Instalarea Tinerilor Fermiei in Limba Engleza

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES
POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
EU MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE AND

SUPPORT NEW ENTRANTS
NOTE
This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and
Rural Development.
AUTHOR
Autonomous University of Madrid: Mr. Jess G. REGIDOR1
RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr Albert MASSOT
Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
European Parliament
B-1047 Brussels
E-mail: poldep-cohesion@europarl.europa.eu
EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE
Ms Catherine MORVAN
LINGUISTIC VERSIONS
Original: EN
ABOUT THE EDITOR

To contact the Policy Department B or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write
to: poldep-cohesion@europarl.europa.eu
Manuscript completed in September 2012.
Brussels, European Union, 2012.
This document is available on the Internet at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies
DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do
not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the
source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
1 With Professor Beatriz Snchez Reyes, Autonomous University of Madrid, statistical assistance.
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
EU MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE AND

SUPPORT NEW ENTRANTS
NOTE
Abstract:
The weak number of new entrants into farming in the EU-27 is determined
by certain economic and social factors that characterise Union agriculture.
The CAP envisages a series of measures to counter this situation, which
have been only scantly effective. The new model introduced by the
Commission constitutes an insufficient solution to the problem and needs to
be redefined if it is to effectively attract new entrants, not only to farming
but to any other activity in the countryside. That entails drawing a
distinction between agrifood and agri-environmental policies on the one
hand and territorial rural policies on the other, to develop a new Rural Policy
Framework for the EU.
IP/B/AGRI/CEI/2011-097/E008/SC01
PE 495.830
SEPTEMBER 2012
EN
EU measures to encourage and support new entrants
____________________________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION: STATE-OF-PLAY AND NEW FARMERS
1.1. Present situation and new entry into farming
1.1.1. Young farmers present situation
1.1.2. Main factors that discourage new entrants
7
7
7
11
1.2. Content and assessment of the present model
15
1.2.1. The current Young Farmer Scheme (YFS)

1.2.2. Measures currently implemented: key results
16
20
2. NEW MODEL TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT NEW ENTRANTS

2.1. Proposed model and assessment
2.1.1. The new Young Farmer Scheme (new YFS)
2.1.2. Assessment and legislative amendments
2.2. New farmers and countryside development
2.2.1. New model for establishment in rural areas (NRS)
2.2.2. Assessment and application of the New Rural Scheme
23
23
23
26
30
30
33
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
39
REFERENCES
43
ANNEX 1
45
ANNEX 2
53
ANNEX 3
61
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF GRAPHICS
Graphic 1
Holding by age of holder
Graphic 2
Holding by economic size (%)
Graphic 3
Revenues (ESU) by economic size of holdings (%)
Graphic 4
Agricultural income per AWU (2007-2009)
Graphic 5
Total subsidies excluding investment subsidies by ESU (mean 2007-2009)
Graphic 6
Farm subsidies in the EU-15, 1995-2008
Graphic 7
Distribution of direct payments and the small farmer scheme
8
10
11
15
18
27
29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Young farmer scheme
Figure 2
New young farmer scheme
Figure 3
New rural scheme
Figure 4
New NRS and new European Rural Policy
17
24
31
37
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
No. of holdings by age of holder (2003-2007)
Table 2
Key variables (holders under 35: % of total)
Table 3
Key variables/ No. of holdings (holders under 35)
Table 4
AWUs by age and sex (% of total)
Table 5
Measure 112: setting up support for young farmers (2007-2009)
Table 6
Measure 113: early retirement (2007-2010)
Table 7
Measure 121: modernisation of agricultural holdings (number 2007-2009)
Table 8
Measure 121: modernisation of agricultural holdings (expenditure 2007-2009)
Table 9
Time devoted to farming by family farm managers (% AWU)
Table 10
Distribution of the population of 15-24 year-olds by type of region (estimate)
9
9
12
13
20
21
21
22
34
35
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
1.
