o Cd) (Hodges, 1991). Specific thermal-time accumulations are needed for the completion of each phenological stage, until crops complete an entire production cycle.

The combination of temperature thresholds and thermal-time accumulation requirements can be used to characterize land areas with temperature limitations.

Assessment

To assess low temperature as a land characteristic, the concepts of length of temperature growing period (LGP t , days) and thermal-time sums (TS b , degree days, o Cd) are used in combination.

Firstly, the length of the temperature growing period (LGP t5 ), i.e. the number of days with daily average temperatures (T avg ) above 5 o C is calculated for each year. The LGP t5 characterizes the days in which temperatures are conducive to crop growth.

Secondly, for the days within LGP t5 , thermal-time sums (TS b ), above a base temperature (T b ) of 5 o C, are calculated by accumulating the difference between daily T avg and T b .

Finally, calculated values 1 of LGP t5 and TS b are compared with reference thresholds for severe and very severe limiting conditions.

For this calculation, it is recommended to use data-sets with daily average temperature (T avg ) from time-series.

Values for severe and very severe threshold

Temperature thresholds and thermal requirements for plant development vary among crop species and cultivars (Hodges, 1991). For European conditions, thermal-time sum requirements can be used as a reference to delimit thresholds for the development of agricultural crops.

In general, optimal thermal-time requirement for most agricultural crops is above a TS 5 of 1500 o Cd (Boons-Prins et al. 1993). A TS 5 of 1200 o Cd coincides with the most northern distribution of cereal crops in Europe. Below this TS 5 threshold of 1200 o Cd, crops cannot grow because of very marginal thermal-time accumulation and increased risk of early and late frosts (Fischer G. et al. 2008 forthcoming).

Therefore

- Severely limiting low temperature is said to occur if LGP t5 is between 150-180 days or TS 5 is between 1200-1500 o Cd

- Very severely limiting low temperature is said to occur when LGP t5 is ≤150 days or TS 5 is ≤1200 o Cd (T b =5 o C).

In order to take account of between year variability of meteorological conditions, a probabilistic approach is required. It is proposed to use the 80% / 20% probability exeedance / non exceedance approach: if in 3 or more years out of 10, the threshold value for severe or very severe low temperature condition is not reached, the land is classified as being under (very) severe low temperature limitation.

A time series of daily meteorological data preferably over 30 (or more) recent years is required to assess the probability of exceedance.

Final remarks and conclusions

Low temperatures have an important impact on crop yield by limiting plant growth and development processes. Land areas where thermal-time sums are insufficient for crops to complete their production cycle are considered unfavorable for agriculture. This can be evaluated by using thresholds of thermal- time requirement.

References

Bonhomme, R. (2000). "Bases and limits to using "degree-day" units." European Journal of Agronomy 13(1): 1-10.

1 As a refinement, for computation of LGP t5 and TS b , one could estimate the likely start and end dates of the growing season. Start date may be calculated as the latest date of frost in spring based on a probability of non

exceedance equal to or larger than 8/10 (based on at least 30 years). End date may be derived as the earliest date of frost in autumn, again with a probability of exceedance equal to or larger than 8/10.

Boons-Prins, E. R., G. H. J. Koning, C. A. van Diepen and F. W. T. Penning de Vries (1993). Crop specific simulation parameters for yield forecasting across the European Community. Simulations Reports CABO-TT no. 32 , Joint Research Centre.

FAO (1978-81). Crop adaptability inventory. In: Report on the Agro-ecological Zones Project. World Soil Resources Report 48 . FAO, Rome, Italy.

Fischer G., Nachtergaele F., Prieler S., van Velthuizen H.T., Verelst L. and Wiberg D. (2008 forthcoming). Global Agro-ecological Zones Assessment (GAEZ 2007). IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy.

Hodges, H. (1991). Predicting crop phenology . Boston, U.S.A., CRC Press.

Jamieson, P. D., I. R. Brooking, J. R. Porter and D. R. Wilson (1995). "Prediction of leaf appearance in wheat: a question of temperature." Field Crops Research 41(1): 35-44.

Porter, J. and M. Semenov (2005). "Crop responses to climatic variation." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360(1463): 2021-2035.

Porter, J. R. and M. Gawith (1999). "Temperatures and the growth and development of wheat: a review." European Journal of Agronomy 10(1): 23-36.

Criterion 2 “Heat Stress”

Authors: Guenther Fischer, Edmar Teixeira and Harrij van Velthuizen, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria

Edited by: Jos Van Orshoven (K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and Jean-Michel Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy)

Agronomic importance

Episodes of high temperature, particularly during critical plant development stages drastically reduce yields of field crops. Land in Europe that is subjected systematically to one or more periods of continuous days within the growth period, for which maximum temperatures exceed 35 o C, must be recognised as less suitable for agriculture.

Definition

Heat stress is defined as the condition in which crop performance or survival is compromised by periods of exposure to high temperatures (Wheeler et al. 2000).

In the context of less favourable areas for agriculture in Europe, heat stress is a characteristic of land which is subjected to one or more periods of continuous days within the growing period, for which maximum daily temperature (T max ) exceeds 35 o C.

Scientific background

Temperature largely controls the rates of growth (e.g. photosynthesis) and development (e.g. leaf appearance, flowering) in crops (Hodges 1991). Heat stress occurs when the temperature experienced by the plant exceeds critical thresholds for optimal functioning of these physiological processes to operate (Porter and Semenov 2005). The temperatures conducive for plant growth and development range from 5 to 35 o C for the most common crop groups in Europe, with optimal yield performances obtained from 15 to 30 o C (Table 1).

Table 1. Temperatures conducive for growth and for optimal agronomic performance in the most common crop groups in Europe (FAO 1978-81).

Crop Group *|Growth temperatures ( o C)|Optimum temperatures ( o C)|Examples|

|Min|Max|Min|Max||

C3 I|5|30|15|20|Wheat, barley, potato, beet, rape.|

C3 II|15|35|25|30|Soybean, rice, cotton.|

C4 II|10|35|20|30|Maize, sorghum, millet.|

* Criteria based on crop photosynthetic pathway and optimal temperature regimes. Crop groups are adapted to cool (C3 I), warm (C3 II) or moderately warm (C4 II) conditions.

Warmer than optimal mean seasonal temperatures may limit photosynthesis rates and accelerate crop development (i.e. shorten crop cycle length) with consequent reduction in light interception and yield (Batts et al. 1997; Bonhomme 2000). Of particular importance, is the occurrence of high temperatures during critical phases of crop growth, notably the reproductive stage (Wheeler et al. 2000). Near the time of flowering, crops are particularly sensitive to high temperatures. Exposure to short episodes of high temperature during this thermal-sensitive period reduces the set of fruits and grains and limits grain filling. Possible impacts include a reduction in the number of flowers, number of pollens, pollen tube growth, pollen release, pollen viability and flower fertility (Prasad et al. 2006a). Overall, yield is more affected than total biomass accumulation which implies a lower harvest index in crops subjected to heat stress (Prasad et al. 2006b).

The impact of heat stress may be exacerbated in conditions of drought stress. This occurs when canopy evaporation is limited and there is an increase in the temperature of plant tissues.

Assessment

Heat stress as a land characteristic can be assessed by (i) comparing ambient temperatures with thresholds for optimal plant functioning and (ii) identifying the period for which these temperature thresholds are exceeded (e.g. Challinor et al. 2005). For several crops, temperatures above 35 o C were shown to cause damage to yield and reproductive development (Wheeler et al. 2000; Porter and Semenov 2005). The thermal-sensitive period usually spans from one to two weeks around flowering (Brammer et al. 1988).

Even short periods of exposure to high temperatures, to the order of days or hours, are sufficient to reduce crop yield significantly (Matsui and Omasa 2002). Therefore, to quantify heat stress, it is necessary to use data-sets with a time resolution sufficiently short to characterize peaks of temperature. For such, it is recommended to use historical time series-data containing ‘daily maximum’ temperatures (T max ) instead of, for example, averaged seasonal data or the use of mean temperatures (T mean ).

Values for severe and very severe threshold

Thresholds for heat stress have been identified for important crops including wheat (Ferris et al. 1998), rice (Matsui et al. 2000), brassicas (Young et al. 2004), tomato (Sato et al. 2004), barley (Wallwork et al. 1998) and soybean (Salem et al. 2007). These thresholds are different among crops and also vary within species, i.e. tolerant and sensitive cultivars were identified for several crops (e.g. Prasad et al. 2006b). In general, yield loss is observed at temperatures above 30 o C while the magnitude of damage increases with the period of exposure. Yield loss is usually severe above 35 o C increasing at higher temperatures until complete damage is observed at above 40-45 o C, near lethal temperatures (Porter and Gawith 1999; Challinor et al. 2005).

Therefore:

- Severe heat stress is said to occur when “one or more periods of at least 10 consecutive days with daily maximum temperatures above 35 o C” are observed;

- Very severe heat stress is said to occur when “one or more periods of at least 10 consecutive days with daily maximum temperature above 40°C” are observed.

In order to take account of between year variability of meteorological conditions, a probabilistic approach is required. It is proposed to use the 80% / 20% probability exeedance / non exceedance approach: if in 3 or more years out of 10, the threshold value for severe or very severe high temperature condition is reached, the land is classified as being under (very) severe heat stress limitation.

A time series of daily meteorological data preferably over 30 (or more) recent years is required to assess the probability of exceedance.

Final remarks and conclusions

Heat stress is an important constraint to crop production. Episodes of heat stress may become more frequent and widespread with global warming (Tebaldi et al. 2006). Water limitation may aggravate the impact of heat stress. Future selection and breeding of tolerant species and cultivars may minimize the impact of heat stress (Challinor et al. 2007).

References

Batts, G. R., J. I. L. Morison, R. H. Ellis, P. Hadley and T. R. Wheeler (1997). "Effects of CO 2 and temperature on growth and yield of crops of winter wheat over four seasons." European Journal of Agronomy 7(1-3): 43-52.

