Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
AGRICULTURE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
5 February 2001
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability is the main principle of the Declaration of Rio and Agenda 21 established
in 1992 at the United Nations Conference for Environment and Development
(UNCED). The report Our Common Future of the World Commission on
Environment and Development (Brundtland report) had already defined sustainability
in 1987 as a development which meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on
Environment and Development 1987).
According to Agenda 21, the concept of sustainability is multidimensional. It includes
ecological, social and economic objectives. Between these different elements, there is
interdependency. Research results indeed confirm that the relationships are strong,
numerous and complex. Strengthening the economic viability of rural areas is the basis
for providing the means of preserving their social and environmental functions. Social
implications result from the provision of rural employment opportunities, the
diversification of economic activities and the promotion of local products, services,
craft activities and agri-tourism. Preserving environmental quality is also a precondition
for developing a lasting economic potential in rural areas. The ecological integrity and
the scenic value of rural landscapes are key ingredients for making rural areas
attractive for enterprise settlements, as a place to live, and for the tourist and
recreation business.
Economic, social and environmental objectives can to a certain degree develop
synergies. However, they are not always mutually supportive; they even can compete
with each other. Where this is the case, the concept of sustainability refers to the need
to strike the right balance between its three elements. Political choices concerning one
out of these three elements must at least ensure that certain minimum standards with
respect to the other two are observed.
At the Earth Summit of 1992 it was recommended that the signatory states of
Agenda 21 should develop national sustainable development strategies. The Special
Session of the UN General Assembly to Review and Appraise the Implementation of
Agenda 21 (UNGASS) of 1997 reiterated this commitment and set out a deadline for
having such strategies developed by the year 2002.
The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 makes sustainable development an objective of the
EU. At the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 the Commission undertook
to propose a sustainable development strategy at the EU level as requested by
UNGASS, in time for the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001.
The EU Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning approved at the Informal Council at
Potsdam in 1999 a European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) which aims to
ensure balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union.
The Perspective calls for integrated and diversified rural development which ultimately
aims at overcoming dualism between city and countryside. One policy option to
achieve this goal is to secure sustainable agriculture.
The Agriculture Council endorsed in October 1999 an integration strategy which was
presented in December 1999 to the Helsinki European Council, in line with the overall
integration process started by the European Council at Cardiff in June 1998.
The integration strategy of the Agriculture Council follows the direction established in
February 1999 by the Commission Communication Directions towards sustainable
agriculture which had developed the environmental context for the Agenda 2000
proposals and underlined the need for a continuous process of integration and
monitoring of progress (European Commission 1999a).
In January 2000, the Commission presented its Communication Indicators for the
Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy COM
(2000) 20 (European Commission 2000a), following a request of the Agricultural
Council. This communication presented a framework of agri-environmental indicators
with a view to provide the means for monitoring the implementation of the integration
strategy and improving transparency, accountability, as well as to facilitating
evaluation. In discussing this communication the Agricultural Council underlined that it
is important to broaden the approach and to fully cover sustainable development,
which includes the integration of the economic and social dimensions of sustainability.
While taking into account that the three dimensions are intricately linked, this working
document puts the focus on indicators concerning the economic and social dimensions
of sustainable agriculture and rural development. As a general requirement, indicators
have to be policy-relevant. They must provide - at an appropriate spatial level - factual
information, which can guide policy-makers in their decisions while reflecting tradeoffs between the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability.
Indicators should help to identify policy fields where action is needed. They must help
to monitor the impact of policy action and make it visible to the broader public.
2.
Core issues addressed by the concept of sustainability are the maintenance of a certain
level of capital stocks (natural, human and man-made capital) as well as achieving
efficiency and equity.