INTRODUCTION: STATE-OF-PLAY AND NEW FARMERS
The steady decline in the number of holdings and farmers in the EU has traditionally been
regarded as an inevitable effect of agricultural modernisation. Driven by technological
change, this process has given rise to the more or less intense reconversion of each
country's farming sector, depending on its production structures. The outcome has been
restructuring (increase in holding size) and employment adjustments (decline in number of
farmers). Nonetheless, the situation generated and incentivised by the CAP and its
successive reforms gives cause for serious concern, for the Union is now faced with a
shortage of new farmers.
The present scarcity of new entrants into farming is visible in the form of a dual problem:
the scant number of young farmers and the rapid ageing of the farmer population. A critical
analysis of the information available reveals the severity of these two problems and shows,
above all, that they are a consequence of deeply rooted economic and social factors. This
analysis revolves around the two groups of EU-27 countries and is supplemented with
country-by-country data. It constitutes the point of departure for this report, set out in
item 1.1.
The CAP has furthered a number of policies to confront this dual problem, synthesised in a
series of measures designed to favour the establishment of young farmers and the early
retirement of their older counterparts. The model based on these incentives has proven to
be scantly effective, judging from the weakness of the results. An analysis of country
indicators shows that youths are not entering farming, older farmers are not retiring early
and, generally speaking, the shortage of new farmers has tended to intensify, as discussed
in item 1.2.
1.1.
Present situation and new entry into farming
A review of the present situation of young farmers in the EU-27 based on the most
significant indicators of their holdings reveals the existence of a serious problem: young
Europeans appear to be eschewing agricultural careers. The concomitant ageing of the
farmer population, which compromises the future of this activity, constitutes a reality that
merits a closer look.
Some of the economic and social features characterising young European farmers, both in
the aggregate and by country, are synthesised below. This analysis will help pinpoint the
main factors that determine the weakness of new entry into farming, for which a sound
explanation definitely exists. The present study aims primarily to identify those factors.
1.1.1.
Young farmers present situation
The statistical information available (see Graphic 1) shows the scale of the problem: barely
6 % of EU-27 holdings are owned by farmers under 35 (around 5 % in the EU-15 and 7 %
in the EU-12). Despite the limitations to the statistical information, the presence of young
farmers can be seen to have declined steadily in all countries. Moreover, the prospects for
the future may be even bleaker.
The flip side of that problem is likewise obvious: over 55 % of EU-27 farm holders are 55 or
over, with no significant difference in this percentage between the EU-15 and the EU-12.
The forecast in this regard is alarming, given the high average age of farmers in a number
of EU countries.
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Graphic 1: Holdings by age of holder2
(*) 2010: Holdings by age of manager.

Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010).
Inasmuch as these two inter-related developments vary considerably from one country to
another (see Annex 1A), several Member States (MS) were selected for the analysis.
Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom were selected to represent the EU-15 and
Hungary, Poland and Romania the EU-12. All six nations are large and representative
enough of their respective geographic areas. As a rule, youths in most countries have
turned their backs on farming, thereby intensifying the ageing of the farming population.
The recent trend in number of farms by holder age (see Table 1) shows a very significant
decline in the number belonging to young people (-30.1 % from 2003 to 2007) in the
EU-27, with similarly steep drops in the EU-15 (-29.9 %) and the EU-12 (-30.2 %). At the
same time, an overall albeit more gently sloping decrease was observed in the number of
holdings for all age brackets, both in the EU-15 and the EU-12. In the latter, however, the
decline was less intense in the 35-44 age group (-7.8 %), no explanation for which can be
readily gleaned from the statistical data available.
2010: EU-27 data available only for Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden; EU-15 data available only for Germany, Spain,
Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Sweden; EU-12 data available only for Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia.
2003: EU-27 and EU-12: Poland not included.
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1: No. of holdings by age of holder (2003-2007)
2003
EU-27
2007
Under 35
1 225 707
856 820
From 35 to 44
2 428 825
2 121 270
From 45 to 54
3 429 693
3 129 420
From 55 to 64
3 350 428
3 113 860
65 or over
4 586 755
4 479 070
Total
15 021 410 13 700 440
(*) Poland 2003: age distribution estimated.