Bonhomme, R. (2000). "Bases and limits to using "degree-day" units." European Journal of Agronomy 13(1): 1-10.

Brammer, H., J. Antoine and H. Van Velthuizen (1988). Land resources appraisal of Bangladesh for agricultural development. Report on Agro-Ecological Regions of Bangladesh . FAO/UNDP. Rome.

Challinor, A. J., T. R. Wheeler, P. Q. Craufurd, C. A. T. Ferro and D. B. Stephenson (2007). "Adaptation of crops to climate change through genotypic responses to mean and extreme temperatures." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 119(1-2): 190-204.

Challinor, A. J., T. R. Wheeler, P. Q. Craufurd and J. M. Slingo (2005). "Simulation of the impact of high temperature stress on annual crop yields." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 135(1-4): 180-189.

FAO (1978-81). Crop adaptability inventory. In: Report on the Agro-ecological Zones Project. World Soil Resources Report 48 . FAO, Rome, Italy.

Ferris, R., R. H. Ellis, T. R. Wheeler and P. Hadley (1998). "Effect of High Temperature Stress at Anthesis on Grain Yield and Biomass of Field-grown Crops of Wheat." Ann Bot 82(5): 631-639.

Hodges, H. (1991). Predicting crop phenology . Boston, U.S.A., CRC Press.

Matsui, T. and K. Omasa (2002). "Rice ( Oryza sativa L.) Cultivars Tolerant to High Temperature at Flowering: Anther Characteristics." Ann Bot 89(6): 683-687.

Matsui, T., K. Omasa and T. Horie (2000). "High temperature at flowering inhibits swelling of pollen grains, a driving forve for theca dehiscence in rice ( Oriza sativa L.)." Plant Production Science 3(4): 430-434.

Porter, J. and M. Semenov (2005). "Crop responses to climatic variation." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360(1463): 2021-2035.

Porter, J. R. and M. Gawith (1999). "Temperatures and the growth and development of wheat: a review." European Journal of Agronomy 10(1): 23-36.

Prasad, P. V. V., K. J. Boote and J. L. H. Allen (2006a). "Adverse high temperature effects on pollen viability, seed-set, seed yield and harvest index of grain-sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] are more severe at elevated carbon dioxide due to higher tissue temperatures." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 139(3-4): 237-251.

Prasad, P. V. V., K. J. Boote, J. L. H. Allen, J. E. Sheehy and J. M. G. Thomas (2006b). "Species, ecotype and cultivar differences in spikelet fertility and harvest index of rice in response to high temperature stress." Field Crops Research 95(2-3): 398-411.

Salem, M. A., V. G. Kakani, S. Koti and K. R. Reddy (2007). "Pollen-Based Screening of Soybean Genotypes for High Temperatures." Crop Sci 47(1): 219-231.

Sato, S., M. M. Peet and R. G. Gardner (2004). "Altered flower retention and developmental patterns in nine tomato cultivars under elevated temperature." Scientia Horticulturae 101(1-2): 95-101.

Tebaldi, C., K. Hayhoe, J. Arblaster and G. Meehl (2006). "Going to the Extremes." Climatic Change 79(3): 185-211.

Wallwork, M. A. B., C. F. Jenner, S. J. Logue and M. Sedgley (1998). "Effect of High Temperature During Grain-filling on the Structure of Developing and Malted Barley Grains." Ann Bot 82(5): 587-599.

Wheeler, T. R., P. Q. Craufurd, R. H. Ellis, J. R. Porter and P. V. Vara Prasad (2000). "Temperature variability and the yield of annual crops." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 82(1-3): 159-167.

Young, L. W., R. W. Wilen and P. C. Bonham-Smith (2004). "High temperature stress of Brassica napus during flowering reduces micro- and megagametophyte fertility, induces fruit abortion, and disrupts seed production." J. Exp. Bot. 55(396): 485-495.

Criterion 3 “Soil drainage and flooding”

Author: David Rossiter, ITC, Enschede, the Netherlands

Contributor: Bob Jones, Cranfield University, United Kingdom,

Editor: Jos Van Orshoven (K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and Jean-Michel Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy)

Agronomic importance

Poor drainage reduces the space for the gaseous phase, in particular gaseous oxygen, in the rooting zone. It increases the incidence and severity of soil-borne pathogens and makes tillage impossible. A main additional effect of flooding on agriculture is to make the land inaccessible while flooding may also physically damage standing crops. Coastal flooding with brackish water can result in the same damage as salts in the soil.

Definition

Soil drainage refers to the maintenance of the gaseous phase in soil pores by removal (or non-addition) of water. In the FAO Guidelines for Land Evaluation (Rainfed agriculture) (FAO, 1983) it is referred to as LQ4 “Oxygen availability to roots (drainage)”.

A soil has internal drainage, i.e. the facility for removing excess water by gravity, and external drainage, i.e. the amount of water removed (or not added) by its position in the landscape with respect to contributing overland areas (runoff) or groundwater.

Flooding refers to the submergence of the land surface by water overflowing from rivers and streams or along tidal estuaries. The resulting temporary water bodies occupy flat areas adjoining these drainage systems, known as floodplains. Therefore flooding is a site, rather than a soil characteristic, and in the FAO Guidelines for Land Evaluation (Rainfed agriculture) (FAO 1983) it is referred to as LQ11 “Flood hazard”.

Scientific background

Surplus water in the rooting zone is normally the result of a high ground water table, following periods of heavy precipitation or flooding, for example during the wet winters characteristic of north west Europe, or a perched water table resulting from surplus water in the upper layer of the soil stagnating above a very slowly permeable or impermeable subsoil horizon. The latter type of soil water regime is quite common in the lowlands of England.

The main effect of poor drainage is to reduce the space for the gaseous phase, in particular gaseous oxygen, in the rooting zone. Crops suffer severely when their roots are deprived of gaseous oxygen. The notable exception is rice. The length of time without oxygen that causes severe damage varies among species.

A second effect is to increase the incidence and severity of soil-borne pathogens such as Pithium spp. fungi and root rotting bacteria such as Erwinia spp.

A third effect is to make tillage impossible, because machinery becomes bogged down or the soil structure is easily destroyed if tilled when too wet.

A main effect of flooding on agriculture is to make the land inaccessible, thus tillage and harvesting are impossible. All the effects of poor soil drainage also, their severity depend on the duration of flooding. Flood water must either evaporate or drain (internally) through the soil or runoff as overland flow. Water draining internally carries nutrients (e.g. nitrates) and sometimes pollutants, which can seep into the ground water. Flooding, if rapid may also physically damage standing crops, by flattening them or coating them with sediments. Coastal flooding with brackish water can damage the soil, turning it saline.

Surface water, whether from flooding or very high or perched water tables, must be allowed to thoroughly dry before the soil is trafficked or worked. In practice, this condition may not be fully realized. Any subsequent traffic and tillage commonly will degrade the soil, leading to compaction, massive structures and surface crusting.

Assessment

Ideally, drainage status is determined by monitoring wells (Daniels et al., 1971) or measurements of the soil redox potential. However this is impractical except at research sites. Therefore soil morphology is commonly used to assess drainage. These morphological indicators have been related to actual drainage status by research.

Drainage can be described as a natural drainage class that refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to those under which the soil developed (i.e. ignoring any artificial drainage). In the USDA-NRCS system (Soil Survey Division Staff 1993), there is no distinction made between internal and external drainage, so that soil drainage is determined by a combination of the internal saturated hydraulic conductivity, water table level, additional water from seepage, water gained or lost by runoff, evatranspiration and rainfall.

Relevant classes from Soil Survey Division Staff (1993) are:

- “ Somewhat poorly drained . Water is removed slowly so that the soil is wet at a shallow depth for significant periods during the growing season. The occurrence of internal free water commonly is shallow to moderately deep and transitory to permanent. Wetness markedly restricts the growth of mesophytic crops, unless artificial drainage is provided. The soils commonly have one or more of the following characteristics: low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity, a high water table, additional water from seepage, or nearly continuous rainfall.”

- “ Poorly drained : Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. The occurrence of internal free water is shallow or very shallow and common or persistent. Free water is commonly at or near the surface long enough during the growing season so that most mesophytic crops cannot be grown, unless the soil is artificially drained. The soil, however, is not continuously wet directly below plow-depth. Free water at shallow depth is usually present. This water table is commonly the result of low or very low saturated hydraulic conductivity of nearly continuous rainfall, or of a combination of these.

- “ Very poorly drained . Water is removed from the soil so slowly that free water remains at or very near the ground surface during much of the growing season. The occurrence of internal free water is very shallow and persistent or permanent. Unless the soil is artificially drained, most mesophytic crops cannot be grown. The soils are commonly level or depressed and frequently ponded. If rainfall is high or nearly continuous, slope gradients may be greater.”

Drainage status is also reflected in many soil classification systems. The USDA Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1999, 2003) describes the soil moisture regime for each soil individual as part of the soil family name. These are defined by the ground water level and the seasonal presence or absence of water held at tensions less than 1500 kPa in the defined moisture control section, under a crop or vegetation typical for the soil. The aquic moisture regime is a reducing regime in a soil that is virtually free of dissolved oxygen because it is saturated by water during some period when biological activity is possible. This is reflected in the soil morphology.

The World Reference Base (IUSS Working Group WRB 2006) does use the concept of soil moisture regimes per se , but defines several soil properties directly related to poor drainage, namely gleyic and stagnic features based on soil colour variations. These features are used to define Reference Groups (Gleysols and Stagnosols). Other reference groups are associated with poor internal drainage: the Planosols, Solonetz and Vertisols.