Stocks
Sustainable development is about ensuring that a certain welfare level can be sustained
over time. This requires that combinations of various forms of capital stocks are
available for production and consumption (natural, human and man-made capital). It
also means to provide the coming generations with an aggregate capital stock which is
equivalent to the existing one. This rule is known as weak sustainability, which
postulates an indifferent attitude with respect to the composition of the capital stock
being passed on. Fewer natural resources might be considered acceptable, if the lower
quantity is offset by an equivalent capital stock. Weak sustainability implies that
different forms of capital can substitute each other.
In practice, substitutability between the various forms of capital might be limited as it
would be the case, for example, between man-made and natural capital. Those
ecological assets, which cannot be substituted and are essential for human survival or
important for human wellbeing, can be termed critical natural capital. Strong
sustainability requires the conservation of total capital and critical natural capital
(Pearce 1993, Faucheux, S., OConnor, M. (eds.) 1998).
The determination of the critical level of natural capital to be maintained is difficult.
Technological change can alter the degree of substitutability between resources as well
as the welfare level achievable from a given unit of a resource (improvement in
productivity over time). Furthermore, the potential for future uses of a given quantity
of resources is not always predictable. The extinction of a certain species of plant
could deprive future generations of potential benefit achieved from making use of its
genetic code. This implies that natural resources have to be looked at not only from the
perspective of their present use value but also from the perspective of their option
values (the potential for future welfare generation) (OECD 1995).
As it is difficult to measure option values as well as to anticipate the implications of the
interaction between different resources, a precautionary approach is justified in
defining levels of critical natural capital. This implies that the setting of the relevant
levels has to be based on scientific evaluation, the decision-making procedure should
be transparent and it should involve to the extent possible all interested parties. The
measures considered should be, inter alia, proportional to the chosen level, nondiscriminatory in their application, consistent with similar measures already taken, and
based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action
(European Commission 2000b).
Efficiency
Given that resources are scarce and some of them cannot be substituted for others,
they have to be combined in such a way, that welfare (in terms of an aggregate utility
function) can be maximised over time (efficiency condition). This highlights the
dynamic aspect of the concept of sustainable development (Legg 1999).
An optimal intra-generation allocation is difficult to determine, because mechanisms to
account for the value of resources are often imperfect due to missing markets.
Producers lack the incentives to take into account the full cost of environmental
degradation or the full benefits of the provision of environmental services when making
their production decisions. While a certain outcome can be efficient from an individual
point of view, it can be inefficient from that of society. A socially optimal resource
allocation can be achieved only, if all costs are internalised (OECD 1995).
Internalisation of external effects requires specification and distribution of user rights.
On this basis, private arrangements can lead to satisfactory re-allocations of resources
as long as the number of partners involved is small, the issues are of local importance
and individual behaviour or outcomes can readily be observed. With a high degree of
publicness (i.e. non-rivalry in consumption and limited possibility to exclude free
riders), a sustainable allocation of resources will have to be pursued through policy
instruments established by democratic decision making.
Even more difficult is achieving inter-generation efficiency, given the lack of
knowledge about the development of future demand, the availability of substitutes, and
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS
There is a strong link between the issue of intergenerational equity and the maintenance of a
combination of stocks, the first being a goal and the other a means to achieve the goal.
Stocks
Efficiency
Equity
Environmental
Economic
Social dimension
dimension
dimension
(COM(2000)20)
Maintenance of sufficient capital stocks (environmental, man-made, human);
employment, cultural capital, social cohesion
Environmental
Optimum
Maintenance and
efficiency
utilisation of the
creation of
factors of
employment
Covered by
production,
in
Institutional
(COM(2000)20);
particular labour,
efficiency
not taken up in this
increase of
(regulatory
document
agricultural
framework,
productivity
informal
Assurance of the
relationships and
availability of
steering
supplies
mechanisms)
Competitive
agricultural sector
Viability of
holdings
Setting of a reference
Over space:
Over sectors and space:
level as basis for the
Contribution to
Fair standard of
application of the
viability of rural
living for the
Polluter-Pays-Principle/
areas / a balanced
agricultural and
remuneration of
pattern of
rural communities
environmental services
development / the
Over social groups:
Covered by
maintenance of
Equal opportunities
COM(2000)20);
vibrant and active
rural communities
not taken up in this
Ethics:
document
Labour conditions
Ethical production
methods and animal
welfare
In the light of the above-mentioned considerations, one can conclude that sustainable
agriculture maintains sufficient resources (natural, human, man-made) to meet current
and future demands.