2003
EU-15
2007
2003
EU-12
2007
-30.1
428 860
300 800
-29.9
796 847
556 020
-12.7
1 110 800
906 710
-18.4
1 318 025
1 214 560
-7.8
-8.8
1 427 320
1 345 040
-5.8
2 002 773
1 784 380
-10.9
-7.1
1 451 840
1 340 770
-7.7
1 898 588
1 773 090
-6.6
-2.3
1 820 130
1 769 120
-2.8
2 766 627
2 709 950
-2.0
-9.2 8 782 460 8 038 000
-8.5
-8.8 6 238 950 5 662 440
Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2007).
Another approach to defining the relative importance of young farmers (under 35) in
European agriculture is to observe several indicators jointly (see Table 2). In addition to the
number of holdings, the utilised agricultural area (UAA in ha), annual work unit (AWU),
number of live stock units owned (in LSU) and fraction of total revenues (in ESU) were also
analysed.
Table 2: Key variables (holders under 35: % of total)
EU-27
2003*
EU-15
EU-12
2007 2003 2007 2003* 2007
No. of holdings
7.5
6.3
6.9
5.3
8.0
6.9
UAA: utilised agricultural area (ha)

AWU: annual work unit (labour force directly
employed by the holding)
9.8
8.6
10.7
8.2
6.2
9.7
8.0
7.9
9.2
7.3
6.5
8.4
12.0
9.7
12.7
9.4
7.3
10.8
6.7
11.0
LSU: livestock unit
ESU: economic size unit (1 ESU: 1 200)

10.8
8.8
11.2
8.4
(*) 2003 (all variables): Poland not included; 2003 (only ESU): Slovenia not included.
Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2005, 2007).
For the EU-27 overall, the relative weight of this part of farming varied fairly little (from 8
to 9 % of the total) across the various indicators. A specific pattern of loss of revenue (8.8
% in ESU) emerged in the EU-15. By contrast, young farming grew in importance in the
EU-12, inducing a rise in their relative weight in all the indicators, and especially in utilised
agricultural area (9.7 % of UAA), livestock (10.8 % of LSU) and revenue (11.0 % of ESU).
Here again, this increase is difficult to explain, given the gaps in the statistical information
for several of these new MS3.
A brief review of these indicators by country (see Annex 1B) shows, especially for the MS
selected, that the weight of farming conducted by youths is declining across the EU-15,
with substantial downturns in some countries, such as Germany (with 3-4 percentage drops
in all indicators). While in the EU-12 as a whole the light weight of the number of holdings
owned by youths goes hand-in-hand with an equally scant presence in all other indicators,
the numbers are better in countries such as Hungary or are holding steady at significantly
high levels in others, such as Poland (17.3 % in LSU and 17.1 % in ESU).
One plausible hypothesis would be that a substantial number of holdings would have outcropped statistically
under the expectations deriving from EU accession.
PE 495.830
-30.2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Of all the indicators mentioned, revenues (ESU) constitute a good focal point, for this
parameter can be associated with the mean economic size of holdings and employment
(AWU), which is related to the time devoted by holders to their farms. In Europe in general
(see Graphic 2), small economic size prevails (81 % under 8 ESU in the EU-27, 60.5 % in
the EU-15, and 95.5 % in the EU-12). This holding size structure remained very stable
throughout the period considered.
Graphic 2: Holdings by economic size (%)
10
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Graphic 3: Revenues (ESU) by economic size of holdings (%)
Moreover, revenues are highly concentrated in the larger economic size brackets (see
Graphic 3). In the EU-27 as a whole, the largest holdings (>100 ESU, only 2.2 % by
number) account for 46.5 % of the revenues. The smallest size bracket (<8 ESU), by
comparison, earns only 10.8% of the total. This highly polarised distribution of the
economic results is intense in the EU-15, but has yet to appear in the EU-12, where the
shares of the largest and smallest holdings (28.6 and 37.6 %, respectively) are more
comparable. Nonetheless, the distribution of revenues grew clearly more uneven
throughout the period.
The composition and trends in the economic size of holdings (see Annex 1C) differ clearly
among both the countries selected and all other MS. In countries such as Germany (and
more clearly France, Belgium and Holland), the fraction of holdings regarded to be viable
(40 ESU or over) is large or even constitutes a majority, whereas small economic size
holdings continue to prevail in Spain and the United Kingdom, where 57 and 63.7 %,
respectively, are under 8 ESU. In the EU-12, by contrast, small economic size holdings
prevail in both the countries selected for study and the others (80-90 % under 8 ESU).
