Policy Support for Agroforestry in the European Union

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Policy Support for Agroforestry in the European Union"

Jordan Murphy
8 years ago
Views:

1 Policy Support for Agroforestry in the European Union Gerry Lawson 1,2 (UK) P.Burgess 1,2 (England), R. Crowe 1 (N.Ireland), F. Herzog 2 (Switzerland), K.Mantzanas 2 (Greece), M.Mayus 2 (Netherlands), G.Moreno 2 (Spain), J.McAdam 1 (N.Ireland), S.Newman 1 (England), A.Pisanelli 2 (Italy), F.Schuman 2 (Germany), A.Sibbald 1 (Scotland), F.Sinclair 1 (Wales), T.H. Thomas 1 (Wales) & A. Waterhouse 1 (Scotland) Farm Woodland Forum 1 SAFE Project 2 World Agroforestry Congress Orlando, Florida, June 04

Ireland), S.Newman 1 (England), A.Pisanelli 2 (Italy), F.Schuman 2 (Germany), A.Sibbald 1 (Scotland), F.

2 Spain Dehesa (Montados in Portugal) are the largest agro-silvo-pastoral system in Europe, located in Spain and Portugal, and covering about 3 million hectares of widely spaced oak trees mixed with pastures or intercropped with fodder or cereals.

Portugal, and covering about 3 million hectares of widely

3 Spain livestock production in dehesa Different types of animal use the fodder and shade

4 Spain - dehesas Also used for firewood, cork, acorns, hunting, mushrooms and tree-fodder

5 Spain - dehesas Ploughed previous year Harvested in March Then kept fallow for several years

6 UK poplar intercropping Until 1989 Bryant & May, maintained its own poplar plantations and would contract farmers to grow poplars for matches production. Cereals were intercropped amongst the trees, sometimes in alternate strips. Poplar or aspen logs are now imported from Canada

7 UK - forest grazing & shelterbelts Natural or planted woodland is a crucial source of shelter. An early bite of grass is provided in Spring in woodlands and in the the lea of shelterbelts. In sunnier areas open woodland is a crucial source of fodder or protection for the animals from heat stress.

An early bite of grass is provided in Spring in woodlands and in the the

8 UK silvoarable trials. A silvoarable trial was established with identical management at three sites. Crop yields did not decline for 8 years. Cuttings were established into plastic mulch with good weed control. Regular ploughing means that large roots have developed along tree lines.

9 Italy traditional poplar Intercropping of vegetables with poplar has long been a tradition in Italy, particularly in the Po Valley. It is much less common and less intensive than previously Traditionally the 3-4m long truncheons were inserted directly into a sown crop after soaking for at least 2 weeks to ensure sprouting of roots. Rotation length might be years.

It is much less common and less intensive than previously Traditionally the 3-4m long

10 Italy traditional poplar Specialised machinery was used for planting truncheons And for spraying against pests. Less specialised machinery was used for the loading of timber lorries.

11 Italy olive intercrops Olive trees scattered in a cereal field Olive trees and vines in rows at 10m spacing and intercropped with cereals

12 Italy olive intercrops Olive trees and vines in boundary rows. Olive trees and vines in different rows (tree spacing 5m, row spacing 3-5m).

13 Germany recent community trials Site: approximately 10ha in fan shape, border areas used for nature conservation and aesthetics important, planted April 2003 with help of children from local school. Problems: 1/3rds trees died because of drought & crop largely failed Future: replanting trees in November and decision of future management

14 Central Europe (1) - streuobst Fodder beet Potatoes Oats Alfalfa

15 ~10 6 ha in temperate Europe

17 Obstacles to AF Uptake - Farmers Farmers reluctant because of: Low subsidies in 1257/99 (lower arable area payments, prorata reduced planting grants, no income support payments, ineligible for agri-environmental payments) Classification as permanent forest land (lower tax but lower land value & irreversible planning control) Perception of increased pest problems Likely damage to field drains Trees owned by landlord and not tenants Uncertainties over management, time consumption and yield Little knowledge of markets Possible lower timber quality Scepticism of professionals and advisors Time and bureaucracy for grant application process

control) Perception of increased pest problems Likely damage to field drains Trees owned by landlord and not tenants Uncertainties over management, time

18 Obstacles to AF Uptake - Officials Officials reluctant because: No EU Forest Policy (or mention of forestry in the Constitution) No mention of Agroforestry in the 1999 EU Forest Strategy Lack of experience of old or new agroforestry systems Too complicated to work out the grant regimes ( If agroforestry so good why does it need a grant ) Most countries cant bend grant rules for experimental trials Effects cadastral and local tax status of land Falls between agriculture, forestry and environment departments. Agriculture Department wants to hang on to agricultural land. Forestry Department doesn t believe its possible to grow good quality timber at wide spacing Environment Department doesn t like regimented rows, intensive management and control of weeds. Perception that EU doesn t allow it!! (e.g. EU insists that afforestation grants must reduce agricultural surpluses )

trials Effects cadastral and local tax status of land Falls between agriculture, forestry and environment departments. Agriculture Department wants to hang on to agricultural land.