Flooding is described by its frequency (return period) and duration (time the water stays on the land). The USDA-NRCS (Soil Survey Division Staff 1993) classifies frequency as none, rare (1 to 5 times per 100 years), occasional (5 to 50 times), and common (>50 times), and duration as extremely brief (< 4 hours), very brief (4 – 48 hours), brief (2 – 7 days), long (7 days to 1 month), and very long. The FAO Guidelines for soil description (FAO, 2002) do not record flooding.

The World Reference Base (FAO-IUSS-ISRIC, 2006) includes the Fluvisol reference group for genetically young soils developed in recent alluvial deposits. However, there is no direct link to current flooding frequency or duration, although many Fluvisols under natural conditions are indeed flooded periodically.

Values for severe and very severe threshold

These thresholds identify land areas that are waterlogged and/or flooded for significant periods during the normal growing season and thus affect normal farming operations or crop yields. The very severe threshold is designed to identify soils that are too wet to allow normal farming operations for adapted crops, or which have a high risk of crop failure, either due to direct damage or prevention of normal farming operations, due to flooding. The severe threshold is designed to identify soils on which farming operations for adapted crops are possible, but with severe yield reductions due to late planting or poor tillage, crop damage by transient anoxic conditions or plant pathogens resulting from poor drainage, or a substantial risk of crop damage due to flooding.

Therefore:

- Soil drainage or flooding is said to be severely limiting if with regard to drainage the soil is classified as wet within 80 cm for over 6 months, but not wet within 40cm for over 11 months OR classified as poorly drained (soils are commonly wet for considerable periods; ground water table commonly <40 cm;

and/or with regard to flooding the land is occasionally flooded (5 to 50 times per 100 years).

- Soil drainage or flooding is said to be very severely limiting if with regard to drainage, the soil is wet within 40cm for over 11 months OR classified as very poorly drained (wet at shallow depths for long periods; ground water table is commonly <10 cm;

and/or if with regard to flooding the land is commonly flooded (>50 times per 100 years).

Final remarks and conclusions

Soil drainage (oxygen status) and flood hazard are two major constraints to agriculture, generally requiring expensive technical adaptations (artificial drainage, ditching, pumping, flood control); in that sense areas with these limitations can be considered ‘less favoured’ for agriculture. Such areas are often best left to seasonal pasture, specialty crops, or nature.

In case of very severe constraint, the short potential period of reasonable oxygenation in the shallow root zone, makes it impossible to plant, grow and harvest a crop. With an equal chance of flooding in a given year, the producer faces a high risk of crop failure.

Given severe constraint, poorly-drained soils can support only shallow-rooted crops, and only for limited periods, with a small window for tillage, growth and harvesting, without artificial drainage. The indicated flooding hazard can be tolerated but leads to a significant economic loss over the medium or long term.

In many areas of Europe with natural drainage problems, soils have been artificially drained, often for centuries. If these drainage works are considered now part of the landscape, the drained soil units should be evaluated as if they were better drained than without the installed drainage systems. Normally artificial drainage systems improve the water regime by at least one class.

Drainage classes may be inferred from soil classification or directly from soil morphology by national experts; however there is not always a direct relation between a taxonomic class (e.g. Gleysols) and actual drainage conditions; this is always an inference.

References

Daniels RB, Gamble EE, Nelson LA, 1971. Relations between soil morphology and water-table levels on a dissected North Carolina Coastal Plain surface. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 35, 781-784.

FAO, 1983. Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO, 2002. Guidelines for soil profile description (4th ed.). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO-IUSS-ISRIC, 2006. World reference base for soil resources 2006 (2nd ed.). World Soil Resources Report 103, 128pp. Rome: FAO.

Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993. Soil survey manual. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 18. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

Soil Survey Staff, 1999. Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys (2nd ed.). Agricultural Handbook 436. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

Soil Survey Staff, 2003. Keys to Soil Taxonomy (9th ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Addendum to Criterion 3 “Soil drainage and flooding”

Working note: Use of the “Field Capacity Day” concept for assessing the drainage criterion (still to be validated by experts).

Agronomic importance

“Field Capacity Day” concept can be used to plan land drainage schemes, assess workability and trafficability of land and estimate the potential grazing season (Jones and Thomasson (1985)). Provided allowance is made for soil properties, it can also be used as a measure of accessibility to land for machinery or livestock without causing damage to soil structure.

Definition

The “Field Capacity” term refers to the maximum amount of water which a soil retains solely under the influence of gravity. Its calculation has been documented by Smith and Trafford (1976) and has been long appreciated by agriculturalists and drainage engineers.

The term field capacity (FC) is used in the meteorological sense to mean the condition of zero soil moisture deficit rather than a specific water content or water potential (Webster and Beckett 1972).

Assessment

The fact sheet on drainage and flooding describes how soil drainage is generally determined i.e. through monitoring wells and/or soil classification systems where the soil moisture regime often is included for each soil individual of its soil name. Moreover, certain soils properties are also directly related to poor drainage. These are the more common approaches for assessing soil moisture excess related to drainage. However, waterlogging can also be assessed through a soil water balance to estimate the number of days at “Field Capacity”, with the use of soil hydraulic properties and weather data.

The factsheet on criterion 7, Soil moisture balance, suggest the calculation of the LGP for an indication of aridity. However, the same tool can be considered to estimate the excess water during the growing period for situations when rainfall exceeds potential evapotranspiration, P>ETo. A standard soil water budget calculation with the Thornthwaite (1948) method can be applied for assessing the number of days that the soil is too wet for agricultural activities, i.e. at or above field capacity. According to Jones and Thomasson (1985), this approach, occurrence of wet conditions tend to be underestimated if “excess” is not considered to remain available to re-infiltrate in the soil, thus to feed wetness during the following days. To account for re-infiltration of excess water, one may allow the soil to absorb an additional amount of water above field capacity, i.e. to increase the available water capacity (AWC) parameter in the Thornthwaite water budget method. The maximum amount that can be absorbed is up to soil saturation. However, this tends to overestimate high soil moisture conditions for most cases. A practical intermediate solution might be to adopt an extra amount between field capacity and saturation. For instance, 10 mm soil storage in excess of field capacity has been used for British 1 and Irish conditions 2 . A crop growth model can also be used for estimating waterlogging.

Values for a severe and very severe threshold

See drainage factsheet.

References

1 Earl, R. (1997) Prediction of trafficability and workability from soil moisture deficit. Soil and tillage research 40, 155-168.

2 Schulte et al (2006) Agriculture, meterology and water quality in Ireland: A regional evaluation of pressures and pathways of nutrient loss to water. Biology and Environment: proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 106 B, No2. 117-133.

Jones R.J.A., Thomasson A.J., 1985. An agroclimatic databank for England and Wales. Soil Survey – Technical monograph n# 16 – Harpenden editor.

Smith L. P., Trafford B. D.,1976. Climate and drainage. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish Fd, Lond. No# 34.

Thornthwaite,C.W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical Review 38:55-94

Thornthwaite, C. W. and Mather, J. R. The water balance. 1955. No. 8, Centerton NJ, Laboratory of Climatology.

Webster R., Beckett P. H. T., 1972. Matric suctions to which soils in South Central England drain. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 78, 379-87.

Criterion 4 “Soil texture and Stoniness”

Author: David Rossiter, ITC, Enschede, the Netherlands

Contributor: Bob Jones, Cranfield University, United Kingdom

Edited by: Jos Van Orshoven (K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and Jean-Michel Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy)

Agronomic importance

Soil texture is directly related to water-holding capacity and nutrient supply. Texture affects workability (ease of tillage), water infiltration, runoff, and movement within the soil (both down and up).

Definition

The texture of a soil refers to the relative proportions of different-sized soil particles in the bulk soil. It is more correctly called the particle-size distribution. Conventionally it is divided into two parts: coarse fragments > 2 mm effective diameter, and the fine soil. Both parts are further subdivided. Commonly-used classifications are from the USDA-NRCS (Soil Survey Division Staff 1993) and the FAO (FAO 2006).

Another definition of soil texture is the feel or perceived resistance to various manipulations of loose soil samples in the field. This perception is mostly controlled by particle-size distribution, as well as the type of clay, the amount of organic matter (mostly in surface horizons) and the presence of calcium carbonate. The difficulty with this definition is the subjective field determination, using descriptive keys (e.g. Table 25 in FAO 2002), although experienced field scientists generally agree with each other and can estimate the clay and silt contents with considerable accuracy (Hodgson et al., 1976).

Scientific background

Soil texture is a soil characteristic which plays an important role in many land qualities. In the FAO Guidelines for Land Evaluation (Rainfed agriculture) (FAO 1983) it is important in LQ3 “Moisture availability”, LQ4 “Oxygen availability to roots”, LQ5 “Nutrient availability”, LQ6 “Nutrient retention”, LQ7 “Rooting conditions”, LQ16 “Soil workability”, LQ24 “Erosion hazard” and can play a role in several others. It is quite difficult to isolate the effects of soil texture without reference to these land qualities.

Soil texture is directly related to water-holding capacity and nutrient supply. Soil colloids (clays) hold almost all the nutrients supplied by the mineral soil, whether the products of weathering or as added fertilizers or manures. Pores hold water hygroscopically at different tensions against plant extraction and gravity; the size of pores is directly related to the particle-size distribution. Texture controls soil structure, affecting workability or ease of cultivation (Thomasson and Jones, 1989), water infiltration, runoff, and movement within the soil (both down and up); although the type of clay mineral also has an important effect.

The silt and very fine sand fraction is associated with a high susceptibility to accelerated water and wind erosion (Hudson 1995). Soils with high proportions of these fractions require intensive soil conservation practices.

Coarse fragments directly reduce the volume of soil exploitable by roots, thus reducing. water-holding capacity and nutrient supply. Sufficiently large coarse fragments prevent tillage, and even smaller coarse fragments wear on tillage implements. However, coarse fragments can help aerate and heat the soil, provide paths for rapid water entry, and slow runoff.

