mid term evaluation of the bavarian agri-environmental...

87th EAAE-Seminar. Assessing rural development of the CAP

Mid term evaluation of the Bavarian agri-environmental programme

Effects of the KULAP-A on soil and water

Karin Eckstein, Helmut Hoffmann, Jutta Gloeggler1

Abstract In the context of the mid-term evaluation of rural development programmes (EU regulation 1257/99) the Bavarian agri-environmental programme, the so-called “Kulturlandschaftspro-gramm Part A” (KULAP-A), was evaluated. By means of this programme, only agricultural land related measures are supported. The measures may refer to the whole agricultural en-terprise, parts of it or the individual plot. The guideline of the EU-commission demand analy-sis about the effects of the programme on biotic and abiotic environmental resources such as soil, water, species and their habitat and landscape. This paper focuses on the results con-cerning the protection of soil erosion and water contamination. For this, statistical data corre-sponding the supported measures were analysed. Additionally a survey of farmers participat-ing and non-participating at the programme was conducted. In the year 2002 approximately 50% of agriculturally used area was supported. The funded measures affect environmental goods in different ways, depending on the plot location and the operational conditions. For example the prohibition of converting the permanent grass-land to arable land is only on potential arable grassland sites effective to prevent soil erosion. Compared with that, the effect of mulching in row cultures to reduce soil erosion is undis-puted. An investigation of the agricultural enterprises showed that the nutrient balances of pro-gramme-participants are on average lower. In this study the dead-weight-effect is discussed as an effect which can be excluded in cases when: due to the programme an intensification of management is prevented, a low intensive management is reached or the abandonment of farming could at least be delayed. For the next period of financial support it is predictable that parts of the programme have to be changed. As a result of the definitions outlined in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, some measures now do not exceed enough the good agricultural practice.

Keywords: Evaluation; agri-environmental programmes; EU Directive No. 1257/99; protec-tion of soil ; protection of water

1 Technical University of Munich, Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, Alte Akademie 14, 85350

Freising, Germany, [email protected], [email protected],


2

1 Introduction The Bavarian agri-environmental programme, the so-called “Kulturlandschaftsprogramm Part A” (KULAP-A), is part of the rural development programme of EU regulation 1257/99. It is co-financed by the European Union. In Bavaria, the KULAP-A can be considered as important since approximately 60% of the farmers take advantage of it (BayStMLF 2002). As part of the rural development programme it is scheduled to be evaluated in regular inter-vals to check out the effectiveness of the utilisation of funds and the effects of the pro-gramme. In the case of the agri-environmental programmes, the effects on environmental resources such as soil, water, species and their habitats and landscape need to be as-sessed. For the programme execution period from 2000-2003, the mid-term evaluation of the Bavarian agri-environmental programme was carried out by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management of the Technical University of Munich in Freising-Weihenstephan. In this article the methodology of evaluation is described and some selected results within the range of soil and water protection are illustrated.

2 Methodology In order to standardize the execution of the evaluation, the Commission of the European Union developed a set of common questions with criteria and indicators (EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2000). These indicators mostly refer to the extent of the financially supported area. In a few cases they are also concerned with the direct effects of participating at the programme, e.g. the effect of a measure on the quantity of applied fertilizer. In order to determine the effects of the funding, primary data as well as secondary data were analysed. The analysis takes place in three steps. The first step is the analysis of statistical data. Related to districts for Bavaria the hectarage under agreement was determined as well as disbursed premia. In the second step, the spatial distribution of the surface extent was determined. The com-parison of the spatial distribution with agro-statistical data of general land utilisation or with potential risk areas serves as an indicator for the relevance of the support. In order to be able to make statements about the effects of the support on enterprises, in a third step a survey of farmers was conducted. For this, five areas with different productivity were selected (Figure 1). The selection reflects a gradient of use which is typical for Bavaria.

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of the survey sites


3

As shown in table 1, the suitability for farming ranges from high to low intensity regarding the use as arable land as well as grassland.

