Læs hele rapporten som pdf-fil. - Naturrådet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NATURRÅDET / TEMARAPPORT / NATUR OG LANDBRUG 72 design for the period 2000-2006. Present discussions, however, raise serious doubts, whether national politicians will be up to the chall e n ge and have the courage to launch a truly new policy. There are worrying signs that traditional sectoral lobby interests and short-sighted populistic rhetoric, <strong>som</strong>etimes even anti-Eu r o p e a n polemics, are gradually undermining the project. While initially the focus of Age n d a 2000 had b een on preparing the EU for a new enlargement towards Central and Eastern Europe, this aspect has been pushed back and financial considerations have come to the front more and more. Thus, in discussing the agricultural policy options of Age n d a 2000, I will concentrate in particular on the financial dimensions. This appears appropriate in order to get a sense for the real order of magnitude and for the potential scope fo r changes. The EU budget While in EU Member States national budgets are generally in the order of 40 to 50% of the national GDP, the EU Bu d get, although significant with over 80 billion ECU, is only 1,26% of the total GDP for the EU. While the famous Maastricht criteria aiming at guaranteeing stability of the Eu r o - currencies require Member States to keep their annual budget deficits below 3%, the total EU b u d get does not reach even half that amount. Of this total EU budget, only about a third is devoted to the EU’s cohesion policy that aims at closing the gap between the richer and the poorer parts of the Union through regional or rural development initiatives. It is very clear that with these “Structural Funds” no real redistribution can be achieved. If assigned and targeted properly, however, the EU funds could provide incent ives stimulating - with almost homeopathic doses - new innovative development approaches that have the potential to lead towards greater convergence and sustainability (Figure 5). CAP expenditure In the light of the overall limited financial resources of the EU, it appears anachronistic that over 50% of the EU budget continues to be devoted to financing the CAP. As a simple income support mechanism, benefiting in particular richer fa r m e r s , it can no longer be defended. Every year the EU is spending over 16 billion ECU to compensate cereal farmers for potential income losses due to cuts in intervention prices fo l l owing the 1992 CA P reform. In 1996 much of this was in fact overcompensation, since actual cereal prices on the market had developed much better than forecasted. The overcompensation admitted by the EU Commission was calculated as 1.6 billion ECU. At the same time CAP expenditure for agri-env ironmental measures under Regulation 2078/92 reached only 1.4 billion ECU. Funding for other programmes - like the Co m m u n i ty Initiative LEA- DER for local rural development actions, or the LIFE-Programme for environmental protection and nature conservation measures - are even more marginal. Although much public attention and many hopes of nature conservation and rural development initiatives are focused on these schemes, they have only 270 and 150 million ECU at their disposal (Figure 6). Searching for legitimation This fundamental imbalance of the EU budget and policy can not be defended any longer, at least not with sectoral and social policy arguments. In the EU-15, the number of farmers declined from 14 to 7 million since 1975. Over the same period the number of unemployed persons increased from less than 5 to 17 million. How can farmers pretend to keep forever a 50% share in the EU budget? Structural changes and new preoccupations will increasingly be reflected in EU policy priorities and choices. If farmers and agricultural policy makers are unable to make a convincing case of w hy society should continue supporting fa r m e r s , they will soon become losers. Only if positive contributions to sustainable rural development and nature conservation are not only put forward in public debates, but actually delivered on the ground, will it be possible to justify a continuation of EU financial support to agriculture and rural development (Figure 7).
| FIGURE 5 | The EU Budget: Too marginal for effective redistribution but essential for stimulating policy innovations. Data source: EU Commission. | FIGURE 6 | The Budget Imbalance: Too much CAP compensation, too litt l e rural development and environmental incentives. SF= Structural funds CI= Community Initiatives Data source: EU Commission. | FIGURE 7 | Changing policy priorities - farmers and unemployed persons in EU 15 The Shifting Balance: How can EU support be legitimised? Data source: Eurostat CRONOS. Unemployed E m p l o yed in ag r i c u l t u re NATURE AND FARMING IN A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE / HEINO VON MEYER The EU Budget - i n s u fficient to ensure cohesion EU-15 (in 1000 MECU) Total GDP (6500) = 100% Total budget (82) = 1.26% Structural funds (28) = 0.46% EU Budget main components 1996: 82 000 MECU SF 28000 Regional 12000 Social 7000 CI 2300 CAP 45000 Guarantee 41000 Guidance 4000 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 Million persons =3% SF CAP Cereals 16600 LEADER 270 2078/92 1400 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 73
Page 1 and 2:
NATUR OG LANDBRUG TEMARAPPORT NR. 1
Page 3 and 4:
INDHOLD INTRODUKTION Forord _______
Page 5:
FORORD af John Holten-Andersen, sek
Page 8 and 9:
NATURRÅDET / TEMARAPPORT / NATUR O
Page 11 and 12:
STATUS OVER SAMSPILLET MELLEM NATUR
Page 13 and 14:
sandede jorder til l a n d b r u g
Page 15 and 16:
| FiGUR 2A | Frem til midten af 180
Page 17 and 18:
| FIGUR 3 | Hede, krat, mose, eng A
Page 19 and 20:
2. Markante skift i den generelle a
Page 21 and 22: statistiske registrering af disse a
Page 23 and 24: s p r i n ger i skov og er dermed i
Page 25 and 26: | FIGUR 1 | LANDBRUG & AGERLANDETS
Page 31 and 32: LANDBRUG & AGERLANDETS NATUR: SAMSP
Page 33 and 34: LANDBRUG & AGERLANDETS NATUR: SAMSP
Page 35 and 36: DEN AKTUELLE NATURINDSATS / TORBEN
Page 37 and 38: | TABEL 1 | Ændringer i udnyttelse
Page 39 and 40: 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 90
Page 41 and 42: I tabel 3 ses, at tallene generelt
Page 43 and 44: udtryk for erkendelsen af, at hvis
Page 45: ingen skal der i højere grad indar
Page 48 and 49: NATURRÅDET / TEMARAPPORT / NATUR O
Page 79 and 80: INTEGRATION AF NATUR OG MILJØ I LA
Page 81 and 82: (3) For det tredje øges støtten t
Page 83 and 84: landbrugsreformen og miljøet. Land
Page 85 and 86: halv-naturarealerne, som er de ekst
Page 87 and 88: 4. Agenda 2000 Den nye reform blive
Page 89 and 90: gration af de enkelte ordninger, bl
Page 91 and 92: at man indenfor natur-landbrugspoli
Page 93 and 94: Efter mange årtiers tilbagegang fo
Page 95 and 96: holdning til landbruget er vigtig i
Page 97 and 98: HVAD MENER BEFOLKNINGEN? UDDRAG AF
Page 99 and 100: Spørgsmål 7 I hvilken grad er De
Page 101 and 102: Spørgsmål 18 Bor De nu på landet
Page 103 and 104: Tabel 4 Spørgsmål 5: Skovbruget L
Page 105 and 106: Tabel 9 Spørgsmål 11: Tabel 10 Sp
Page 107 and 108: Tabel 15 Spørgsmål 17: På landbr
show all

Læs hele rapporten som pdf-fil. - Naturrådet

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?