An important aspect of “texture” is the physical reaction of the soil to wetting and drying. This is recognized in soil classification systems such as the World Reference Base (WRB) (IUSS Working Group WRB 2006) by defined soil properties, in particular “vertic” properties. Vertic properties severely limit tillage options: the soil changes from hard and dry to plastic and sticky over a narrow range of water contents, leaving only a small window for conventional tillage. Shrinking and swelling during the growing season can also damage plant roots (Wilding et al. 1988).

Assessment

Textural class of the fine earth and coarse fragments are both expressed as classes defined by the FAO (FAO, 2006), based on the proportions of the particle-size separates (fractions) in the soil sample.

(...PICT...)

Figure 1: FAO Texture triangle

Coarse fragments (> 2 mm) are described by their abundance (volume %), size, shape, state of weathering, and nature. Abundances are none, very few (2 % v/v upper limit), few (5 %), common (15%), many (40 %), abundant (80 %), and dominant (100 %). Sizes are fine gravels (upper limit 0.6 cm largest dimension), gravels (2 cm), coarse gravels (6 cm), stones (20 cm), boulders (60 cm) and large boulders (200 cm); larger fragments are considered continuous rock. Coarse fragments are generally estimated in the field, except for gravels, which are collected with the soil sample and weighed in the laboratory (van Reeuwijk 2002).

Fine earth (<2mm) is defined by the relative proportions (by weight) of sand, silt and clay as determined in the laboratory (e.g. van Reeuwijk 2002). The upper limits used here correspond to the FAO norms (FAO 2006) and are 2000, 63, and 2 micrometers. This differs from the other most commonly used system, USDA-NRCS (Soil Survey Division Staff 1993) which uses 50 instead of 63 micrometers to separate sand from silt. Other national systems may use different limits but it is possible to harmonise data using transfer functions. Laboratory methods, while apparently objective, are subject to relatively wide discrepancies even among certified laboratories (van Reeuwijk 1984).

Vertic properties are defined by the WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB 2006) as having either (1) >= 30 % clay throughout a thickness of at least 15 cm and one or both of the following: (a) slickensides or wedge-shaped aggregates; or (b) cracks >= 1 cm wide that open and close periodically; or (2) a coefficient of linear expansion (COLE) of 0.06 or more averaged over depth of 100 cm from the soil surface. Cracks and slickensides are observed in the field; COLE is measured in the laboratory (Dane et al. 2002).

Values for severe and very severe threshold

Over 40% coarse fragments reduce water-holding capacity by at least 40%, exacerbating seasonal droughts in most European climates. In addition, coarse fragments damage tillage equipment whereas rock outcrops and boulders prevent tillage altogether. Coarse sand has almost no water-holding capacity, due to the large pores, and almost no nutrient holding or supplying capacity such that normal fertilization practices are ineffective. Heavy clays are difficult to cultivate and, although the available water capacity is neither large nor small, the water is held at large suctions (high tension) making it difficult for plant roots to extract it. Most clay soils also have very slow permeability so that excess water ponds on the soil surface after even moderate rains rather than draining downwards through the soil profile. Silts are very susceptible to water and wind erosion and difficult to protect against these processes of soil loss. Vertic properties limit tillage options and may result in direct physical damage to plant roots on wetting and drying.

Therefore:

- Soil texture is said to be severely limiting if any of: (1) 15 - 40% volume of coarse fragments of any kind in topsoil; or (2) average texture class of rooting zone is (a) unsorted or medium sand, coarse loamy sand, (b) heavy clay (> 60% clay); or (3) organic soil 1 as defined with organic matter (>30%) of more than 40 cm either extending down from the surface or taken cumulatively within the upper 80 cm of the soil (FAO Problem soil data base); or (4) texture class of clay, silty clay, or sandy clay with vertic properties as defined by the WRB (2006).

- Soil texture is said to be very severely limiting if any of: (1) > 40% volume of coarse fragments of any kind in topsoil; or (2) any proportion of rock outcrops, boulders or large boulders within 15 cm of the surface;

Final remarks and conclusions

Soil texture is a major determinant of soil suitability for any land use, as evidenced in its influence on many land qualities. The fairly extreme textures selected for the thresholds ensure that areas so identified are indeed less favorable for conventional agriculture.

It should be recognized that texture interacts strongly with water holding capacity (available water capacity of the soil) and climate, such that soil moisture deficits are often associated with textural limitations. Stony or coarse-textured soils in cool, cloudy climates with regular small rain showers may suffer moisture deficits; conversely, loamy soils in hot, cloudless conditions with widely-spaced and irregular rainfall may show strong water deficit. Additionally, effective rooting depth interacts directly with texture limitations to determine the available water capacity of the soil. A water-balance model incorporating actual rainfall and solar radiation, a crop calendar with growth-stage specific coefficients, and available water capacity of the soil provide an objective basis for the estimation of water deficits.

Different types of clay minerals, having similar particle size, have greatly different nutrient-holding capacity. Soil structure (aggregation of the fines) can have a large effect on effective pore-size distribution and hence water-holding capacity. Organic matter can supply nutrients and hold water. All of these affect the tilt of the soil.

1 Organic soils are very fragile ecosystems and improper management can drastically affect them (mineralization of organic matter). Moreover, they act as organic carbon pools and play an important role in carbon sequestration; therefore they should be properly treated, preferably left in their natural condition.

References

Cline MG (1944): Principles of soil sampling. Soil Science, 58(4), 275-288.

Dane JH, Topp GC, Campbell GS (2002): Methods of soil analysis. Part 4, Physical methods. Madison, Wis.: Soil Science Society of America.

FAO (1983): Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Deckers, J.A., Nachtergaele, F.O. and Spaargaren, O.C. (Eds.) (1998): World Reference Base for Soil Resources: Introduction. First edition. ISSS, ISRIC, FAO, Acco Leuven.

FAO (2006): Guidelines for soil profile description (4th ed.). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 97pp.

IUSS Working Group WRB (2006): World reference base for soil resources 2006 (2nd ed.). World Soil Resources Report 103. Rome: FAO.

Hodgson, J.M., Hollis, J.M., Jones, R.J.A. and Palmer, R.C. (1976). A comparison of field estimates and laboratory analyses of the silt and clay contents of some west Midland soils. J. Soil Sci. 27. 411- 19.

Hudson N (1995): Soil conservation (3rd ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Soil Survey Division Staff (1993): Soil survey manual. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 18. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

Thomasson, A.J.and Jones, R.J.A. (1989). Land evaluation at regional scale. In: Land qualities in space and time (eds. J. Bouma and A.K. Bregt). 231-240, Pudoc, Wageningen NL.

van Reeuwijk LP (1984): Laboratory Methods and Data Exchange Program for Soil Characterization. A report on the pilot round. Part I: CEC and texture. ISRIC Technical Paper 6. Wageningen: ISRIC.

van Reeuwijk LP (Ed.) (2002): Procedures for soil analysis (6th ed.). Wageningen: ISRIC.

Wilding LP, Puentes R, Texas A & M University System., United States. Soil Management Support Services. (1988): Vertisols : their distribution, properties, classification, and management. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Printing Center.

Criterion 5 “Rooting Depth”

Author:David Rossiter, ITC, Enschede, the Netherlands

Contributor:Bob Jones, Cranfield University, United Kingdom

Editor:Jos Van Orshoven (K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and Jean-Michel Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy)

Agronomic importance

Roots grow into the soil to provide a physical anchor for the plant, and to extract soil-bound water and nutrients. For annual grain crops and grasses, the anchoring function does not require great depth (except for tall varieties of maize); the first 10 cm or so provide enough stability. However, water is rapidly exhausted from shallow depths by the growing plant. Potential evapotranspiration rates of 1 to 4 mm water per day, combined with a typical available water capacity of 150 mm water per vertical meter of soil profile, imply that water will soon be exhausted in shallow soils.

Rooting depth is generally constrained by coherent hard rock or hardpans (dense soil layers).

Physical limitations to rooting depth are also impediments to normal tillage, such that if plant roots cannot grow easily, it is unlikely that the plough can cut easily into the soil. Standard tillage depth is 15 to 25 cm.

Definition

Rooting depth is the maximum depth from the soil surface to where most of the plant roots can extend during a growing season. In the FAO Guidelines for Land Evaluation (Rainfed agriculture) (FAO 1983) it is referred to as LQ7 “Rooting conditions …. for the development of an effective root system”. In the current definition, we restrict ourselves to the soil characteristic “rooting depth”, defined both by the effective soil depth above any barrier to root extension, excluding impediments to root extension as such compact (massive) structure.

Scientific background

Provided there is no barrier to root extension, in the form of hard rock or a cemented (pan) layer, most crop plants roots extend to depths in the range 60cm to 1.2m, although in some cases rooting can be deeper, for example sugar beet 140cm (Hall et al. , 1977; Jones et al. , 2000). Some perennial plants, particularly in arid area s, can exploit the soil to much greater depths (5-10m), us ually to extract water.

(...PICT...)[after Russell, 1971][after Russell, 1971]|

Figure 1 Distribution of roots in the soil compared with uptake of nutrients

With a physical rooting depth < 15 cm, normal tillage is impossible and even short dry periods will cause severe water stress.

With a physical rooting depth < 30 cm, normal tillage to 15 cm is marginal. If the representative depth is 30 cm within a field, it almost certain that the depth of soil in parts of the field will be less than 30cm, thus creating conditions that would damage tillage implements. Water stress in such shallow soils is likely to occur in most environments with an actively-growing crop. For example, a 30 cm deep soil with a typical available water capacity of 17% v/v can store a maximum of 51 mm water available to plant roots; this will be exhausted within 8 to 16 days under typical evapotranspirative demands (3 to 6 mm d -1 ) of grain crops in temperate climates (Olejnik et al. 2001). However, stress will occur earlier as plants roots have to work harder and harder to extract water as the wilting point is approached. This is an important consideration because periods without rain during the growing season can be expected in much of Europe.

