Annex 4.3
The experience of agri-environment schemes in Denmark
Erling Andersen1
Introduction
Denmark is not one of the member-states, where agri-environment schemes
implemented under Regulation 2078/92 have had the greatest success in terms of
uptake by farmers. By 1999 less than 10% of the agricultural area was under
agreement. The main reason for the limited uptake and success is the fact that the
agricultural production in Denmark is very intensive. One example of this is that
Denmark, compared with other member-states, has the highest share of UAA as arable
land and that 10% of the pigs in the European Union is produced in Denmark, despite
its small size. However, this paper will show that the implementation of the agrienvironment schemes in Denmark also has had its successes. These and some of the
problems and obstacles to success will be described in this paper.
The data presented in this paper mainly comes from an evaluation of the Danish agrienvironment programme financed by the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries and carried out in the period from 1996-98. More detailed information can be
found in Andersen et al, (1998).
The Danish agri-environmental programme
This paper focus on the agri-environment schemes implemented in the period from
1993-1999 that is the measures under Regulation 2078/92. It should however be noted
that Denmark was one of the member-states that previously used the voluntary option
and also implemented measures under Regulation 797/85. Also, a national organic
farming scheme was in place before 2078/92 dating back to 1987 (Andersen et al,
(2000)).
The Danish programme of agri-environment schemes can roughly be divided into three
parts based on the main goals: environment, nature conservation and organic farming,
although these overlap. A short description of the schemes under each heading can be
found in Table 1. The uptake of schemes with the environmental objectives has been
limited and below expectations. By 1999 only about 18,000 ha. was under agreement
with the measures aiming to improve the environment by targeting a reduction in the
use of fertilisers and sprays. Although an improved environment was the primary stated
1
The Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Denmark
E-mail: Era@fsl.dk
1
goal of the programme, the schemes with nature conservation goals have actually had a
greater success. By 1999 the farmers had entered nature conservation oriented
agreements on about 55,000 ha. of land, mainly valuable extensively used grassland.
Finally, organic farming, implemented as a separate measure, covers the largest area
under agreement. By 1999 about 127,000 hectares had been placed under an organic
agreement. In total, all the measures by the end of 1999 covered 200,000 ha.
corresponding to 7.5% of the agricultural area. 9,500 agreements had been signed on
environmental and nature conservation schemes and 2,900 farms were run under the
organic scheme.
The agri-environmental schemes in Denmark have been targeted to areas designated
solely for this purpose. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) (Danish: Særligt
følsomme landbrugsområder) have been designated throughout Denmark (Figure 1).
More than 2,500 areas have been designated covering about 460,000 ha. of land. The
average size of about 180 hectares ranges from 0.22 ha. to 7,643 ha.. The areas have
been designated by the ESAs administrative counties based on a quota corresponding
to their share of the agricultural land. The counties have to some degree based their
assignments on already existing designations. Areas covered by conservation orders,
areas protected by the Nature Protection Act and areas under the birds- and habitats
directives are well represented in the ESAs. Due to the fine scale and regional approach
to designation, the areas are very dispersed and 30% of farmers in Denmark has
farmland within the ESAs. There have been some changes in the targeting of the
different measures since the implementation in 1993, but today only the organic farming
measure is available for the farmers outside the ESAs.
Successes
Grassland
Despite the low priority given to nature conservation and to the value of grassland for
biodiversity, the schemes targeting grassland have been relatively successful. As
mentioned above such measures covering, mainly grassland accounts for threequarters of the agreement area, when organic farming is excluded. The success of
these schemes can be explained by several factors, for example the existence of the
same type of measures under the first generation of agri-environment schemes
(Regulation 797/85), acceptance of the relevance of the schemes by the farmers and
the effect of the targeting of the ESAs with a high proportion of their area in grassland.
One often used explanation for the success of measures targeting grassland, is that the
farmers are being paid to do what they would have done anyway. This explanation also
seems to be accepted at the highest levels of the administration in the EU (see for
example European Parliament, 1998). The evaluation of the Danish implementation of
agri-environmental measures has however shown that this is not a complete picture of
the effects of the measures (Andersen et al, 1998). Figure 2 shows the changes in
management on grassland with agri-environment agreements and, as it can be seen,
more than half of the agreements has resulted in changes in the management of the
areas. In most cases the farmers have reduced the input of fertilisers to the areas thus
2
improving the quality of the habitats. The evaluation of the Danish measures has also
shown another type of effects, i.e. those linked to protection. Through the period 1990 to
1997 grassland-plots without agreement were compared with neighbouring grasslandplots with agreement. The results showed that almost 25% of the plots without
agreement had either been taken into rotation or were abandoned, both developments
leading to a reduction in the nature conservation value. Also, the fact that 44% of the
farmers with agreement plan to change the management of the plots when the
agreement period ends indicates that the measures have had some protection effects.