1.1.2.
Main factors that discourage new entrants
In the larger European picture, one question that might be posed is the economic size of
holdings managed by youths. This calls for information on the composition (distribution by
size in ESU) of the holdings belonging to young farmers to determine whether their viability
is non-existent (under 8 ESU), weak (under 15.9 ESU), not guaranteed (16 to 39.9 ESU) or
assured (40 ESU or over)4.
Values of 40 or more ESU and at least 1 AWU have been used in the literature to define viable holdings (see
Regidor et al., 2008: Chapter 2).
11
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
In light of the statistical shortcomings in this respect5, an approximate analysis was
performed with the data available (see Table 3). The approach adopted was to establish a
series of ratios that characterise the mean young farmer in the EU in terms of the basic
variables for their holdings. Particularly striking is the difference in mean holding size
between the EU-15 (37.85 ESU) and the EU-12 (3.88 ESU). Equivalent differences are
observed for area used and livestock units.
Table 3: Key variables/ No. of holdings (holders under 35)
EU-27
No. of holdings
UAA: utilised agricultural area (ha)
AWU: annual work unit (labour force
directly employed by the holding)
EU-15
EU-12
2003*
2007
2003
2007
2003*
2007
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
16.16
17.27
31.43
33.79
3.78
8.33
0.94
1.07
1.36
1.37
0.59
0.91
2.43
5.12
1.41
3.88
LSU: livestock unit

16.26
15.37
33.31
34.33
ESU: economic size unit (1 ESU: 1.200
)
15.87
15.81
33.68
37.85
(*) 2003 (all variables): Poland not included; 2003 (only ESU): Slovenia not included.
In addition, these indicators, particularly in the MS selected (see Annex 1D), reveal that
similar differences are also found in the EU-15 countries, such as between Spain and
Germany (with ratios of 2 in LSU and ESU), or between Spain and the United Kingdom
(with values of three in UAA and LSU). The differences among the EU-12 countries, such as
Hungary and Poland, by contrast, are scantly significant in general, with only a few notable
exceptions in certain countries and indicators.
All the evidence seems to indicate that the absence of youths in European farming is a
highly consolidated structural problem, especially in the EU-15 countries, but also in the
EU-12. What might be called the holder replacement rate" (No. of farms with holders
under 35/No. of holders over 65, in per cent) yields figures of 17.7 % for the EU-27,
14.7 % for the EU-15 and 20.5 % for the EU-12, using data for 2007.
In most countries the severity of the problem mirrored by these data gives cause for major
concern (see Annex 1E). The replacement rates observed in the selected EU-15 countries
are very small in most cases, with 8.1 % in the United Kingdom and 12.2 % in Spain (in
2007). In Germany, by contrast, replacement appears to be assured (103.5 %), as it is in a
short number of other countries (Finland and Austria). The rate is very low as well in EU-12
countries such as Romania (9.5 %) and Hungary (27.3 %), while Poland (75.7 %) is
practically the exception that confirms the general rule.
Consequently, a first factor that would curb the influx of young entrants to this sector
would be their presumably majority presence in a segment comprising economically
weak holdings, whose economic viability is scant or doubtful. The economic
threshold for successful entry is within reach of a very small number of candidates.
Economic viability of the holding is, then, a first conditioning factor for any new entrant.
The employment (AWU) generated by holdings managed by youths (see Table 4) accounts
for a small fraction (barely 15 % in 2005) of the total. The rates are lower in the EU-15
5
No information that could be used for this analysis is given in the EUROSTAT databases.
12
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(12.2 %) than in the EU-12 (17 %), while very high proportions of employment are
attributed to holdings managed by farmers 55 or older (around 43 % in all countries).
The share of employment varies along gender lines. The difference is significant between
young males and females (9.5 and 5,5 %, respectively), while the gap is smaller in the
over-55 age group. The percentages for young men are similar in the two groups of
countries, but differ considerably among young women, whose share is larger in the EU-12
than in the EU-15 countries (7.2 and 3.2 %, respectively). Older men's share is
substantially higher in the EU-15 countries.