Water deficit interacts with rooting depth and climate, mediated by available water capacity of the soil. Shallow soils in cool, cloudy climates with regular small rain showers may show little or no water deficit. Conversely, deep soils in hot, cloudless climates, with widely-spaced irregular rainfall, may suffer large water deficits. Furthermore, a shallow sandy soil holds less water than a silty or loamy soil of the same depth. A water-balance model, incorporating actual rainfall and solar radiation, a crop calendar with growth-stage specific coefficients, and available water capacity of the soil, can give objective water deficit data. However, since the decision has been taken to use simple soil parameters rather than using crop specific information, rooting depth is used as a surrogate.

Assessment

During routine field survey, rooting depth is typically assessed by augering. The observed depths are then interpolated with reference to the landscape structure to produce rooting depth estimates for land areas or map units.

Values for severe and very severe threshold

- Severe: Physical rooting depth: 15 - 30cm:

- Very severe: Physical rooting depth: < 15 cm

Final remarks and conclusions

Shallow rooting depth is a serious constraint for conventional agriculture, adversely affecting crop growth (nutrient and water are limiting) and restricting tillage operations necessary to cultivate the soil. Therefore, shallow soils can certainly be considered ‘less favoured’ for conventional agriculture.

It is beyond doubt that a rooting depth of < 15 cm is very severely limiting to crop growth. Even deeper soils can have severe or even very severe root development problems due to massive or platy structure, vertic properties, and chemical environment. So not all soils without this limitation as here evaluated have in fact satisfactory rooting conditions.

References

ESB Scientific Committee, 2001. Georeferenced soil database for Europe: Manual of Procedures (European Soil Bureau Resarch Report 5; EUR 18092 EN ). Ispra, Italy: European Soil Bureau.

FAO, 1983. Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Hall, D.G.M., Reeve, M.J., Thomasson, A.J., Wright, V.F., 1977. Water retention, porosity and density of field soils. Soil Survey Technical Monograph No. 9, Harpenden, UK, 75pp.

Jones, R.J.A., Zdruli, P. and Montanarella, L. (2000). The estimation of drought risk in Europe from soil and climatic data. In: Drought and Drought Mitigation in Europe. J.V. Vogt and F. Somma (eds.): 133-146. Kluwer Academic Publishers. the Netherlands.

Olejnik J, Eulenstein F, Kedziora A, Werner A, 2001. Evaluation of a water balance model using data for bare soil and crop surfaces in Middle Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 106(2), 105-116.

Russell, R.S. (1971). Root systems and nutrition. In: Potential Crop Production, P.E. Waring and J.P. Cooper (eds), p.101-116. Heinemann Educational Books, London.

Criterion 6.1 “Soil salinity”

Author: Freddy Nachtergaele, FAO, Rome, Italy

Contributor: Bob Jones, Cranfield University, United Kingdom

Edited by: J Van Orshoven (K.U.Leuven, Belgium) and JM Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy)

Agronomic importance

With regard to agriculture, the consequences of soil salinity include:

- Significant losses of productivity, with some land entirely out of production. With increasing soil salinity, plants always find it more difficult to extract water from the altered soils. Most normal crop and pasture plants are not highly salt-tolerant and will eventually die out under saline conditions;

- Damaged soil structure and increasing content of toxic substances that may be limiting to plant growth;

- More serious soil erosion, both by wind and by water, due to worsening soil structure and reducing vegetation cover.

Definition

Salinity is the presence of soluble salt in the land surface, in soil or rocks, or dissolved in water in rivers or groundwater. Salinity can develop naturally, but where human intervention has disturbed natural ecosystems, the movement of salt into rivers and onto land has been accelerated. Soil salinity refers to the total amount of soluble salt in soil.

In the context of less favourable areas for agriculture in Europe, soil salinity is a characteristic of land for which the total amount of soluble salt in soil is too high for plants to perform or survive.

Scientific background

Soil salinity may impact on agriculture, water quality, public infrastructure and urban households and on biodiversity and the environment.

Dryland salinity occurs where there is removal or loss of native vegetation, and its replacement with crops and pastures that have shallower roots. This results in more water reaching the groundwater system. The groundwater rises to near the surface in low-lying areas. It carries dissolved salts from the soil and bedrock material through which it travels. As saline groundwater comes close to the soil surface (within 2m), salt enters the plant root zone. Even where the groundwater does not bring much salt with it, the waterlogging of the plant root zone alone can damage or kill vegetation.

As soil salinity levels increase, plants extract water less easily from soil, aggravating water stress conditions. High soil salinity can also cause nutrient imbalances, result in the accumulation of elements toxic to plants, and reduce water infiltration if the level of one salt element -sodium- is high.

There is a large amount of literature on crop responses to salinity levels and extensive research has been undertaken, particularly in dryland countries (USA and Australia). A selected list of references is given below.

Assessment

Soil salinity is determined by measuring the electrical conductivity of a solution extracted from a water-saturated soil paste. Salinity is abbreviated as EC e ( E lectrical C onductivity of the e xtract) with units of deci-siemens per meter (dS/m).

Values for severe and very severe threshold

Salinity tolerance is influenced by many plant, soil, and environmental factors and their interrelationships. Generally, fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals are more salt sensitive than forage or field crops. In addition, certain varieties, cultivars, or root stalks may tolerate higher salt levels than others. Plants are more sensitive to high salinity during seedling stages, immediately after transplanting, and when subject to other (e.g., disease, insect, nutrient) stresses. A general response list is given in Table 1.

Table 1. General guidelines for plant response to soil salinity.|

Salinity (EC e , dS/m)|Plant response|

0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 above 16|mostly negligible growth of sensitive plants may be restricted growth of many plants is restricted only tolerant plants grow satisfactorily only a few, very tolerant plants grow satisfactorily|

Although crop response to soil salinity is crop specific, overall there are good arguments to accept that:

- Levels over 4dS/m severely affect many plants while

- Levels over 16dS/m very severely affect many plants so that land characterized by such salinity levels are excluded for most agricultural uses.

Final remarks and conclusions

Although excessive soil salinity in the EU is constrained to zones in Hungary, Romania and Spain, its effects are very real.

References (not cited)

Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management. 1990 K.K. Tanji, Editor, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, N.Y.

Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. 1954. USDA (Handbook 60).

Brinkman, R., 1980. Saline and sodic soils. In: Land reclamation and water management, p. 62-68. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI), Wageningen, The Netherlands.

FAO, 1988: Salt-affected soils and their management, Soil Bulletin # 39. FAO, Rome

FAO, 1999: Soil salinity assessment- methods and interpretation of electrical conductivity measurements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper # 57. FAO, Rome.

Proceedings Trans-National Meeting, (1997). Salinity as a Factor for Agricultural Productivity in the Mediterranean Basin. INRC-ONR-CIHEAM publication. Naples.

Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. US Dept. Agric. Handbook No. 60. USDA. Washington, D. C.

Szabolcs, I. (Ed.) (1971). European Solonetz Soils and Their Reclamation. Akadémiai Kiadó. Budapest.

Szabolcs, I. (1974). Salt- Affected Soils in Europe. Martinus Nijhoff - the Hague and RISSAC Budapest.

Criterion 6.2 “Soil Sodicity”

(...PICT...)

Agronomic importance

Soil sodicity has two main effects on soils and indirectly on its agricultural capacity to produce. Note that sodicity effects are often indirect as they affect vital soil properties rather than crop growth itself.

1. Sodic soils are prone to waterlogging. Sodicity at the soil surface results in soil crusting and decreased hydraulic conductivity and available rooting depth. Consequently soils become prone to water logging. If sodicity occurs below the root zones of plants, its effect on crop productivity may be less apparent, but it can still cause significant problems. For example, in a high rainfall area on sloping land, subsurface water will flow over the sodic layer and be lost in lateral drainage. On flatter land, the sodic layer may not permit water to drain, leading to waterlogging at the surface.

2. Sodic soils erode easily . Sodic topsoils in dry regions are subject to dust storms. Sodic soils on sloping land are also subject to water erosion, which means that important fertile topsoil is lost from agricultural land. When water flows in channels or rivulets, soil is washed away along these lines forming furrows called rills. In some cases, even larger channels of soil removal, called gullies, develop. In other situations where only the subsoil is sodic on sloping land, subsurface water flowing over this sodic layer will create tunnels, leaving cavities that eventually collapse to form gullies.

3. General effects. In Australia sodicity is estimated to costs agriculture as much as $2 billion each year in lost production. And its impacts extend to water catchments, infrastructure facilities and the environment. Run-off from sodic soils carries clay particles into waterways and reservoirs causing water turbidity, or cloudiness. The effects of turbidity, and its removal, are very costly for industrial and domestic water users. Turbidity also causes environmental problems in rivers and wetlands. In addition, run-off from sodic soils is more likely to carry higher levels of nitrogen and phosphate into waterways and reservoirs. These are the nutrients that contribute to algal blooms, another significant environmental problem.

Definition

Sodicity refers to the presence of a high proportion of adsorbed sodium in the clay fraction of soils. Sodic soils are normally characterized by a dense, strongly structured, clay illuviation horizon that has a high proportion of adsorbed sodium ions.

In the context of less favorable areas for agriculture in Europe, soil sodicity is a characteristic of land for which the proportion of adsorbed sodium in the soil clay fraction is too high for plants to perform or survive.

Scientific background

In sodic soils , much of the chlorine has been washed away, leaving behind sodium ions (sodium atoms with a positive charge) attached to tiny clay particles in the soil. As a result, these clay particles lose their tendency to stick together when wet – leading to unstable soils which may erode or become impermeable to both water and roots.

Assessment

Soil sodicity is determined by measuring the exchangeable sodium proportion of the cation exchange capacity (ESP – Exchangeable Sodium Percentage) or by comparing the soluble sodium proportion with the sum of soluble Calcium and Magnesium in a soil solution (SAR – Sodium Adsorption Ratio).