The ecological dimension refers above all to the management of natural resources
with a view to ensure that they are available in the future. However, it also includes
issues such as the protection of landscapes, habitats, biodiversity, as well as the
quality of drinking water and air.
The social dimension relates here to questions of labour opportunities and access
to resources and services of agricultural households compared to other economic
agents in rural areas. The issues of equal opportunities and societys ethical
concerns regarding agricultural production methods can also be considered as
belonging to the social dimension of sustainable agriculture.
4.
INDICATORS
Other frameworks exist as well, for example frameworks developed to evaluate public policies
(European Commission 1997b).
10
OUTCOME
INDICATORS
PROCESSES
INDICATORS
SYSTEM
INDICATORS
(Ecological,
economical, social)
RESOURCES
INDICATORS
CONTEXTUAL
INDICATORS
STRUCTURE
INDICATORS
SECTORAL
INDICATORS
It should be noted that this map does not imply a hierarchical structure of indicators.
The map shows that sectoral indicators are only elements of a wider set of indictors.
This also implies that such indicators would have to be interpreted in the context of the
development of a wider set of indicators.
Looking at indicator groups
A preliminary review of experience made with indicator sets already established shows
that lone-standing indicators often do not provide satisfactory information as to
whether developments are actually pointing towards sustainability3. The combined
effects of developments and the need to deal with resulting complexities make it
necessary to look at groups of indicators that include both state and policy (response)
indicators.
The multidimensionality of sustainability suggests also considering indicator groups.
Whereas sustainability requires the maintenance of sufficient stocks in order to meet
current and future demand, a comprehensive picture of sustainability can be given only
if indicators on the quantitative development of stocks/resources are complemented by
those reflecting the quality of resources, the efficiency of their transformation, and the
resulting output and development of demand.
UK, Finland, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, OECD. See Annexe 2.
11
5.
DEVELOPING
Following the reasoning developed above, and being aware that sectoral and territorial
indicators are only one element in the assessment of overall sustainability, we suggest
the following structure:
Stocks
Efficiency
Equity
Environmental
Economic dimension
Social dimension
dimension
(COM(2000)20)
State and flow indicators on stocks (Quality and Quantity)
(environmental stocks not covered)
Efficiency indicators:
Indicators on
Not covered
employment
Output indicators
(Quality and
Indicators on
quantity)
institutional
efficiency
Competitiveness
and viability
indicators
Over
space:
Over space/sectors:
Not covered
Indicators on the
Indicators on
viability of rural
access to resources/
communities and
services and
the maintenance of
opportunities
a balanced pattern
Social groups:
of development
Indicators on equal
including the
opportunities
agricultural
sectors
Ethics:
contribution
Labour conditions
Animal welfare
indicators
The characteristics and the complexity of the concept of sustainability (multidimensional, global, dynamic) as well as the fact that it reaches out into the future,
make sustainability a concept which gives a certain direction for policy making rather
than serving as a benchmark that could be precisely defined. Whereas it seems difficult
to identify a quantifiable distance of a certain state to quantified sustainability targets,
sustainability indicators should allow to judge whether a certain development
contributes to movement in the right direction. It is well possible that individual
indicators point into different directions. While it would seem desirable to construct
composite indicators for the different dimensions (ecological, economic and social)
caution should be exercised as regards the development of an overall composite
indicator. Indeed, it is the very purpose of sustainability indicators to show that there
are trade-offs between the three dimensions, which requires appropriate policy choices.