Table 4: AWUs by age and sex (% of total)*
TOTAL
MALES
FEMALES
Total
Under
35
55 or
over
Total
Under
35
55 or
over
Total
Under
35
55 or
over
EU-27
10 259 770
15.0
43.6
6 274 590
9.5
26.3
4 068 290
5.5
17.3
EU-15
4 324 100
12.2
45.2
2 955 520
9.0
31.0
1 395 710
3.2
14.2
42.4
3 319 070
9.9
22.8
2 672 580
7.2
19.6
EU-12 5 935 670

17.0
*Estimated family labour force.
Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2005).
The indicators by country (see Annex 1F), in particular in the MS selected, reveal scant
differences in the employment generated by young farmers across the EU-15 (the small
percentages in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom nearly concur). Nonetheless,
considerable differences exist between the youngest and oldest farmers: in Spain and the
United Kingdom the latters share is nearly 50 % and close to 35 % in Germany. Young
farmers low rates of participation in employment are found in the EU-12 as well, where in
the vast majority of countries, with the sole exception of Poland, older farmers account for
a high percentage of the employment (around 50 %).
No inter-country gender differences are found in the EU-15, where young men's share is
much higher than young women's (with essentially the same percentages in countries such
as Germany, Spain and United Kingdom). By contrast, older men's shares are larger and
vary from country to country, whereas older women's are smaller and similar across the
board. In the EU-12, inter-country gender patterns are similar for both younger and older
farmers, although in most, Poland being the exception, older women account for a high
percentage of workers.
Lastly, a question that should be addressed to determine the degree of professional
dedication required is whether young farmers own holdings able to generate at least
1 AWU. All that can be deduced from the statistical information available (see Table 3) is
that in the EU-27 all holdings taken together generate an average 1.07 AWU (1.37 in the
EU-15 and barely 0.97 in the EU-12), suggesting that a substantial proportion of the EU-15
and the vast majority of the EU-12 holdings fail to generate sufficient work for a full-time
professional.
The results by country (see Annex 1D) are similar to the above, both for the selected MS
and the others. Significant inter-country differences can be identified, however, in what
might be called the mean economic size by employee (mean number of ESU/mean
number of AWU in farms whose holders are under 35). The resulting mean economic size
13
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(revenues) per employee suggests that young farmers are not readily able to make a living
from farming only in any of the EU-12 or in a significant number of EU-15 countries.
A second factor, then, that would deter new entrants into this sector would be the
difficulty involved in establishing holdings that provide full-time employment. The
generation of self-employment, based on the dedication required to run the holding,
appears to be insufficiently ensured and in any event to depend on the economic size of the
holding. This implies that in a large number of cases, the viability of new entry depends on
the possibility of having a second job or other supplementary sources of income. A second
conditioning factor for any new entrant, then, is the amount of employment generated by
the holding.
This lack of appeal is reinforced by the economic results of farming, especially for the
holdings of the smallest economic size (see Graphic 4). Thus, the net farming income
obtained by European holdings in 2007-2009 shows that in the EU-27, for a mean
economic size of under 40 ESU, the monthly income is barely one thousand euros, and
even that low figure is unattained in EU-12 holdings. According to this information on
economic size, only the EU-15 holdings appear to have access to a mean retribution that
affords viability.
A closer look at the country-by-country figures (see Annex 1G) shows that mean farm
holding income for any given economic size barely differs among the EU-15 (Germany,
Spain and United Kingdom have very similar values). In the EU-12, one of the most
prominent findings is the low income earned by small holdings (under 8 ESU) in all
countries. This situation is, certainly, conditioned not only by the differences in standard of
living among countries, but also by the economic size distribution of farms prevailing in
each (compare to Annex 1C). Low income holdings account for a substantial portion of the
total in most of the EU-27.
The conclusion drawn is that, in light of low mean farming income, particularly in EU-12
countries, persistence by young farmers in the sector and, to an even greater degree, the
entry of new youths to agriculture, must be highly conditioned by the ability to obtain
supplementary Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) income. From this perspective, CAP
subsidies, which account for a considerable share of European farm income (30 % on
average in the EU-15 and 19 % in the EU-12 in 2009), may be decisive for new entrants.