(...PICT...)

ESP = exchangeable Na x 100 / CEC (Na and CEC in meq/100 g soil)

Values for severe and very severe threshold

Sodicity tolerance is influenced by many plant, soil, and environmental factors and their interrelationships. As the effect is often indirect it is difficult to suggest precise thresholds. The effect of exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) on the yield, chemical composition, protein and oil content and uptake of nutrients by groundnut showed that ESP over 15 delayed germination and emergence of flowers. There was continuous decrease in dry matter yield at 30 and 60 days of growth, grain and straw yield after harvest and protein, oil and kernel percent with increase in soil ESP. A 50% reduction in groundnut yield was observed at an ESP of 20. The uptake of all the nutrients decreased with increase in soil ESP. On the other hand cotton experiments showed relatively little effect of sodicity, until levels over ESP 25 are reached.

Whilst an ESP of six was proposed by Northcote and Skene (1972) to be the lower limit of soil sodicity, values of five (van Beekom et al ., 1953) and two (Mitchell, 1976) have been suggested to cause a deleterious effect on soil structure. Spontaneous clay dispersion occurred in Ca-Na aggregates at an ESP of five, but was observed in Mg-Na samples when the ESP was only 3 (Emerson and Bakker, 1973).

Given the interactions with other factors there are few scientific studies that isolate ESP as a single causal factor for yield decline (see above for some specific ones). However, overall soils with sodic problems, in particular when ESP levels over 15 are reached have generally characteristics such that they should be avoided for any intensive agricultural practices.

Therefore:

- Severe soil sodicity is set to an ESP > 6 but <=15 while

- Very severe soil sodicity is set to ESP > 15

Final remarks and conclusions

Although severe and very severe soil sodicity in the EU is constrained to zones in Hungary, Romania and Spain, its effects are very real.

References (cited and not cited)

Emerson, W.W. and Bakker, A.C., 1973: The comparative effects of exchangeable calcium, magnesium, and sodium on some physical properties of red-brown earth subsoils. II. The spontaneous dispersion of aggregates in water. Australian Journal of Soil Research 11, 151-157.

Leeper, G.W. and Uren, N.C., 1993: `Soil Science: an introduction'. (Fifth Edition). Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

Mitchell, J.K., 1976: `Fundamentals of soil behaviour'. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.

Northcote, K.H. and Skene, J.K.M., 1972: `Australian soils with saline and sodic properties'. CSIRO Australia, Division of Soils Soil Publication No. 27.

Quirk, J.P., 2001: The significance of the threshold and turbidity concentrations in relation to sodicity and microstructure. Australian Journal of Soil Research 39, 1185-1217.

Rengasamy, P. and Churchman, G.J., 1999: Cation exchange capacity, exchangeable cations and sodicity. In Peverill, K.I., Sparrow, L.A. and Reuter, D.J., (eds) `Soil Analysis: an Interpretation Manual'. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, 147-157.

Rengasamy, P. and Sumner, M.E., 1998: Processes involved in sodic behaviour. In Sumner, M.E. and Naidu, R., (eds) `Sodic soils - distribution, properties, management and environmental consequences'. Oxford University Press, New York, 35-50.

Sumner, M.E., 1993: Sodic soils: new perspectives. Australian Journal of Soil Research 31, 683-750.

Sumner, M.E., Rengasamy, P. and Naidu, R. 1998: Sodic soils: a reappraisal. In Sumner, M.E. and Naidu, R. (eds) `Sodic Soils - Distribution, Properties, Management and Environmental Consequences'. Oxford University Press, New York, 3-17.

van Beekom, C.W.C., van den Berg, C., de Boer, Th.A., van der Molen, W.H., Verhoeven, B., Westerhof, J.J., Zuur, A.J., 1953: Reclaiming land flooded with salt water. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 1, 153-163 and 225-244.

Criterion 6.3 “Soil gypsum content”

(...PICT...)

Agronomic importance

Many factors affect plant growth in gypsiferous soils, including gypsum content within the root zone, depth to a gypsic layer, depth to impermeable layers, crop tolerance level and gypsum solubility. Also physical properties are often unfavorable, causing low water availability, slaking of loamy top soils, piping and collapse of irrigation canals. In soils with gypsum, almost all crops show deficiency of most plant nutrients, in particular phosphorus and micronutrients.

Definition

Gypsiferous soils are soils that contain sufficient quantities of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) to interfere with plant growth (FAO,1990).

In the context of less favourable areas for agriculture in Europe, gypsum content is a characteristic of land for which the amount of gypsum in soil is too high for plants to perform or even survive.

Scientific background

Generally gypsum soils are located in dry climates and are relatively unproductive. They are considered marginal for crop production and are primarily used for livestock grazing, and wildlife habitat. The soils are droughty and infertile and support uniquely adapted plant communities.

Gypsiferous soils are found in arid and semi-arid areas on gypsiferous rocks and sediments of different origin, where rainfall is insufficient to leach the gypsum out of the soil mantle. They usually occur in the same regions as calcareous soils but are much less widespread.

Crops can be classified according to their sensitivity to gypsum: (1) tobacco is sensitive; (2) cotton, groundnut, potato and sunflower are semi-sensitive; (3) broad beans, sugar beet, sorghum, corn, soybean and sesame are semi-tolerant; (4) alfalfa, trifolium, wheat, barley, lentil, oat, tomato and onions are tolerant. When the gypsum content in the root zone is more than 40%, land is considered unsuitable for cropping.

Van Alphen and de los Rios Romero (1971) conclude that up to 2 percent gypsum in the soil favours plant growth, between 2 and 25 percent has little or no adverse effect if in powdery form, but more than 25 percent can cause substantial reduction in yields. They suggest that reductions are due in part to imbalanced ion ratios, particularly K:Ca and Mg:Ca ratios. Hernando et al. (1963, 1965) studied the effect of gypsum on the growth of corn and wheat by varying the gypsum level in the soil up to 75 percent. They show that high levels of gypsum caused poor growth of corn, especially as the soil moisture was maintained at 80 percent of field capacity. However, wheat showed minimum growth where the soil contained 25 percent gypsum at all soil moisture levels ranging from 15 to 100 percent of field capacity. Akhvlediani (1962) concludes in general, that agricultural production on gypsiferous soils is not affected when the gypsum content is between 15 and 30 percent. Bureau and Roederer (1960), report that 30 percent gypsum content in soils of Tunisia is toxic to plant growth. Van Alphen and de los Rios Romero (1971) state, from field observations in the Ebro Valley of Spain, that plant growth is reduced where the gypsum content exceeds 20 to 25 percent.

From intensive field observations of gypsiferous soils in Iraq, Smith and Robertson (1962) found that root growth was inhibited where the gypsum content of soil was over 10 percent. This is apparently because of the poor transmission of air and water caused by poor structure. They also found that soils containing more than 25 percent gypsum in the rooting zone give poor growth. In the spring, wheat crops wilt on shallow gypsiferous soils when other crops on deeper soils show no signs of distress. Roots do not penetrate the gypsum layer, even when it is quite wet. Kovda (1954) and other workers observe that plant roots do not penetrate a soil layer containing 25 percent of gypsum or more. Boyadgiev (1974) notes that the presence of well-crystallized gypsum within the first metre of soil, affects the performance of cotton crops significantly. Boyadgiev (1974) also noted that crops such as alfalfa could grow very well and give high yields even in soils containing up to 50 percent of powdery gypsum as long as no gypsic layer impeding root elongation and extension is present in the soil profile at shallow depth. Similar effects have been noted by Amami et al. (1967) in the oasis at Tozeur in Tunisia, where good yields of alfalfa and date palms were obtained in the highly gypsiferous soils. Similar results were obtained in the Ebro Valley of Spain with crops such as alfalfa, wheat and apricots.

It appears from the above results that the gypsum content of soils is only one of several factors which affect plant growth and yield of crops. The other factors are:

a) The depth of the topsoil over a gypsic layer;

b) The hardness and degree of crystallization of the gypsic layer;

c) The total and active calcium carbonate contents;

d) The availability of plant nutrients and moisture content in the root zone;

e) The type of crops grown and their relative tolerance to gypsum;

f) The drainage conditions and salinity of the soil.

Assessment

Gypsum is determined by the differential water loss method which estimates the gypsum percentage from the loss of water in the soil sample between 70 and 90°C. It can also be estimated with gravimetric determinations of precipitated BaSO 4.

Values for severe and very severe threshold

As can be seen from the above, there are many factors which make the use of a single threshold debatable. Overall results would indicate that apart from special crops (certain fruit trees), gysiferous soils

- present a severe limitation to crop production once the gypsum percentage exceeds 15 % while

- more than 40% of gypsum constitutes a very severe limitation for most crops.

Final remarks and conclusions

Although severe and very severe limitation due to presence of gypsum in soils in the EU is constrained to zones in Spain, their effects are very real.

References (cited and not cited)

Akhvlediani, G.K. 1962, Classification of gypsum-bearing soils in the Trans-Caucasus. Soviet Soil Science: 532-534.

Amami S., El-Baldy Ch., Pouget M.J. (1967) Rénovation d'une palmeraie littorale ancienne, étude de la remise en culture intensive. Annales Inst. Nat. Rech. Agron. de Tunisie, Vol.40, Fasc.8.

Barzanji A.F., Paliwal K.V., Mittu K.T., Abbas H.A. (1981) Fertility status of the gypsiferous soils of Iraq. Technical Bulletin 94. Research Centre for Gypsiferous Soils, Aldour, Iraq.

Boyadgiev, T.G. 1974, Contribution to the knowledge of gypsiferous soils. AGON/SF/SYR/67/522. FAO, Rome.

Boyadgiev T.G., Verheye W.H. (1996) Contribution to a utilitarian classification of gypsiferous soils. Geoderma 74: 321-338.