12
Forestry is not covered, as a comprehensive set of indicators already exists (MCPFE 2000 a). Nonmarket outputs are covered by the ecological dimension of sustainable agriculture and rural
development.
13
Policy indicators: Most of the policy indicators proposed so far aim at monitoring
and helping to evaluate the second pillar of the CAP (rural development). It seems
worthwhile to include more indicators related to the first pillar of the CAP (market
support).
Data needs: On a technical level, whether the relevant statistical data is available to
calculate the proposed indicators at the appropriate spatial level, needs to be
identified.
14
Indicator fields
Stocks
State:
Number of people employed in agriculture (male,
female)
Age structure of agricultural labour force (male,
female)
Flow:
Evolution of number of people employed in agriculture
(male, female)
Flow:
(all RD programmes) Employment maintained/created on
directly/indirectly benefiting farm holdings and enterprises
(other than holdings), of which women (%), of which
young people (%)
(Setting up of young farmers) Number of assisted young
farmers installed
(Early retirement) Number of assisted exits
Flow:
Agricultural education and training (including on
alternative production methods)
Stocks
Indicator fields
State:
Fixed assets and stocks in agriculture
Farmers fixed assets outside their ag. core activity
(e.g. tourism infrastructure)
Flow:
Change in fixed assets and stocks in agriculture
Rate of renewal of farm capital (farm level)
State:
-
Flow:
(Training) Number of supported hours of vocational
training
Economic dimension
Implementation
Man made capital
Flow:
Investment aids
Investments supported by aids
16
Economic dimension
Implementation
Indicator fields
Institutional
efficiency
Indicator
fields
Social dimension
Implementation
Regulatory framework,
informal relationships
and steering
mechanisms
Efficiency
Quality
Infringements on
residues/ contaminants
legislation
Organic agriculture
Products carrying
registered product
names
17
Related policy
indicators
Indicator fields
Economic
Implementation
Indicator fields
Social
Implementation
Food demand
Quantity
Quantity
Quality
Quality
To be developed
Efficiency (production)
Efficiency
Capital productivity
Labour productivity
Land productivity
Energy efficiency
18
Related
policy
indicators
Indicator fields
Efficiency
Value added
Composition of farm
household income
Own resources
Public stocks
Farmers terms of
trade
Economic
Implementation
Related policy indicators
Competitiveness/viability
Farm net value
added / AWU (per
region in
comparison with
EU-average)
Farm net value
added / UAA (per
region in
comparison with
EU-average)
Farm, farm-related,
off-farm income
Net worth (total
assets liabilities)
creation in a given
year / total net worth
(per region)
Public stocks in
quantities and
values
Index of prices paid
(intermediate
consumption) /
Index of prices
received (final
agricultural output)
Indicator fields
Social
Implementation
19
Efficiency
Economic
Indicator fields
Implementation
Related policy indicators
Viability of the current structure of the sector
Change in own
resources of farms
Financial stress
Change in net
worth: Number of
farms where it is
positive / number of
farms where it is
negative
Debt servicing ratio:
Cash flow (2) +
interest paid /
interest paid
Male / female
Evolution
Average change in
population over
previous ten years
Equity
Population numbers
Economic
Indicator fields
Implementation
Related policy indicators
Balanced development over space (rural non-rural)
Population
Social
Indicator fields
Implementation
Related policy indicators
Equity over sectors (agriculture rest of rural economy)
Income
Factor income
per person
Equity over space (rural areas and rural non-rural) (Social cohesion)
Distribution
income
Migratory balance
Age structure
Indicator fields
Social
Implementation
Poverty rate
For different age
classes in % (male
and female)
Jobless
households
20
of
Skills
Proportion of
population with
above average
education
Early
leavers
21
school-
Share of population
aged 18-24 with only
lower secondary
education
Indicator fields
Economic
Implementation
Related policy
indicators
Balanced development over space (rural non-rural) (cont.)