14
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Graphic 4: Agricultural income per AWU (2007-2009)
Source: European Commission, Farm Accounting Data Network.
Therefore, a third factor, but not least, that discourages youths from undertaking
farming is that the expectations of earning a sufficient income are low. This is a
particularly important consideration, for entry entails the creation of a small or mediumsized farming enterprise whose viability depends largely on CAP assistance, and especially
beginning in 2014, on the possibility of inheriting or acquiring payment entitlements.
Consequently, for any new entrant a third conditioning factor is the assurance of earning a
sufficient income.
These three factors can be regarded as determinants in themselves, as they form the
central core of economic and social reasons for founding a company. Nonetheless, although
other factors, in particular social factors, are not the object of the present analysis, their
dissuasive effect on new entrants everywhere should not be overlooked. Considerations
such as the appreciation of the characteristics of the work, the risk and devotion required,
the social status of the profession or the need to reside in a rural area may act as
deterrents.
1.2.
Content and assessment of the present model
The CAP envisages a series of measures to counter this situation, which dates back many
years. A diagram of the current Young Farmer Scheme (YFS) provides an overview of the
relationship between the main deterrents to young new entry, the possible entry channels
and the policy measures presently available. This diagram will also serve to analyse the
proposals now under discussion for the new CAP.
The results attained with the measures in place under the present model, which have
apparently had very limited effects, are analysed in the paragraphs that follow. This
analysis contributes to the identification of the most notorious weaknesses in the present
15
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
model for encouraging new entry in farming and indicates that the CAP has been scantly
effective in this regard.
1.2.1. The current Young Farmer Scheme (YFS)
The most prominent measures included in the CAP to encourage youths (under 40 years) to
choose a farming career have remained practically unchanged since the nineteen eighties.
Essentially, prior to 2013 these measures consist of a lump sum incentive under the Rural
Development Policy (RD)6, applied in a number of ways and recently supplemented by the
option to apply for payment entitlements as new farmers under the Direct Payment Policy
(DP)7.
The diagram of the present model (YFS) for furthering farming careers (see Figure 1)
shows that the main deterrents to entry may be offset to a greater or lesser degree
depending on the type and content of the measures applied. At the same time, eligibility for
the various measures is conditioned by the entry channel voluntarily or obligatorily adopted
by young farmers.
Initially, the three main causes for non-entry identified, i.e., the want of economic viability,
the lack of sufficient volume of employment and the inability to earn a livelihood, which are
closely inter-related, must be confronted simultaneously. More specifically, new entrants in
an EU-15 country, for instance, would need to have access to a holding with an area of at
least 34 ha, employment valued at 1.4 AWU and an economic size of 38 ESU. In an EU-12
country the figures would be an area of over 8 ha, employment of at least 0.9 AWU and an
economic size of 4 ESU (see Table 3 above).
But how can such an objective be reached when the holder replacement rate is just 15 % in
the EU-15 and barely 20 % in the EU-12 (see Annex 1E)? The answer lies in the entry
channel chosen and consequently in the support measures available under each.
Presumably, given the paucity of early retirements awarded in which holdings are
transferred to young entrants, the most feasible entry channel is inheritance from an older
family member. Ex novo entry is particularly difficult for young farmers.
No information has been published on the distribution of entry through the three channels
described. Nonetheless, the model obviously envisages different measures for each. The
question posed is whether these measures are suitable or sufficient; in other words, their
potential scope should be judged on the grounds of their content.
6
7
Articles 22, 23 and 26, EC Regulation 1698/2005.

Article 41, EC Regulation 73/2009.
16
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: Young Farmer Scheme
If inheritance is the channel chosen, the measures applicable (B+C) constitute an incentive
package for the heir, who is assured payment entitlements. If access is via another
farmer's retirement, the measures applicable (B+C+D) are broader, but eligibility for
payment entitlements is subject to the existence of a transferor. Lastly, under ex novo
entry, the measures applicable (A+B+C) include the option to apply for payment
entitlements from countries' national reserves. Access to payment entitlements, then, is the
most significant factor in distinguishing the three channels.