19 Current eligibility of grants to agroforestry France reduced crop payment, full livestock payment, good tree-planting and agri-environmental payments see Liagre et al (this meeting). UK full livestock and reduced crop payments, pro-rata reduced tree planting payment (now only poplar) but no agri-environment subsidy (see Burgess et al this meeting) Spain Full livestock payment, crop payment reduced by 2 times crown area, no agri-environment (see Moreno et al this meeting) Netherlands new status of temporary forest introduced but no tree-planting grants at wide spacing, crop payments still uncertain. Greece only livestock grants for forest grazing. Italy - only livestock grants for forest grazing. Germany only livestock grants for forest grazing. AND IT MIGHT SOON GET WORSE!!

payment, crop payment reduced by 2 times crown area, no agri-environment (see Moreno et al this meeting) Netherlands new status of temporary forest introduced but no tree-planting grants at wide

20 Toulouse Agroforestry Manifesto (1) Issue: The CAP mid-term review approved on 26th June 03 led to Regulation 1782/03 (29th September 03) defining the conditions for the Single Payment Scheme (SP). This includes a provision that areas of 'woodland' on a farm would be ineligible for SP. This could induce farmers to remove trees from fields or sparse woodlands, with attendant environmental and landscape damage. Recommendation: the definition of woodland and implementation of 1782/03 should be clarified to ensure that they do not lead to the removal of trees from farmed landscapes.

This could induce farmers to remove trees from fields or sparse woodlands, with attendant environmental and landscape damage.

21 Toulouse Agroforestry Manifesto (2) Issue: woodland' is not defined in Regulation (1782/03). This is done by Guidance Document (AGRI/2254/2003) using a single threshold of tree numbers per ha. This definition ignores internationally accepted definitions of 'forest' or 'forest land' from the UN-ECE/FAO and the UNFCCC which use multiple threshold ranges for crown cover, tree height at maturity, minimum area and bounding areas. However the EU definition must be capable of use by farmers in their annual returns (IACS forms) and be easily verified by officials in occasional spot checks. Recommendation: whilst arbitrary, tree density thresholds are easily checked and therefore acceptable. However they must be clarified by inclusion of an appropriate diameter at breast height.

22 Toulouse Agroforestry Manifesto (3) Issue: Guidance Document (AGRI/2254/2003) defines woodland by stating that 'areas of trees (particularly trees with a potential use only for wood production) inside an agricultural parcel with density of more than 50 trees/ha should, as a general rule, be considered as ineligible for the Single Payments Scheme. Exceptions may be envisaged for tree classes of mixed-cropping such as orchards and for ecological/ environmental reasons. Eventual exceptions must be defined beforehand by the member states'. Recommendation: member states should use the opportunity for exceptions in AGRI/2254/ 2003 to derive their own detailed definition of woodland and ensure this caters for both traditional and modern agroforestry practices. 50 trees/ha (>15cm dbh) is acceptable as a minimum threshold for farmed woodland

23 Recommendation A: i) for silvoarable systems SP can be paid for the cultivated portion of a parcel provided that it exceeds 50% of the total area; ii) for silvopastoral systems - SP can be maintained provided that more than 50% of the non-shaded pasture production is maintained. OR Recommendation B: full SP would be alowable in parcels with less than 50 trees (>15cm dbh). Between 50 and 400 trees/ha ( farmed woodland ) the SP would be proportionately reduced to zero. Beyond 400 trees/ha the parcel could be termed dense woodland and would not be eligible for SP. Toulouse Agroforestry Manifesto (4) Issue: crop, forage and animal production can be maintained at acceptable levels in agroforestry parcels with densities greater than 50 trees/ha. Therefore these parcels should not be completely excluded from the SP.

24 Toulouse Agroforestry Manifesto (5) Issue: Article 5 of Regulation 2419/01 indicates that: 'a parcel that both contains trees and is used for crop production (covered by Article 1 of Regulation 3508/92) shall be considered an agricultural parcel provided that the production envisaged can be carried out in a similar way as on parcels without trees in the same area'. It is important that agroforestry (or farmed woodlands ) remains classified as 'agriculture, since in most EU states this effects its fiscal status. Recommendation: wording of Article 5 of Regulation 2419/01 should be retained in future regulations (. this has happened already in Regulation 796/2004).

25 Toulouse Agroforestry Manifesto (6) Issue: farmers obtaining the SP are obliged to demonstrate that they maintain the farm in 'good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC)'. Annex IV of Regulation1782/03 indicates that one condition is 'avoiding encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land'. Recommendation: national definitions of GAEC should clarify that agroforestry and farmed woodlands do not represent encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land.

26 Policy Support for Agroforestry in the European Union THE NEXT 2 MONTHS ARE CRUCIAL FOR LOBBYING. ALL EUROPEAN DELEGATES SHOULD SEND THE TOULOUSE MANIFESTO TO THEIR NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE 1. Get Manifesto and discussion on the SAFE Website 2 ( 2. Copy correspondence to Gerry Lawson (gela@nerc.ac.uk) 3. For UK discussion see the FWF website 1 ( Farm Woodland Forum 1 SAFE Project 2 World Agroforestry Congress Orlando, Florida

Area-Based Schemes Application Process 2015 -Questions & Answers

Area-Based Schemes Application Process 2015 -Questions & Answers Version 1.0 16 February 2015 Area-Based Schemes Application Process 2015 Questions & Answers Version 1.0 16 February 2015 Contents Section