Bureau, P. and Roederer, P. 1960, Contribution a l’étude des sols gypseux de la partie sud du golfe de Gabès. Bull. Assoc. France Etude Sol 8 : 145-149. Section spéc. d'Etudes de Pédologie et d'Hydrologie, ES 33.

FAO (1990) Management of gypsiferous soils. Soils Bulletin 62. Rome, Italy.

Hazzah A.H., Al-Rawi A.A.H., Abdul Ameir A.R. (1986) Effect of some organic fertilizers on the properties of gypsiferous soils and the growth of millet (Panicum miliacum). Symposium on Gypsiferous Soils - Their Effect on Construction and Agricultural Production. Baghdad. Iraq.

Hernando, V., Sanchez Conde, M.P. and Contreras, J.G. 1963, Influencia de los niveles de yeso y de humedad en la fertilidad de un suelo yesoso. Anales de Edafología y Agrobiología 22 :322-337.

Hernando, V., Sanchez Conde, M.P. and Contreras, J.G. 1965, Study of the mineral nutrition of maize on soils rich in gypsum. Zolfo in Agricoltura, Palermo 1964: 398-411.

Jafarzadeh A.A. (1991) Experimental studies of gypsum migration and deposition in soil profiles. PhD Thesis, Wye College, University of London, U.K.

Jafarzadeh A.A. (1996) Gypsum formation and classification of gypsiferous soils. Agricultural Sci. Scientific J.Vol.6 (1,2). College of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran.

Jafarzadeh A.A., Zinck J.A., Burnham C.P. (unpublished). Penetration resistance of gypsum crust from laboratory experiments.

Kovda, V.A. 1954, La géochimie des déserts de l'URSS. Communication au 5me Congrès International de la Science du Sol. L’Académie des Sciences, Moscou.

Mahmoodi S. (1998) Gypsiferous soils: characteristics, management and land suitability evaluation. Soils and Water, Special Issue, Vol.12 (3).

Mardoud T. (1996a) Behavior of roots and properties of soils with different content of gypsum under irrigation (Balikh Basin, Syria). In: R.M. Poch (ed). Proceedings Int. Symp. on Soils with Gypsum. Lleida, Spain.

Mardoud T. (1996b) Main results of field experiments on irrigated soils with gypsum in Granada Station, Syria (1973-1984). In: R.M. Poch (ed). Proceedings Int. Symp. on Soils with Gypsum. Lleida, Spain.

Mashali A.M. (1993) Management practices for gypsiferous soils under irrigated conditions. Proceedings Int. Workshop on Classification and Management of Arid Desert Soils. Uramqi, China.

Mashali A.M. (1996) Soil management practices for gypsiferous soils. In: R.M. Poch (ed). Proceedings Int. Symp. on Soils with Gypsum. Lleida, Spain.

Mousli O.F. (1981) Methods of evaluation and classification of gypsiferous soils and suitability for irrigated agriculture. Soil Taxonomy Workshop, ACSAD, 1980: 278-320.

Nafie F.A.A. (1989) The properties of highly gypsiferous soils and their significance for land management. PhD Thesis, Wye College, University of London, UK.

Smith, R. and Robertson, V.S. 1962, Soil irrigation classification of shallow soils overlying gypsum beds, northern Iraq. Journal of Soil Science 13 :106-115.

Van Alphen, De Los Rios Romero F. (1971) Gypsiferous soils, notes on characteristics and management. Int. Inst. of Land Recl. and Improv. Bulletin 12. Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Verheye, W.H. and T. G. Boyadgiev, 1997. Evaluating the land use potential of gypsiferous soils from field pedogenic characteristics W. H. Soil use and Management Volume 13 Issue 2 p 97-103.

Criterion 7 “Soil Moisture Balance”

Author: Guenther Fischer, Edmar Teixeira and Harrij van Velthuizen, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria

Contributor: Bob Jones, Cranfield University, Bedford, United Kingdom

Edited by: Jos Van Orshoven (K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and Jean-Michel Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy)

Agronomic importance

The soil moisture balance is a critical parameter for assessing the potential for crop production. Agricultural production is seriously impaired if soil water is limiting during the growing season and the ‘Soil Moisture Balance’ criterion identifies land at risk of this causing adverse affects on plant growth and crop yields.

Most agricultural crops offer varieties which vary in their general and specific climatic requirements and in their length of total growing period from sowing to harvest. This variation allows a crop to be adapted to a wide range of climatic conditions and to the time period required and available for crop production. One of the important crop requirements, the available growing period is determined by the amount and duration of water supply.

It is assumed that in areas with irrigation water resources and irrigation infrastructure in place no water stress occurs and that the number of days available for crop growth is generously sufficient. Irrigated areas are considered as favourable areas for agricultural production (from perspective of soil moisture balance criteria) and therefore only rainfed agriculture is considered here.

Definition

Deficitary soil moisture balance is defined as the condition in which crop performance or survival is compromised by limited water availability during the growing period, which is insufficient for optimal growth and development of crops.

In the context of less favorable areas for agriculture in Europe, deficitary soil moisture balance is a characteristic of land for which the “number of days, within growing period as defined by temperature, for which the amount of precipitation and moisture available in the soil profile is not sufficiently high as compared to the reference evapotranspiration, for plants to complete the production cycle”.

Scientific background

In most parts of Europe rain-fed agricultural production is possible during a part of the year only. The growing period available for rain-fed crop cultivation is defined by the period with favorable temperatures and soil moisture conditions. Crop growth cycles vary between 60 days (e.g. buckwheat) and all year round (e.g. banana). Most European annual agricultural crops have growth cycles between 90 and 210 days.

The start of the growing period is defined by temperatures exceeding 5 o C and accumulation of sufficient rainfall to moisten the topsoil to sustain growth of germinating crops. The moisture required at this early crop development stage is well below the evapo-transpiration demand of crops at maximum canopy cover. For establishing crops, 0.4-0.5 times the level of reference evapo transpiration is considered sufficient to meet crop water requirements. (FAO 1978-81, Doorenbos and Kassam 1979, FAO 1992, FAO 1998). Therefore the minimum available moisture to define the start of the rain-fed growing period has been set to half of reference evapotranspiration.

The growing period for most crops may continue beyond the rains. Crops may mature on moisture stored in the soil profile. However, the amount of moisture stored in the soil profile and available to a crop varies, e.g., with depth of the soil profile, the soil’s physical characteristics and the rooting pattern of the crop. Depletion of soil moisture reserves causes the actual evapotranspiration to fall short of the crop requirements.

Assessment

This number of days available for rain-fed agricultural production in individual locations can be estimated using the FAO/IIASA concept of Length of Growing Period (LGP) 1 , which is defined as: “the period during the year when both moisture availability and temperature are conducive to crop growth” (FAO 1978, Fischer et al., 2002, 2006, 2008). The calculation of LGP is based on a simple moisture-balance comparing rainfall and moisture stored in the soil profile available to agricultural crops, with crop water requirements in terms of reference crop evapotranspiration rates 2 .

The climatic parameters required for calculating the ‘soil moisture balance’ are defined in Fischer et al. (2008) in LUC/0803.

The soil properties that are required for calculating plant available water in the soil profile, which Thomasson (1995) has defined as Soil Water Available to Plants (SWAP), are:

- Volume of water retained at suctions of 5 kPa (notionally field capacity) and 1500 kPa (wilting point) – see Hall et al. , (1977); Smith and Thomasson, (1982)

- Soil (rooting) depth – depth in the soil to which plant roots can extend, largely unimpeded

If soil water retention properties have not been measured (from undisturbed cores) for an area of interest, SWAP may be estimated in regional or national cases from pedotransfer functions relating water retention at field capacity and wilting point to contents of silt, clay, organic carbon and bulk density (Hall et al. , 1977). At European scale, for which less accurate data might suffice, pedotransfer rules have been developed (van Ranst et al., 1995) and applied (King et al., 1995; Jones et al., 2000).

Values for severe and very severe threshold

Short growing periods either due to moisture deficits, cold temperature limitations or both provide unfavorable conditions for agriculture. On the basis of minimum crop cycle durations, the following critical limits have been established:

- Severe threshold: LGP < 90 days but >= 60 days

- Very severe threshold: LGP < 60 days

To account for inter-annual variability of moisture conditions the 80% percentile of exceedance of the proposed thresholds is suggested, i.e., a very severe soil moisture limitation would render an area unfavorable if the calculated rain-fed LGP would be less than 60 days in three or more years out of ten years. A severe limitation occurs if in only three or more years out of ten years the rain-fed LGP fall below 90 days and not more than 2 years fall below 60 days.

1 In a formal sense LGP refers to the number of days with average daily temperatures above 5 o C when moisture conditions are considered adequate, i.e., available soil moisture results in actual evapotranspiration of at least half potential evapotranspiration.

2 For the calculation of reference evapotranspiration, the Penman-Monteith equation (FAO 1992) is recommended

Final remarks and conclusions

The climatic suitability of land for rain-fed crops is governed to a large extent by the number of growing period days available in a location. As long as crop growth cycles fit within the available growing period as determined by temperature and soil moisture condition are favorable for crop growth.

References

Doorenbos J. and Kassam A.H., 1979. Yield Response to Water. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, FAO, Rome, Italy.

ESB, 2004. European Soil database (v 2.0) European Soil bureau network and the European Commission, EUR 19945.

FAO, 1992. CROPWAT: A Computer Program for Irrigation Planning and Management. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 46, Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

FAO, 1978-81. Crop adaptability inventory In: Report on the Agro-ecological Zones Project. World Soil Resources Report 48, FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO, 1992. CROPWAT: A Computer Program for Irrigation Planning and Management. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 46, Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

FAO, 1995. Digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties (Version 3.5). CD-ROM, FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO, 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 56, Land Water Development Division, Rome, Italy.