Table 1: Suitability of the selected survey sites for agricultural production

Survey site Degree of agricultual productivity

Loess area high potential land with respect to arable land use

Southern Bavarian foothills good potential land with respect to arable land use

Northern Bavarian foothills low potential land with respect to arable land use

Foothills of the Alps(Allgäu)

high potential land with respect to grassland use

Eastern Bavarian low mountain range

low potential land with respect to grassland use

The agricultural enterprises were selected by a random sampling. Altogether 212 farmers were interviewed of which 135 were participanting in the KULAP-A. The farmers were inter-viewed personally on the basis of a standardized questionnaire. Besides general questions about the enterprise, data for calculating nutrient balances were collected. In addition, the farmers were asked about their reasons for participation or non-participation. In order to get the information about the effects of the financial support on management practices, it was determined if they made any adjustments due to their partici-pation in the programme. The data were analysed by comparison of participants and non-participants. When possible, the management also was compared before and after the support.

3 Results 3.1 Implementation of the programme The Bavarian KULAP-A offers 15 measures which refer to the whole agricultural enterprise, parts of it or to a single plot (Table 2). The measures are exclusively area-related and pro-mote low intensive management. In the year 2002 1,6 million hectares were supported by the KULAP-A, this corresponds to approximately 50% of the agriculturally used area. 1,7 million EUR were disbursed which were co-financed by the European Union.


4

Table 2: Measures and disbursed premia by the KULAP-A Supported surface

extent 2002

Disbursed premiums

2002Premium per

hectare

No.Hectares

(%)EUR(%) EUR1)

Whole agricultural enterprise

Organic farming K14 104,532(6.5%)

23,640,470(13.2%) 255.-2)

Sustainable farm management K10 349.253

(21,7%)8,696,766

(4.9%) 25.-

Parts of agricultural enterprise

Low intensive crop rotation K31 308,592(19%)

24,851,461(13.9%) 50 - 180.-3)

Low intensive grassland use, step a K33 445,972

(27.7%)45,667,008

(25.5%) 100.-4)

Low intensive grassland use, step b K34 261,745

(16.2%)54,111,585

(30.3%) 205.-5)

plot specific

Mulching K32 74,592(4.6%)

7,369,744(4.1%) 100.-

Other plot specific measures div. 67,534

(4.2%)14,507,801

(8.1%) 100-360.-

Total 1,612,220(100%)

178,844,836(100%)

1) conditions 20022) arable land and grassland3) depending on grantable kind of crop4) 95 Euros at 2.0-2.5 livestock units/hectare5) 190 Euros at 2.0-2.5 livestock units/hectare

Measures

As comes out from table 2, approximately 6% of the supported surfaces in 2002 were sup-ported for organic farming (No. K14). These areas can be found predominantly in the areas with a high proportion of dairy farming in southern Bavaria (Figure 2). By participating in this measure, the farmers commit themselves to manage the whole farm following the guidelines of organic farming (VO (EWG) 2092/91).


5

Figure 2: Distribution of the land being financially supported for organic farming The measure “sustainable farm management“ (No. K10) takes a comparatively high share of the promoted area (20%) but only a low portion regarding the disbursed fund (5%) (Tab. 2). Due to the modest restrictions only low financial payments are distributed. For most farmers the limiting condition is the restriction of intensive crops, such as wheat, maize or sugar beet, on at most 50% of the arable land. The high acceptance can be attributed to the fact that this measure can be combined with others, such as the “low intensive grassland use, step B (No. K34)”. The financially supported area is concentrated in the region of the Alps and the East-ern Bavarian Forest. In 2002 approximately 19% of the area are supported by the measure „low intensive crop rotation“ (No. K31). Through participation in this measure, the farmers commit themselves to restrict the cultivation of intensive crops, such as wheat or maize, to at most 30% of their arable land. The main area of application is found in the climatically more disfavoured region of the northeast of Bavaria. The majority of the financially supported areas falls under the two measures “low intensive grassland use, step A and step B” (No. K33 and No. K34). In “step A”, the extensive applica-tion of pesticides for the whole grassland is prohibited, in “step B” additionally the application of mineral fertilizer is not permitted. At both steps grassland is not allowed to be converted to arable land. In the year 2002 approximately a quarter of the funding was used for the measure “low inten-sive grassland use, step A” (No. K33). While the measure “low intensive grassland use, step B” (No. K34) with the prohibition of using mineral fertilizer mainly is accepted in the mountain-ous regions of Bavaria, the “step A” is accepted in the remaining regions (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).


