Rede der damaligen EU-Kommissarin Marianne Fischer Boel (in englischer Sprache)

Date:

05.03.10

Location:

Krün

Speaker:

Mariann Fischer Boel – former EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Mariann Fischer Boel – former EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development., Source: BMELV

It's a great pleasure to join you in this beautiful region. About three and a half months ago, at a seminar in Brussels, the voice of the mountains made itself heard. The voice rang out clearly – mountain farmers usually have good voices! – and a conversation began.

The voice of the mountains put its fears and hopes into words. Fears that the life which it knew in the mountains might slip away, with serious environmental and social consequences; but hopes that we might set mountain farming more firmly on a sustainable footing for the future.

On my side of the conversation, I mainly asked questions.

I asked whether the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was meeting the needs of mountain farming in the European Union. I didn't have an answer to that question; but the first step was to ask it.

I also threw out a few ideas. I deliberately say "ideas": these were not concrete proposals. You can't make proposals without discussing ideas first - proposals come later.

Finally, I asked those present at the conference to come back with analysis and suggestions in a few months. I said that I would come back with more information on the situation of mountain farming and the existing policy tools available today in the European Union.

Those few months have passed! And so today, the conversation moves into its second phase. I'm very much looking forward to hearing the results of your work so far; but first, I expect that you'd like to hear some comments from me!

And indeed, although there's a lot more work to be done, I do already have further remarks to make.

What is the situation in the mountainous areas of the European Union?

Immediately, we have to be a little careful when trying to answer this question.

The mountainous areas of Europe are not all the same. If we try to "paint their picture" – economically, environmentally and socially, I mean – we can't only take a broad brush. Broad brushes have their uses, of course, but we also need to use finer brushes to capture the detail, where possible.

This principle applies, for example, to the issue of land abandonment.

This is one of the main potential problems which we discussed in Brussels at the end of March. If mountain meadows are abandoned, forest takes over quickly, it's hard to reclaim the land later on, valued scenery can be spoilt and there can be a greater danger of avalanches.

If we take our "broad brush" and look only at averages, the rate of land abandonment does not seem especially high in mountainous areas for the time being.

According to Eurostat, in the countries of the EU-15 (minus Germany, for which we have incomplete data), mountainous areas lost 0.2 per cent of their utilised agricultural area annually between 1995 and 2005.

This is actually a smaller decline than in "non-disadvantaged" areas, which annually lost 0.7 per cent of their utilised agricultural area. (I use the term "non-disadvantaged areas" to refer to all areas which are not Less Favoured Areas – LFAs.)

This is perhaps encouraging to some extent. But the average figure for mountain areas hides variations. In some Member States, total farmland in mountainous areas actually expanded. In others, it shrank by nearly 1 per cent a year. And of course, we don't have data for the New Member States – this is a big gap in our knowledge.

Furthermore, even within a given Member State, we have to be on the lookout for local "hotspots" where the danger of land abandonment could be higher.

With this in mind, our ongoing work on a land abandonment risk indicator could be useful.

Why is land abandoned? Usually, because farming becomes financially unsustainable – so we also have to look at the income of farmers in mountainous areas.

With regard to income, we have good figures for the EU-25. What we can see is that, on average, farmers' incomes in mountainous areas are similar to those in non-mountain LFAs – though in most cases they are lower than in non-disadvantaged areas.

In Germany, incomes in mountain areas are at 69 per cent of the level in non-disadvantaged areas. In Austria, the figure is about 75 per cent. However, in both countries, the level is about the same as the EU-25 average income in non-disadvantaged areas.

I should mention the dairy sector in particular. In the EU-15, the average income of specialist dairy farms in mountain areas is about 30 per cent lower than in non-mountain LFAs and about 47 per cent lower than in non-disadvantaged areas.

This is due especially to higher fixed costs for inputs, smaller farm sizes and lower stocking densities.

However, we have to be clear that many of these farmers have streams of income from outside farming (for example, from wood or from tourism). So to get an accurate picture of income situation, we need to know more about these non-farming activities.

Those are some key facts about farming in the mountainous areas of the European Union. I would also like to give some detail about the policy tools currently available.

In fact, we really have a lot of tools in the toolbox!

To illustrate this, let me talk about an imaginary mountain farmer, whom I’ll call Heinrich. (I’m picking this name at random: it sounds better than, for example, "Farmer X".)

Under the first pillar of the CAP, Heinrich very probably has access to the Single Payment Scheme or the Single Area Payment Scheme.