The overall conclusion on the evaluation of the Danish schemes was therefore that the
most important related to the protection and improvement of a large share of the most
valuable grassland habitats in Denmark, many of these also being of international
importance.
Organic farming
The organic farming scheme has also had some success in Denmark, raising the area
managed organically six times since the implementation of Regulation 2078/92 to a total
of 136,000 in 1999. Measures supporting organic farming also have a history in
Denmark going back to national implementation in 1987. This success actually has
taken place despite the fact that the premiums are relatively low compared with some of
the other member-states (Buller, 2000). The success can be explained by a series of
initiatives taken by the authorities and especially the dairy industry, to promote organic
farming. Besides the area payments, the following can be mentioned in relation to
organic farming:
(I) Support for investment in farms
(II) Support for marketing
(III) Research: Denmark is one of the few countries with a specific organic research
programme.
(IV) Control and labelling of produce dating back to a national initiative in 1987
(V) Economic support from the dairy industry to convert to organic farming.
(VI) Focus on organic products in the supermarkets - a special premium on 5% of the
money spend to consumers buying organic products in the biggest chain.
(VII) Organic farmers have been favoured when distributing milk quotas.
Together all these initiatives form an earth to table approach that has send a very clear
message to the farmers and to the consumers that organic farming is good and the
initiatives have thus promoted the success of the organic support under the agrienvironmental programme.
3
Problems
Continuity
The agri-environment schemes deal with issues such as biodiversity and water quality
that is issues influenced by long term processes. Are agreements covering typically five
years the right instrument? In the Danish evaluation, almost 45% of the participants
stated that they would change management of the agreement area if the agreement is
not renewed by the end of the agreement period. Furthermore, 10% of the participants
after one to three years participation already state that they do not want to continue with
an agreement when the current one expires. These figures clearly show that it is difficult
to ensure long term effects by the single agri-environmental agreement. The
implementation and administration of the measures should therefore take this into
account by ensuring continuity in the schemes. The Danish example is to some degree
a perfect example of how it should not be done. The administration of the measures has
shifted several times, from national to regional levels. The goals and targets at the
different levels have also not always been synchronised. The content of the measures
has been changed several times and the targeting of the measures has changed
significantly. In total, this has left the farmers in confusion and sometimes it has meant
that the participants could not renew their agreement. Some positive initiatives have
also been taken. These include, for example, higher premiums to farmers committing
themselves for 20 years instead of five years and attempts to give the management
achieved by giving the agreement signing a permanent status. This is done by making it
a part of the agreement that the agreement area is placed under protection by the
Nature Protection Act. This is still rather the exemption than the rule, as it is left to the
discretion of the counties to use permanent protection as a requirement for eligibility. If
this form of agreement was used more widely, it might not be approved by the
commission as long term or indefinite agreements are considered to go beyond the
scope of the agri-environment schemes. It could be argued that this is the most
important limitation of the schemes, with the exemption of the organic measure, namely
that they merely provide compensation for income foregone in a period of transition,
instead of giving investment support for real changes in agricultural practices.
Local participation
Apart from continuity in time, continuity in space is also crucial when seeking solutions
to environmental and nature conservation problems. The designation of eligible land
can be used to ensure this continuity by limiting the efforts to commit the farmers to
smaller coherent pieces of land. However, the evaluation of the Danish schemes and
designations showed that a high degree of participation, and thus coherent agreement
land, only was reached in few of the designated areas. As Figure 3 shows, the
agreement signing only reached more than half the designated area in 5% of the ESAs.
In almost 1,500 of the 2,500 designated areas no agreements at all were signed. Apart
from questioning the whole concept of the Danish designation of ESAs it also raised the
question as how to involve the farmers at the local level.
4
One of the attempts to raise local participation was to offer a bonus payment in ESAs
where the agreement coverage exceeded a threshold defined by the responsible
county. Typically a high coverage was defined as 50% and typically this would lead to a
bonus payment of an extra 10%. By giving these bonus payments it was hoped that the
most adaptive farmers would try to convince their neighbours to join the measures. A
more enthusiastic local engagement was also created in some of the demonstrationprojects financed under article 6 of Regulation 2078. Here the agricultural advisory
system and the counties have worked together on the basis of initiatives originating from
local farmers. The counties still promoted the so-called “kitchen-table model”. It is
believed that conversations between the administrators of the measures and the
individual farmer taking place by the farmers kitchen-table can convince the farmers to
join measures or, in the case of measures allowing for discretion, reach agreements
with a content and a payment acceptable to all parts. This is very likely the case, but
taking into account recent discussions on the transaction cost of the measures, it might
not be the way forward. An interesting alternative could be to promote the measures to
groups of farmers encouraging local organisation. Traditionally reclamation of land in
Denmark has been organised in this way and it could ensure local participation at a low
cost.