6

Figure 3: Distribution of the land being financially supported for the

measure ”low intensive grassland use, step A”


measure ”low intensive grassland use, step B” The most important plot specific measure is “mulching” (No K32). In the year 2002 this measure was supported on 74,500 hectares. Mainly farmers in the productive area of the eastern Bavaria accepted this measure. Only 4% of the promoted area refer to other plot specific measures, mainly on grassland. Additionally, within defined landscapes the conversion of arable land into grassland and the management of arable land using water protection methods is supported.


7

3.2 Effects of the programme on the environment The task of this evaluation is to determine how the agri-environmental programme contribute to the protection of the environment. The results are shown in the following section cover the effects of the programme on the environmental resources soil and water. The indicator fixed by the Commission of the European Union, which refer to the reduction of soil erosion concern the hectarage under agreement. The programme KULAP-A provides seven measures which are meant to have an effect on the reduction of soil erosion. These measures are: ”organic farming on arable land (No. K14)”, “low intensive crop rotation (No. K31)”, “low intensive grassland use step A and spep B (No. K33 and K34)”, “mulching (No. K32)” and three other plot specific measures which are in their surface extent insignificant. In the year 2002 592,013 hectares were determined which contribute to the avoidance or reduction of soil erosion. That is 17% of the agricultural used land or 36% of the whole sup-ported area. The included measures differ in the way they have an effect and therefore, in the degree of effectiveness. For example, the measures „low intensive grassland use, step A and step B“ have an effect on the reduction of soil erosion due to the fact that conversion of grassland into arable land is forbidden during the time of the contract. In fact, there is no actual erosion problem on the supported areas, but there is potential risk of erosion in case of converting them. The most sensitive areas to ploughing are areas of transition between regions of typical arable land and regions of permanent grassland. The areas with a high portion of grassland on potential arable land are shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Distribution of grassland on potential arable land In order to estimate the actual effect on the prevention of soil erosion by the measure “low intensive grassland use”, only that part of supported surface is included to the indicator which corresponds to the conversion-endangered grassland. That is approximately 20% of the promoted grassland. Compared with that, the effect of the measure “mulching“ for the reduction of soil erosion is undisputed. Erosion is reduced due to the reduced cultivation before the planting of row cropping and the coverage of the soil during wintertime. AUERSWALD et al. (1986) determined potentially erosion-endangered areas of Bavaria, using the soil erosion equation. The map of erosion-endangered areas shows that the areas of risk are mainly in the southern Bavarian foothills (Figure 6). As shown in Figure 7 in these re-


8

gions the measure “mulching” (No. K32) is widely accepted by the farmers. A direct compari-son of the areas is not possible, nevertheless it was determined that the region with highly erodible soil is also the region of highest acceptance of the measure “mulching” which has very positive effects in this case.

Figure 6: Potential areas of soil erosion in Bavaria


measure ”mulching” One measure with accounts for significant proportion of the financially supported hectarage is the “low intensive crop rotation“ (No. 31). Because of the limitation of the cultivation of in-tensive cultures to 30% of the corp rotation on arable land, the erosion may be reduced dur-ing at least on a part of the rotation. However, it is allowed to cultivate summer cereals with-out ground cover in the wintertime.