Indicator fields
Social
Implementation
Production
GDP
Share agriculture in
GDP
Equity
Ethics
Labour
conditions (over
sectors)
Share of CAP-support
(price and other support) in
regional final agricultural
production5
Animal welfare
(agriculture)
Employment
Size and structure
of the working
population
Agricultural
employment/ total
(rural) employment
Food industry
employment / total
(rural) employment
Labour pressure
Employed
persons
aged 15 64
Public sector/private
sector employment
(all RD programmes)
Employment
maintained/created on
directly/indirectly
benefiting farm holdings
and enterprises (other than
holdings)
Unemployment
Unemployment rate
(by age and sex)
23
Equity
Economic
Indicator fields
Implementation
Related policy indicators
Balanced development over space (rural non-rural) (cont.)
Infrastructure
2
3
4
5
6
Indicators developed to monitor and evaluate the rural development programmes of the CAP based on Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, Art. 48 and 49 respectively
(European Council 1999b)
Methodology Agriculture and Agri-food Canada
Calorie requirements: FAO methodology
Methodologies: Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, CAPRI energy module
DG Agriculture methodology
Proxy indicator, DATAR INSEE methodology
24
Annex 1:
Review of EU policy documents addressing the notion
of sustainable agriculture and rural development
In bold: Elements referring to the ecological, economic and social dimensions of
sustainable agriculture and rural development
The table below includes direct quotes from established legislation and policy documents
some of which were presented at various phases of the Agenda 2000 reform. Therefore,
the quotes are overlapping in many respects.
Document
Treaty of
Amsterdam, Article
33
(Treaty of Rome,
Art. 39)
To stabilise markets
(p. 26) The Union should make a parallel effort to enhance the economic potential and the
environmental value of rural areas and their capacity to provide sustainable jobs.
(p. 29) [] Food safety and food quality are at least as important. []
[] Of growing importance in this area too are questions of the environmental
friendliness of production methods, and animal welfare considerations. []
Ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community and contributing to the
stability of farm incomes remain key objectives of the CAP. In this context the questions
of differentiation, redistribution of income support among farmers and the preservation of
sustainable farming are gaining importance, not least from the point of view of social
cohesion.
The integration of environmental goals into the CAP and the development of the role
farmers can and should play in terms of management of natural resources and landscape
conservation are another increasingly important objective for the CAP.
The creation of complementary or alternative income and employment opportunities
for farmers and their families, on-farm and off-farm, remains a major aim for the
future, as employment possibilities in agriculture itself fall away. Rural areas are multifunctional, and farmers should be encouraged to exploit all opportunities for rural
entrepreneurs. Last but not least, while recognising the need of all rural areas for
improving agricultural competitiveness and enhancing economic diversification,
agricultural and rural policies have to contribute to economic cohesion within the Union.