His single payment may not be very high - due his past production patterns and the limited availability of agricultural land in mountain areas. For example, in the mountainous areas of Austria the payment would typically be Euro 61 per hectare.

If Heinrich’s government is concerned that his single farm payment is not high enough, the government can use "Article 68" measures to give him extra support.

Then, of course, there’s the second pillar of the CAP – rural development policy. Here, there are so many possibilities that I can’t list them all.

For mountainous areas, a fundamental measure in rural development policy is the LFA measure. For mountainous areas, payments can be as high as Euro 250 per hectare, compared with Euro 150 per hectare in non-mountainous areas.

Perhaps Heinrich is involved in an agri-environmental scheme for cultivating alpine meadows. If so, in Austria he can be paid Euro 700 per hectare for mowing land with the scythe and Euro 350 per hectare for mowing with the tractor.

Other land management schemes in which he could be involved include schemes for alpine herding, for conserving specific genetic diversity and for farming in Natura 2000 areas (by the way, 43 percent of these areas are in the mountains).

Moving away from land management: Heinrich could be receiving support to modernise his buildings, invest in equipment, or improve energy efficiency on the farm.

He could be receiving aid for using energy and water more efficiently.

He might be taking part in a scheme for improving the quality and marketing of his products.

So many other types of support for mountain farmers are possible in our rural development policy that I’ll just list them in abbreviated form:

• support for training and innovation;
• for advisory services and farm relief services;
• for forestry;
• for diversification; and
• for dealing with natural hazards.

Then, beyond pillars one and two of the CAP, of course mountain farmers have access to the European Union’s policy for agricultural product quality – for example, our system of Protected Designations of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications.

We need to understand just how many tools are available. But let me be clear: this in itself does not prove that mountain farmers live a problem-free life.

It’s not enough just to have good tools. Do we have the right box to carry them around in, so that we can take full advantage of them? And even if we do, are they actually being used?

Let me use another image. Our policy measures which are relevant to mountain farming are a patchwork. Are there mountain areas which show through the gaps?

We need to look into this more closely. But certainly, there’s evidence that the voice of the mountains is heard more clearly in some parts of Europe than in others.

For example, I’m told that there are areas where mountain LFA payments could be made, but are not made.

I’m also told that the implementing rules used by some Member States exclude smaller farms from the mountain LFA scheme.

In the CAP – and especially in rural development policy – there’s always a creative tension between the need for a broadly common approach on the one hand, and the need for flexibility and diversity on the other hand.

I certainly have no intention of ironing out all policy flexibility with regard to mountain areas. But I do believe we need to look in detail at whether some mountain areas are slipping through the policy net.

When I say "we", of course that means various groups:

• takeholders – who "use" policy;
• the Commission, which proposes policy;
• national and regional ministries – which decide and implement policy; and
• experts – which analyse policy.

If some areas are indeed slipping through the net, it could mean various things.

It could mean that Member States are limiting the effectiveness of EU support for mountain farming by implementing the different policy tools in a certain way. For example, requiring a minimum farm size for granting the LFA aid can be a serious problem in mountain areas. An EU framework for eligibility rules at farm level could help here.

It could also mean that the level of awareness of the tools on offer is not what it should be – in which case, the Commission and other parties must step up their efforts to make the possibilities clearer.

Finally, it could mean that we need to change policy in places, or repackage it.

As I say, we need to carry out further investigation, and I’m not going to prejudge the results of that.

So, in concrete terms, what’s the way forward?

Some relevant work is already underway. As you know, we’re currently deciding on improvements to our quality policy. An effective quality policy is essential to mountain farmers, who have the potential to make good returns on very strong brands (many of them already do so, of course). Among other things, it could be helpful to define the term “mountain” in food labelling at European level.

This is quite a specific issue. More generally, the Commission is taking forward its broader investigation about how well mountain areas are served by the first and second pillars of the CAP and what may still be missing..

The next step will be the publication of a detailed mountain farming paper by the end of the year. It will present the strengths and weaknesses of mountain farming, as well as the use made of the policy instruments available. This mountain farming paper will provide a framework for further discussion and analysis. In another meeting with stakeholders – perhaps similar to this one – we can then get much more specific with our ideas.

Ultimately these ideas will be fed into the discussions on the policy perspectives for the post-2013 CAP. It is still my objective that mountain farming needs to be adequately reflected in the new CAP.

The voice of the mountains is making itself heard. And now that it's speaking, it's not only getting an echo in reply: a genuine conversation is taking place.

I'm confident that this conversation will mature into decisions over the next few months.

Thank you.