9

As the agrarian statistics show, the counties where silage maize amounts for more than 30% of the arable land are located mainly in the southern or eastern regions of Bavaria (BAYLFSTAD 1999) (Figure 8). The measure for “low intensive crop rotation” is supported mainly in the north of Bavaria (Figure 9). In these counties, the contribution of silage maize of the arable land is less than 20%. This means that this measure contributes little to the pre-vention of soil erosion.

Figure 8: Distribution of land with high proportion of silage maize on

arable land


measure ”low intensive crop rotation” Statements about whether intensification of cultivating the fields can be prevented by the support are as difficult to make as statements about whether the participants have changed their crop rotation due to the support. There is simply a lack of data.


10

In the interviews the farmers were asked if and which measures they implement in order to reduce soil erosion on areas with a slope incline of more than 5%. It can be shown that ap-proximately 40% of the non-participating farmers carry out “mulching”. All participants and 80% of the non-participants apply other measures as: „no-till cultivation“, „cultivation trans-verse to the slope“, „no cultivation of row corpping“ or „introdction of a buffer zone“.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Mulching Other measures to prevent soilerosion

Enterprises with supported mulching (K 32) (n=12)Enterprises without supported mulching (n=54)

Figure 10: Management on surfaces with slope incline >5%

depending on the support of mulching The farmers applying measures without receiving the financial support often cannot accept other conditions for the participation which are, for example, the limitation of stocking density or the mandatory period of participation. With regards to water protection, the reduction of agricultural inputs is of primary concern. Twelve measures of the KULAP-A have an effect on the reduced application of fertilizer or pesticides. The extent of promoted area is 232,810 hectares. It can be assumed that organic farm management has the highest degree of effectiveness (e.g. WETTERICH et al. 1999, HEGE et al. 2003). According to the guidelines of the organic agriculture, no agricultural chemicals may be used. In contrast stands the measure “low intensive crop rotation”. Within this measure, the cultivation of intensive crops are restricted to 30% of the arable land, but the cultivation of rapeseed is not restricted at all. Rapeseed is one of the most intensive crops with regard to the application of pesticides (TISCHNER et al. 2002). Most measures with an aim of reducing the application of fertilizer or pesticides offered by the KULAP-A refer to grassland. However the risk of water contamination from grassland is less than from arable land. The restriction on the use of pesticides on the whole grassland for participants of the measure “low intensive grassland use, step A (K33)” prevent actually only in a very limited number of case the application because it is uncommon to apply pesticides on grassland. To assess the effect of the measure on the agricultural enterprises, data for the calculation of nutrient balances were collected. The results of these calculations show that in average, the participants have lower nutrient balances than non-participants (Figure 11).


11

05

101520253035

<0 0-20 21-40 41-60 >60

Groups of N-Balance in kg N/ha

Port

ion

of th

e en

terp

rises

in

%

KULAP-A participants(n=127)

KULAP-A non-participants(n=68)

Figure 11: Distribution of nitrogen balances of farms on participating

and non-participating in KULAP-A Altogether 53% of the participating farms have a nitrogen surplus of less than 21 kg N/ha compared to 47% in the group of non-participants. 22% of the participants and 41% of the non-participants show a surplus of more than 40 kg N/ha. A closer examination of different lines of production shows similar results (Figure 12). In en-terprises with mixed management, cash cropping or cattle fattening, the average nitrogen balances are lower in enterprises which participate in the programme. Only in milk production enterprises the average nitrogen balances are higher on farms which participate in the pro-gramme, but in total the balances are low. In the survey non of the pig-keeping enterprises was participating in the programme.

01020304050607080

Dairy farming(n=90)

Cash cropping(n=44)

Cattle fattening(n=11)

Pig keeping(n=3)

Mixed farming(n=47)

Nitr

ogen

-Bal

ance

n kg

N/h

a

KULAP-A participants(n=127)

KULAP-A non-participants(n=68)

Figure 12: Average nitrogen-balance of participating and non-participating of the dif-

ferent lines of production A further reason for the lower nitrogen balance of participants may be the condition of stock-ing restriction of 2.0 livestock units per hectare.