The future of rural policy
The agri-environment schemes are going to be reintroduced in a new package from
2001 in the new rural development programme. These already introduced will continue
almost unchanged and two new schemes will be introduced. Both are of a new type with
one involving reduction of nitrates out in a tender and the other giving subsidies for
“green accounting” at farm level, aiming at an improved use of resources. Both of the
new schemes will be available throughout Denmark and will not be limited to ESAs.
So far the amalgamation between the agri-environment schemes and the other rural
development measures only consist of the staples in the papers describing the Danish
programme. There has only been a limited co-ordination of the goals for the different
type of measures and at the more detailed level the content of the different measures
are without co-ordination. Regarding the investment support for development of
agricultural structures, the eligibility requires no more than normal agricultural practices
and not enhancement, for example at the level of agri-environment schemes. It is
however not really valid to judge the amalgamation already as synergy effects and
possibilities for co-ordination might appear in the further implementation of the
measures. As mentioned above, most agri-environment schemes have been limited by
the lack of investment support being only available for the organic scheme, the new
rural development framework could remedy this situation.
It is however also necessary to point out that even if the good intentions of the
amalgamation of the agri-environment and rural development measures are realised;
the scope in Denmark, and in other regions of intensive agriculture, might be limited.
The structural and rural development funds have had a relatively low importance
compared to the general agricultural support. This can be illustrated by the fact that the
5
Guidance section, that is the structural policies, in 1998 accounted for only about 2% of
the payments from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, whereas
the EU-15 average was more than 10% (European Communities, 2000). In a long-term
perspective an amalgamation between general agricultural support and agrienvironment schemes might be the only tool that can fulfil the agri-environment goals.
6
References
Andersen, E., Primdahl, J. & Solvang, V., (1998), Miljøvenlige jordbrugsforanstaltninger og de Særligt
Følsomme Landbrugsområder 1994-96. DSR forlag, Frederiksberg.
Andersen, E., Henningsen, A. & Primdahl, J., (2000) Denmark: Implementation of a new agrienvironmental policy based on Regulation 2078. In: Buller, H., Wilson, G.A. & Höll, A.: Agri-environmental
policy in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Buller, H., (2000), Regulation 2078: Patterns of implementation. In: Buller, H., Wilson, G.A. & Höll, A.: Agrienvironmental policy in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldershot.
European
communities,
(2000),
The
Common
Agricultural
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg06/publi/review99/full_en.pdf (23.10.2000).
Policy
-
1999
Review.
European parliament, (1998), Report on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2078/92 on agricultural production methods
compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the
countryside
Committee
on
Agriculture
and
Rural
Development.
A4-0345/98.
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/OM-Europarl?PROG=REPORT&L=EN&PUBREF=//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A4-1998-0345+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&LEVEL=3 (23.10.2000)
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, (2000), Årsberetning 1999. The Directorate for Food, Fisheries
and Agro Business. http://www.dffe.dk/publikationer/aars99/aars99.htm (23.10.2000)
7
Reduced use of nitrates. Agreements on all land within ESAs belonging to the participant reducing the Ninput to 60% of official standards. Uptake 1994-1999: 5.400 ha.
Spray-free management. Agreements on single fields without use of sprayers. Uptake 1994-1999: 1.000
ha.
Spray-free margins. Agreements on 12-meter zones along specified landscape features banning the use
of sprayers. Uptake 1994-1999: 100 ha.
Rye grass as groundcover. Agreements on single fields for under-sowing rye grass in arable crops to
reduce leaching. Uptake 1994-1999: 4.500 ha.
20-year set-aside (arable land). Agreements on single fields of arable land. Uptake 1994-1999: 5.900 ha.
20-year set-aside (grassland). Agreements on single plots of grassland. Uptake 1994-1999: 300 ha.
Maintenance of extensive grassland. Agreements on single fields of permanent grassland putting
restrictions on fertilisers, sprayers, grazing density etc. at different tiers. Uptake 1994-1999: 48.700 ha.
Management of grassland. Agreements on single plots of grassland specifying detailed management
requirements in grazing, mowing and/or clearance of scrubs. Uptake 1994-1999: 6.100 ha.
Reduced drainage. Agreements on single fields where the farmers accept a raised water table due to
modified drainage. Uptake 1994-1999: 700 ha.
Organic farming. Uptake 1994-1999: 127.000 ha.
Table 1 The agri-environment schemes implemented in Denmark and the uptake by 1999. Uptake
data from Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, 2000.
8
50 km
Figure 1 Map of the Danish Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Andersen et al, 1998)
9
%
Percentage of agreement areas with specified
changes
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Reduced tillage
Reduced use of Reduced use of Reduced use of
mineral fertilisers organic fertilisers
sprayers
Figure 2 Management changes on grassland induced by agri-environment schemes. Data from
Andersen et al, 1998.
%
Percentage of ESAs by agreement coverage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0-25%
25-50%
50-75%
75-100%
Figure 3 Agreement coverage in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Percentage of ESAs
distributed by agreement coverage in percent. Data from Andersen et al, 1998.
10