In fact, ex novo entry decisions can be assumed to have been heavily influenced by the
assignment of payment entitlements from the national reserves8. Given the economic
size attributable to young farmers' holdings, this permanent source of revenues
indisputably constitutes a substantial portion of their income. As Graphic 5 shows, while the
absolute value of subsidies rises with the economic size of holdings, their share of farm
17
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
income is inversely proportional to economic size (compare to Annex 1G). Moreover, the
amount of subsidies fluctuates widely from one country to another9 (see Annex 2A).
Graphic 5: Total subsidies excluding investment subsidies by ESU (mean 20072009)
Nonetheless, depending on how this measure is applied, eligibility for payment entitlements
may be subject to various types of restrictions, primarily financial and administrative.
Provisions on the volume of national reserves available for payment entitlements, as well
as on the minimum area of land that must be held by beneficiaries to activate their
entitlements, constitute substantial constraints. Unless governments take effective action,
such provisions may dilute the impact of this measure considerably10.
Another measure regarded to have a significant effect is setting up support for young
farmers11. This measure consists of aid (presently up to 70 000) in the form of a one-off
premium plus a rebate for the interest on possible loans to finance setting up expenses.
The determinant in quantifying the effectiveness of this measure, however, is the sum
involved, particularly if compared to young farmers' yearly agricultural income.
And indeed, according to the estimate of "setting up aid as a percentage of young farmers'
income" (see Annex 2B), the sums awarded in the EU-15 in 2007-2009 constituted only a
small percentage of young farmers' mean yearly income, i.e., scantly enough to hedge
entry risk. In the EU-12 countries, by contrast, such aid appears to be much more
appealing, although inter-country differences are sizeable.
10
11
That the largest economic size holdings have taken such a large share of these subsidies in the EU-12 countries
is particularly surprising, unless the beneficiaries are mostly large cooperatives.
Some regional authorities have established "land banks" with the holdings released by retirees to facilitate the
transfer of payment entitlements to new farmers.
Article 22, EC Regulation 1698/2005
18
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
National and regional governments also limit the scope of this measure by imposing
significant constraints. In addition to generally failing to award the individual subsidy
ceilings envisaged, inasmuch as the measure is co-funded by the EU and its MS, they tend
to include additional requirements that lower the number of eligible beneficiaries. Most
prominently, these requirements include the award of setting up premiums but no
subsidised loans, or the establishment of priority for youths who qualify as professional
farmers because their holdings generate at least 1 AWU or account for at least 50 % of
their income.
The measure for modernising farm holdings12, under which special support is provided
for young farmers, has been a necessary provision wholly consistent with the preceding
measure. In many countries a very high percentage of young entrants have applied for a
subsidy to improve their holdings. The impact of this measure may be assessed by the
weight of young beneficiaries in the total, although the intensity of the aid received (from
60 to 75 % of the value of the investment, depending on the type of country and zone)
must be taken into consideration.
More specifically, the question would be whether this measure constitutes decisive
encouragement. For want of better information, an approximate answer may be gleaned
from a comparison between the number of young entrants and the number of young
beneficiaries of the measure. And indeed, an estimate of the "weight of modernisation
subsidies in attracting new entrants" (see Annex 2C) affords a glimpse of the situation.
Apparently, two groups of countries can be distinguished, irrespectively in the EU-15 or the
EU-12: one in which this measure may be having a significant impact and the other where
implementation is essentially negligible. These results are indicative only, of course, and
their significance in each country is relative to the total number of young farmers.
The measure is also tightly conditioned by the specific rules established by national and
regional governments. While in some cases the priority may be to support the
modernisation of small economic size holdings, in others the measure may be geared to
mid-size or large undertakings. Another important factor is that, given the intensity of the
aid and the substantial funding required by this measure, many countries or regions tend to
favour small individual investments to keep unit expenditure low13.
Finally, early farmer or agricultural worker retirement14 is proving to have a nearly
negligible impact on new entry. Farmers over the age of 55, whose holdings are both
numerous and predominantly responsible for farming employment across the entire EU
(see Annexes 1A and 1E), must have sound reasons for not retiring. Most of their reasons
have to do with the economics of the issue.