12

3.3 Dead-weight effect One important point in the context of agri-environmental programmes is the dead-weight ef-fect. In the context of the investigations on the effect of the promotion on the environmental goods, a dead-weight effect can be excluded if the following factors are given: an intensifica-tion of management is prevented, a low intensive management is reached or the abandon-ment of farming could at least be delayed. In addition of analysing the agricultural statistics in comparison to the statistics of the pro-gramme implementation, the survey yields some important information. Approximately 40% of the farmers stated that they reduced the intensity on grassland while 10% mentioned a reduction of livestock and 12% of the farmers implemented mulching as a consequence of the participation in the programme. Regarding the consequences of a cessation of the programme it has to be considered that the significance of the programme varies between the different study areas (Figure 13).

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%

High potential landwith respect toarable land use

(n=19)

Good potential landwith respect toarable land use

(n=16)

Low potential landwith respect toarable land use

(n=27)

High potential landwith respect tograssland use

(n=35)

Low potential landwith respect tograssland use

(n=38)Port

ion

of th

e en

terp

rises

in %

Negative effect on incomeIntensification of managementAbandonment of farmingSet-aside of parts of the farmlandChange from organic farming to conventional farming

Figure 13: Stated consequences of a cessation of the KULAP-A by participants In most regions, on average 70-80% of the farmers stated a reduced income. In eastern Ba-varia as a consequence on area with generally low intensity of land use, all farmers stated negative income effects. In this region, 30% stated they are most likely to retire if the pro-gramme is not continued. In the high productive region for grassland production (Allgäu) 43% of the farmers would intensify the management.

4 Discussion A closer look at the spatial distribution of the supported area leads to the conclusion that each measure is there the most likely accepted, where the measure requires, if at all, only small changes in farming practices. This corresponds to the results of the investigations of AHRENS et al. (2000) who stated that the various programme items are characterized by a very high degree of participation of farms that hardly change farming practices and low par-ticipation of farms with major adaptation requirements. This is because the measures which are endowed with a uniform premium, are offered indiscriminately to all regions and all en-terprises. Nevertheless environmental goals can be achieved. This applies especially plot specific measures. In regions with predominant grassland use it can be assumed that due to the programme an intensification of management is prevented or the abandonment of farm-ing could at least be delayed. The bases of the evaluation are the common evaluation questions which were introduced by the EU-commission. This guideline offers a solid foundation to discuss the value of the pro-


13

gramme regarding different environmental resources. Although, by using the guideline some difficulties became visible. Most indicators in the scope of the agri-environmental pro-grammes are concerned with the financially supported hectarage for the respective protec-tion goal. Only a limited number of indicators deal with the actual effect of the measure on the environmental goods. This causes several problems. First of all, to determine the sup-ported hectarage, it is necessary to assign the effects of certain measures to a specific envi-ronmental good. If the measures could not assigned to the protection of a certain environ-mental good, and that is rarely the case, it is really difficult to determine the hectarage. In this study, the relationships between the measures and the effect on certain environmental goods is based on literature research. The real effect of a measure depends on local and opera-tional conditions. Moreover, the indicator of the supported hectarage implies that with an in-crease in supported hectarage, a corresponding beneficial effect is obtained. It can be shown, that that is not the case. On the other hand, it is difficult to get information on the ac-tual effects of promoted measures. Possibilities for determining the effects of measures on the level of the agricultural enterprise are the pairwise comparison of the situation before and after the support or the pairwise comparison of the management of participating and non-participating farms. The comparison of the enterprises before and after participation is diffi-cult because the programme exists now for over ten years. The comparison of enterprises with and without the support is difficult in some regions, because there are left only a few non-participants. And last but not least there are little data, if at all, which show the actual effect on environmental goods of certain measures. The problem is that the measures were not envisioned to reach a special environmental goal but to achieve a low intensive management of the land in general. The grant of the support is not connected with a nature protection concept. It can be assumed that measures which re-fer to single plots, have more specific goals than measures, which refer to the whole enter-prise. One exception is the organic farm management where a very low intensity in the en-terprise is reached. In many cases, the only effect of the measures is the prevention of an intensification of the land use. Within the programme there is an emphasis on the promotion of grassland areas. In principle, the retention of low intensive management of grassland is welcomed. Resource degradation, for example soil erosion or water contamination, proceeds frequently from arable land. In this scope the potential of substantial improvement still exists. As a result of the reform of the common agricultural policy, a number of new possibilities for the programme have arisen. Some measures will be omitted or will have to be transformed at least, for example the “low intensive grassland use”. In the context of the modulation, addi-tional means could become available, which could flow into the agri-environmental pro-gramme. In the year 2003 already two new measures were promoted: the “ground covering in winter-time” and “sustainable liquid manure application”.