FAO/CAS/IIASA/ISRIC/JRC, 2008 (forthcoming). Harmonized World Soil Database. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.

Fischer G., van Velthuizen H.T., Shah M., Nachtergaele F.O. (2002): Global Agro-ecological Zones Assessment for Agriculture in the 21 st Century: Methodology and Results, IIASA Research Report RR 02-02. IIASA and FAO, Laxenburg, Austria.

Fischer G., van Velthuizen H.T., Shah M., Nachtergaele F.O. 2006: Agro-ecological Zones Assessment, IIASA Reprint RP -06-003 from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) EOLSS publishers, Oxford, UK.

Fischer G., Nachtergaele F., Prieler S., van Velthuizen H.T., Verelst L., Wiberg D., 2008 (forthcoming). Global Agro-ecological Zones Assessment (GAEZ 2007). IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy.

Fischer et al. (2008) in LUC/0803).

Fuchs T., Schneider U., Rudolf B. 2007. Global Precipitation Analysis Products of the GPCC. Deutscher Wetterdienst in Offenbach am Main, Germany

Hall, D.G.M., Reeve, M.J., Thomasson, A.J., Wright, V.F., 1977. Water retention, porosity and density of field soils. Soil Survey Technical Monograph No. 9, Harpenden, UK, 75pp.

King, D., Le Bas, C., Daroussin, J., Thomasson, A.J. and Jones, R.J.A., 1995. The EU map of soil water available for plants. In: D. King, R.J.A. Jones & A.J. Thomasson (eds.). European Land Information Systems for Agro-environmental Monitoring. EUR 16232 EN, p. 131-142. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Mitchell T.D. and Jones P.D. 2005: An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high resolution grids. International Journal of climatology 25, Issue 6, p. 693-712

Thomasson A.J., 1995. Assessment of soil water reserves available for plants (SWAP): a review. In: European Land Information Systems for Agro-environmental Monitoring. D. King, R.J.A. Jones and A.J. Thomasson (Eds.). EUR 16232 EN, p. 115-130. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Smith, P.D. and Thomasson A.J., 1982. Density and water release characteristics. In: Soil survey laboratory methods. B.W. Avery and CL Bascomb (ed.). Soil Survey Technical Monograph No.6, Harpenden, p42-56.

Van Ranst, E., Thomasson, A.J., Daroussin, J., Hollis, J.M., Jones, R.J.A. & Jamagne, M. 1995. Elaboration of an extended knowledge database to interpret the 1:1,000,000 EU Soil Map for environmental purposes. In: European Land Information Systems for Agro-Environmental Monitoring, D. King, R.J.A. Jones & A.J. Thomasson (eds), p. 71–84. EUR16232EN, 284pp. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg.

Criterion 8 ”Slope”

Compiled by: Freddy Nachtergaele, FAO, Rome, Italy

Edited by: Jos Van Orshoven, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Jean-Michel Terres (JRC, Ispra, Italy)

Agronomic importance

Slope as such has little or no direct influence on the yield of crops. However the steeper the slope the more difficult it becomes to manage the land and to grow crops. In particular mechanisation is hampered while access to land and all agricultural operations become more time consuming. Steeper slopes are also associated with shallower soils in general (Leptosols, Regosols) and with a higher risk for soil degradation (erosion) and land slides.

Definition

Slope is the angle the soil surface makes with the horizontal. It can be expressed in degrees or as a percentage (45 degrees = 100 percent). The form of the slope may be important and influence the moisture status of the underlying soils, as happens in concave or convex slopes. A particular important characteristic for agriculture is the aspect (direction of exposure) of the slope that may result in significant higher temperatures on south-exposed slopes as compared to northern exposed ones, at least in the northern hemisphere.

Scientific background

Slope is frequently used as a criterion to assess capability and suitability of land for agriculture. In the British land capability classification, slope is recognized to have a marked effect on mechanical farming as follows in Table 1:

Table 1: slope classes according to Bibby and Mackney, 1969.

Slope (degrees)|Slope (percent)|Slope class|Problems|

0-3|0-5,2|Gently sloping|None|

3-7|5,2-12,3|Moderately sloping|Difficulties with weeders, precision seeders and some mechanised root crop harvesters|

7-11|12,3-19,4|Strongly sloping|Use of combine harvester restricted|

11-15|19,4-26,8|Moderately steep|Limit of use of combine harvester and of two way ploughing (depending of field configuration)|

15-25|26,8-46,6|Steep|Not suitable for arable crops, with slopes over 20 being difficult to plough, lime or fertilise|

>25|>46,6|Very steep|Mass movement occurs, animal tracks across slope appear and mechanisation impossible without specialised equipment|

Klingebiel and Montgomery (1966) distinguish four classes: 0-2%, 2-6%, 6-12% and >12%. For sugar beer and potatoe crops, Sys et al. (1991) distinguish between 5 classes (0-2%, 2-4%, 4-8%, 8-16% and >16%) where the 5 th one is considered to make land unsuitable for these crops. For wheat production, the classes are 0-2%, 2-8%, 8-12%, 12-16% and >16%. Again the >16% class is considered to be unsuitable. However, medium to low intensive pastures are the advisable land uses and still possible on these steeper slopes.

Assessment

Several instruments have been developed over time to determine the angle of the land. Topography has been estimated through photogrammetry techniques. Most national cartographic institutes have Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with a horizontal resolution of 10-20m. A particular recent development is the availability of radar and satellite obtained elevation measurements with a high resolution (90 meters resolution is available for the whole world between 60 degrees North and South, and 30 meter resolution data are also used). For a given location, the estimation of the slope will be affected by the resolution of the DEM (coarse resolution DEM will under-estimate the real slope).

From neighboring altitude data, slope can be determined by algorithms. The resulting ‘local’ slopes must be averaged over a larger area (typical field size) to be applicable as an indicator of land suitability.

Values for severe and very severe threshold

From the above can be stated that:

- Slopes between 15 - 30% pose severe problems for mechanized cultivation, specific equipment is required;

- The problems posed by slopes over 30% are very severe so that they cannot be used for mechanized agriculture, given the high risk for equipment reverse and soil erosion.

Final remarks and conclusions

Slope of land clearly affects its suitability for agricultural production; mainly through the restrictions steeper slopes impose on mechanization of crop management and on their vulnerability to soil erosion. Terracing is a way of overcoming the slope restrictions but is at the expense of huge investments and has in addition to cope with limitation due to soil depth. Furthermore, steep slopes will accelerated water erosion if not managed appropriately.

References

Bibby, J. and D. Mackney, 1969. Land use capability classification. Soil survey technical monograph No 1.

Klingebiel A.A. and P.H. Montgomery, 1966. Agricultural handbook 210, USDA, Washington, USA.

Sys, C., E. Van Ranst and J. Debaveye, 1991. Land evaluation Parts I and II: Principles in land evaluation and crop production calculations. Agricultural publications No 7. Training Centre for postgraduate soil scientists, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Belgium.

European Commission

EUR XXXXX EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Title: Common bio-physical criteria to define natural constraints for agriculture in Europe.

Task1: Definition and scientific justification for the common criteria

Author(s): Jos Van Orshoven, Jean-Michel Terres, A Eliasson

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2008 – 64 pp. – 21 x 29.7 cm

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN ZZZZ-ZZZZ

Abstract

FAO’s agricultural problem land approach was selected and adjusted to come forward with the requested approach. The FAO approach was deemed appropriate because it is not crop-specific and for its simple assumptions regarding the mutual interaction of land characteristics on the overall suitability of the land, making it applicable for a territory as large and diverse as EU27. Two climatic and four soil criteria were retained and complemented by one integrated soil-climate criterion (soil moisture balance), with slope as the sole topographic criterion. For each criterion two critical limits were defined dividing the criterion range into three sub-ranges: not limiting , severely limiting and very severely limiting for agriculture.

The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special interests, whether private or national.

ołJ

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

(...PICT...)

Annex 12. Distribution of share of LFA payments in the FNVA for non-mountain LFAs

Distribution of share of LFA payments in the FNVA for non-mountain LFA beneficiaries (%)

(...PICT...)

Source: EU FADN, average data 2004-2005. German and Italian data on LFA are estimates. Cyprus data were missing at the time of drafting the analysis. The extreme values are not displayed.

This graph illustrates the distribution of the share of LFA payments in FNVA (indicator of dependence to LFA scheme) for non-mountain beneficiaries by Member State. In each Member State, the non-mountain LFA beneficiaries are ranked according to the ascending share of LFA payments in FNVA (in %). The line in the box represents the median, which is the value separating the two halves of the non-mountain LFA beneficiaries, i.e. that 50% of the farmers have a share of LFA in FNVA inferior or equal to the median. The cross represents the average share of LFA payments in FNVA in the Member State. The box delimits the percentiles 25 (P25) and 75 (P75), the values separating respectively 25 and 75% of the non-mountain LFA beneficiaries. It means that 25% of the non-mountain LFA beneficiaries have a share of LFA in FNVA inferior or equal to P25 and respectively 75% below P75. The difference between the percentile 75 and the percentile 25 (illustrated by the box) is called the interquartile range and is an indicator of the distribution. The whiskers represent the percentiles 5 (P5) and 95 (P95). 5% of the non-mountain LFA beneficiaries have a share of LFA in FNVA inferior to P5. The extreme values (below P5 and above P95) are not displayed.

For example, the graph illustrates that the degree of dependence to LFA scheme in the non-mountain LFA is rather low and concentrated around the average in Belgium, Greece, Spain and Italy. It means that the average share of LFA in FNVA represents well the situation of the farms in these Member States, whereas the average hides a wide range of degree of dependence in other Member States, especially in Finland, Slovakia, Denmark and Czech Republic.

[1] See Article 3.4 of Directive 75/268/EEC, Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/97 and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/99.

Miscellaneous information

Relationship between documents

Text

52009SC0450

Title and reference

Dates

Classifications