25
A competitive agriculture sector which can gradually face up to the world market
without being over-subsidised, since this is becoming less and less acceptable
internationally;
Production methods which are sound and environmentally friendly, able to supply
quality products of the kind the public wants;
Diverse forms of agriculture, rich in tradition, which are not just output-oriented but
seek to maintain the visual amenity of our countryside as well as vibrant and active
rural communities, generating and maintaining employment;
[]
Council
regulation
(EC) No 1251/1999
of 17 May 1999
establishing a support
system for producers
of certain arable
crops
Preamble:
(21) Whereas, in order to benefit from the area payments, producers should set aside a
predetermined percentage of their arable area; whereas the land set aside should be cared
for so as to meet certain minimum environmental standards; []
Council Regulation
(EC) No 1254/1999
of 17 May 1999 on
the common
organisation of the
market in beef and
veal
Preamble:
Council Regulation
(EC) No 1257/1999
of 17 May 1999 on
support for rural
development from
the European
Agricultural
Guidance and
Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) and
amending and
repealing certain
regulations
26
(31) Whereas the agri-environmental aid scheme should continue to encourage farmers to
serve society as a whole by introducing or continuing the use of farming practices
compatible with the increasing need to protect and improve the environment, natural
resources, soil and genetic diversity and to maintain the landscape and the countryside
(40) [] Whereas the list of measures should be defined on the basis of experience and
having regard to the need for rural development to be based partly on non-agricultural
activities and services so as to reverse the trend towards the economic and social decline
and depopulation of the countryside; whereas measures to remove inequalities and to
promote equal opportunities for men and women should be supported
(41) Whereas demand from consumers for organically-produced agricultural products
and foodstuffs is increasing; whereas a new market for agricultural products is thus being
created; whereas organic agriculture improves the sustainability of farming activities
and thus contributes to the general aims of this Regulation []
Council regulation
(EC) No 1259/1999
of 17 May 1999
establishing common
rules for direct
support schemes
under the common
agricultural policy
Preamble:
(3) Whereas, with a view to better integrating the environment into the common market
organisations, Member States should apply appropriate environmental measures in
relation to agricultural land and agricultural production subject of direct payments;
whereas Member States should decide on the consequences in the case of environmental
requirements not being observed; whereas Member States should be enabled to reduce or
even cancel benefits accruing from support schemes where such environmental
requirements are not respected; whereas such measures should be taken by Member
States notwithstanding the possibility of granting aid in return for optional agrienvironmental commitments
(4) Whereas, in order to stabilise the employment situation in agriculture and to take into
account the overall prosperity of holdings and Community support to those holdings and
thus to contribute to a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, including all
persons engaged in agriculture, Member States should be authorised to reduce direct
payments to farmers in case []
(7) Whereas the support schemes under the common agricultural policy provide for direct
income support in particular with a view to ensuring a fair standard of living for the
agricultural community; whereas this objective is closely related to the maintenance of
rural areas; []
27
Council strategy on
the environmental
integration and
sustainable
development in the
common agricultural
policy established by
the Agricultural
Council, 12328/99,
28 October 1999
(8) The Council notes the multifunctional role of agriculture from production of food
and renewable raw materials to the stewardship of rural landscapes and the
protection of the environment. Agricultures contribution to the viability of rural
areas is also indisputable [].
(9) Integration of environmental protection and sustainability requirements into
sectoral policies is a key element for successful socio-economic development as well as
for improvement and implementation of environmental policy. []
(11) [] Sustainable agriculture calls for natural resources to be managed in a way
that ensures benefits are also available in the future. It takes into account the
preservation of the overall balance and value of the natural capital stock and the need
for agriculture to be competitive.
(13) Complemented by the contribution of agriculture to the viability of rural areas
these objectives [the objectives of the Treaty of Rome] comprise important economic and
social aspects of the sustainability approach. Agriculture plays an important role in
contributing to the maintenance of employment in rural areas and in the whole food
and non-food production chain.
(15) Integration of the environment into the CAP starts by recognising that a reference
level of good agricultural practices which is dependent on local conditions should be
respected in all agricultural areas of the EU. The general principle is that where farmers
provide services to the environment beyond the reference level of good agricultural
practices, these should be adequately remunerated. Certain methods of agricultural
production, for example organic farming, integrated production and traditional low output
farming and typical local productions, provide a combination of positive environmental,
social and economic effects.
(36) As elements of sustainable agriculture ethical production methods and animal
welfare should be promoted.
(46) It is necessary to deepen and develop further the integrated rural policy by taking into
account the social and economic dimension, encouraging co-operation and dialogue
between actors (environmental authorities, non-governmental organisations, farmers
organisations and public actors) in the pursuit of sustainability and through national
measures. The rural development policy as the second pillar of the CAP seeks to
establish a coherent and sustainable framework for the future of rural areas aiming at
restoring and enhancing competitiveness and therefore contributing to the
maintenance of employment.