Literature AHRENS, H., C. LIPPERT UND M. RITTERSHOFER (2000)

Überlegungen zu Umwelt- und Einkommenswirkungen von Agrarumweltprogrammen nach VO (EWG) Nr. 2078/92 in der Landwirtschaft. Agrarwirtschaft 49, Heft 2. S. 99-115

AUERSWALD, K. (2002): Daten zur Erosionsgefährdung, mündl. Mitteilung.

AUERSWALD, K. UND F. SCHMIDT. (1986): Atlas der Erosionsgefährdung in Bayern. Karten zum flächenhaften Bodenabtrag durch Regen. GLA Fachberichte 1. Bayerisches Geologisches Landesamt, München.

BAYERISCHES LANDESAMT FÜR STATISTIK UND DATENVERARBEITUNG (BAYLFSTAD) (1999): Betriebsstruktur in der Landwirtschaft Bayerns 1999. Ausgewählte Ergebnisse für Gemeinden aus der Landwirtschaftszählung/Agrarstrukturerhebung 1999. Beiträge zur Statistik Bayerns. Heft 528

BAYERISCHES STAATSMINISTERIUM FÜR LANDWIRTSCHAFT UND FORSTEN (BAYSTMLF) 2002: Bayerischer Agrarbericht 2002, München.


14

BAYERISCHES STAATSMINISTERIUM FÜR LANDWIRTSCHAFT UND FORSTEN (BAYSTMLF)2000-2003: Merkblatt zum Bayerischen Kulturlandschaftsprogramm Teil A. http://www.landwirtschaft.bayern.de/landwirtschaft/Förderwegweiser

ECKSTEIN, K., J. GLOEGGLER UND H. HOFFMANN (2003): Kulturlandschaftsprogramm; Vertragsnaturschutzprogramm. –In: Halbzeitbewertung des Plans zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums in Bayern, Triesdorf, S. 96-208

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2000): The set of common evaluation questions with criteria and indicators pursuant to Article 42(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) 1750/1997. VI/12004/00-Final http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/eval/index_de.htm

HEGE, U., FISCHER UND OFFENBERGER (2003): Nährstoffsalden und Nitratgehalte des Sickerwassers in ökologisch und üblich bewirtschafteten A-ckerflächen. Schriftenreihe 03/03.

TISCHNER, H. UND B. SCHENKEL(2002): Intensität des Pflanzenschutzmitteleinsatzes in landwirtschaftlichen Naturräumen. Schule und Be-ratung, 4/02. 8-14

WETTERICH, F. UND G. HAAS (1999): Ökobilanz Allgäuer Grünlandbetriebe; Intensiv-Extensiv-Ökologisch. P. D. U. K. (Hrsg.). Schriften-reihe Institut für organischen Landbau. 12. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin

mid term evaluation of the bavarian agri-environmental...

Documents