(87) [] It is important to broaden the domain of indicators to include multifunctionality
of agriculture and sustainable development.
28
Sustainable agriculture ensures that agricultures natural base remains productive and
agricultural production can be competitive in the future and that farming works to
promote positive environmental impact.
[] Agriculture is multifunctional and clearly has effects on the environment and the
rural landscape. Furthermore it has a fundamental role to play in the viability of
rural areas.
Good agricultural practices should be further developed and respected in all areas of
the EU.
Agriculture plays an important role in contributing to the maintenance of
employment in rural areas and in the whole food and non-food production chain.
[]
Agriculture should respond to increasing consumer concern about food safety as well
as food and environment quality []
Economical, environmental, social and cultural services provided by farmers must be
recognised; for these services farmers should be adequately remunerated. In particular,
when farmers provide services for the benefit of the environment beyond the reference
level of good agricultural practices and environmental legislation, they should be
adequately compensated for example through agri-environmental measures being
implemented on a voluntary basis []
Communication from
the Commission:
Directions towards
sustainable
agriculture, COM
(1999) 22 final, 27
January 1999
(p.8) (Introduction) The beneficial use of land and natural resources for agricultural
production has also to be balanced with societys values relating to the protection of the
environment and cultural heritage.
(p. 21) (Environmental elements of the CAP reform under Agenda 2000) Policies are
required to develop EU agriculture on a sustainable path, ensuring an environmentally
sound, economically viable, and socially acceptable European model of agriculture
(p.24/25) (Rural development measures) The tourist potential based on good environmental
conditions of rural areas enables the diversification of economic activities to be
considered; this requires a sustainable and integrated approach in order to meet the quality
requirements of tourists, to improve the situations of local businesses and communities and
to preserve the natural (landscape and biodiversity) and cultural (architecture,
handicrafts, traditions) heritage.
(p. 27) (Compensatory allowances in less-favoured areas) The main objectives remain
broadly unchanged, namely to assure continued farming in the less-favoured areas, to
contribute to the maintenance of a viable rural community, to preserve the landscape
and to promote the continuation of sustainable farming in areas where it is necessary for
the protection of the countryside.
Communication from
the Commission:
Indicators for the
Integration of
Environmental
Concerns into the
Common
Agricultural Policy,
COM (2000) 20
final, 26 January
2000
29
ESDP (European
Spatial Development
Perspective), agreed
at the Informal
Council of Ministers
responsible for
Spatial Planning in
Potsdam, 1999
Policy options:
13. Promotion of diversified development strategies, sensitive to the indigenous potentials
in the rural areas and which help to achieve an indigenous development (including the
promotion of multifunctionality in agriculture). Support of rural areas in education,
training and in the creation of non-agricultural jobs.
14. Strengthening small and medium-sized towns in rural areas as focal points for regional
development and promotion of their networking.
15. Securing sustainable agriculture, application of environmental measures and
diversification of agrarian land utilisation.
16. Promotion and support of co-operation and information exchange between rural areas.
17. Use of the potential for renewable energy in urban and rural areas, taking into account
local and regional conditions, in particular the cultural and natural heritage.
18. Exploitation of the development potential of environmentally friendly tourism.
19. Maintenance of a basic supply of services and public transport in small and mediumsized towns in rural areas, particularly those in decline.
20. Promotion of co-operation between towns and countryside aiming at strengthening
functional regions.
21. Integrating the countryside surrounding large cities in spatial development strategies
for urban regions, aiming at more efficient land use planning, paying special attention to
the quality of life in the urban surroundings.
22. Promotion and support of partnership-based co-operation between small and mediumsized towns at a national and transnational level through joint projects and the mutual
exchange of experience.
23. Promotion of company networks between small and medium-sized enterprises in the
towns and countryside.
30
UK
Finland
France
OECD
Indicator
Agricultural assets and liabilities
Age of farmers
Percentage of holdings that are tenanted
PSE
Agri-environment payments
Total income from farming
Agricultural workers earnings / manual workers earnings
Agricultural productivity (labour and total)
Agricultural employment
Direct energy consumption
Indirect energy inputs
Area of agricultural land
Rural socio-economic resources:
Share of labour force in primary production
Population of age group 0-4 and share in total population
Pensioners and share in total population
Higher educated inhabitants and share in total population
Population density (various indicators)
Unemployment
Quality of housing
Socio-cultural indicators:
Number of active farmers
Co-operation between farms
Environmentally conscious behaviour
Socio-territorial indicators:
Product quality
Quality of buildings and landscapes
Access to land
Social structures
Value of sales through Direct Marketing
Social services and services related to farming (agro-tourism)
Contribution to employment
Joint use of resources
Perdurability of farm
Imported feedstuffs from developing countries
Training
Number of weeks with heavy work-load
Subjective quality of life
Subjective feeling of isolation
Economic indicators:
Viability
Specialisation
Financial autonomy
Dependency on direct payments
Invested capital
Efficiency
Farm income
Related:
Share agricultural income / total income
Income parity
Farm real estate values
Educational level of farmers
31
Spatial level
Country
Country
Country
EU
Country
Country
Country
Country
Country
Country
Country
Country
Region
Region
Farm level
Farm level
Country
Country
Country
Country
Country
Indicator
Agri-environment payments
32
Spatial level
Country
Sources:
UK:
Environmental indicators for agriculture: methods and results the stocktaking report
contextual indicators: farm financial resources, draft, Paris 2000
Environmental indicators for agriculture: methods and results the stocktaking report
contextual indicators, draft, Paris 2000
33
Australia,
New Zealand
Shadbolt
Canada
Switzerland
Country, region
Region
Farm
Region
Region
Region
Region
Farm, region and country
Sources:
Australia, New Zealand:
-
Shadbolt, N. M., Morriss S. D.: Financial indicators of sustainability for farming businesses
and families, a conceptual model to relate these indicators to those used for environmental
and social sustainability, Palmerston North 199.
Canada:
-
Switzerland:
-
34
35
Bibliography
Bundesamt fr Landwirtschaft, Agrarbericht des Bundesamts fr Landwirtschaft, Bern
2000
CESC-Communautaire in co-operation with DATAR and Ministerio de Agricultura,
Pesca y Alimentacion, Rural Indicators and Rural Development, Luxembourg 2000
Environment Bureau, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Measuring Sustainability with
Indicators, www.agr.ca/policy/environment/sustainability/performance/ indicators
European Commission (1996), First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion 1996,
Brussels Luxembourg 1996
European Commission (1997a), Indicators of sustainable development : a pilot study
following the methodology of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development, Luxembourg 1997
European Commission (1997b), Evaluating EU Expenditure Programmes, Luxembourg
1997
European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture (DG VI) (1997c), CAP 2000
Working Document, Rural Developments, Brussels 1997
European Commission (1998), Community committee for the farm accountancy data
network (FADN), Definitions of Variables used in FADN standard results, Brussels 1998
European Commission (1999a), Communication from the Commission: Directions
towards sustainable agriculture, COM (1999) 22 final, Brussels 1999
European Commission (1999b), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July
1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No
1257(1999) on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Brussels 1999
European Commission (1999c), Agenda 2000 COM (97) 2000 final, Brussels 1997
European Commission (1999d), Proposals for Council Regulations (EC) concerning the
reform of the common agricultural policy, COM (1998) 182 final, Brussels 1998
European Commission (1999e), Sixth Periodic Report on the social and economic
situation and development of the regions of the European Union, Brussels 1999
European Commission (1999f), ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective
Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union,
Agreed at the Informal Council of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning in
Potsdam, Luxembourg, 1999
European Commission (2000a), Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament: Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into
the Common Agricultural Policy, COM (2000) 20 final, Brussels 2000
36
39