More specifically, early retirement would not appear to be cost-effective for 55+ European
farmers, whose pension income would be much smaller than the payment entitlements that
they can otherwise retain indefinitely15. Moreover, since on average they own much larger
economic size holdings than young farmers (compare Annexes 2D and 1D), retirement
would also entail waiving substantial occupational earnings.
12
13
14
15

In some countries and zones, priority has been granted to modernisation plans for livestock raising on leased
land.
France has considered making these payment entitlements incompatible with retirement benefits to favour land
mobility.
19
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
In conclusion, the current YFS is generally weak and unable to effectively remedy the lack
of young entrants. The model comprises a very short number of measures, only a few of
which have any significant impact. The stronger measures include young farmer access to
payment entitlements, the central core of present and future CAP aid, and support for
modernising holdings owned by youths, which reinforces farm viability in terms of
employment and income. The other two measures are weaker: the setting up incentive
because the sums awarded are clearly insufficient, and early retirement because the
number of retirees is negligible.
1.2.2. Measures currently implemented: key results
The aggregate results for the EU-27 reveal the extremely limited scope of the young
entrant incentive (see Table 5): scantly 38 404 applications were approved in 20072009, with public expenditure amounting to 651 million euros and a total induced
investment of 4,748 billion euros. Around 66 % of the total went to the EU-15, whereas the
EU-12 countries accounted for only 6 % of the total induced investment. Overall, only a
token relationship was observed between young entries and early retirement.
The weak impact of this measure can be deduced from the scant public expenditure per
youth recorded (around 17 700 euros on average in the EU-27, compared to a ceiling of
50-70 000 euros, depending on whether support is awarded before or after the Health
Check). Other statistics of interest include the high mean investment required per youth
(129 000 euros in the EU-27, compared to only 26 000 in the EU-12) and the heavy
dependence in the EU-12 on European public funding (with the EAFDR accounting for 75 %
of all public spending).
Table 5: Measure 112: setting up support for young farmers (2007-2009)
No. of applications
approved
Public expenditure
('000 eur)
Early
retirement
Other
Total
EAFDR
Total
Total
investment
('000 eur)
EU-27
2 061
36 343
38 404
370 264
651 056
EU-15
1 041
25 184
26 225
193 091
EU-12
1 020
11 159
12 179
177 173
No. of young
farmers assisted
Male
Female
4 748 309
28 309
8 455
415 755
4 455 674
19 798
5 813
235 301
292 636
8 511
2 642
Source: European Commission, European Network for Rural Development.
Country by country, application of the measure is generally uneven (see Annex 2E). In the
EU-15, it enjoys significant attention in Spain (and France, Italy and Austria), whereas in
Germany and the United Kingdom it is scantly noticed. In Poland and Hungary (and a few
other EU-12 countries such as Bulgaria and Lithuania), the measure is fairly successful, but
largely ignored in the rest. The degree of implementation in each country is not necessarily
consistent with the severity of the national problem (compare to Annex 1A).
The scant success of setting up support is in line with the results of other related measures.
Early retirement, for instance, goes largely unnoticed (see Table 6): in 2007-2010, the
number of beneficiaries (some 19 200) and of applications approved (around 19 800) in the
EU-27, 80 % of whom were in the EU-12, was negligible. The lands released to other
farmers (just over 291 000 ha in the period) and the public expenditure per beneficiary
(10 000 euros on average in the EU-27 for the entire period, 19 000 in the EU-15 and
8 000 in the EU-12) were similarly insignificant.
20
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 6: Measure 113: early retirement (2007-2010)
Number of
applications
approved
Number of beneficiaries
55-64
>64
Total
Number Public expenditure (000 eur)

of
hectares
EAFRD
Total
released
EU-27
19 782
18 910
289
19 199
291 810
129 665
192 131
EU-15
3 566
3 187
63
3 250
120 412
32 437
62 495
EU-12
16 216
15 723
226
15 949
171 398
97 228
129 636
A review of the results by country (see Annex 2F) shows that the early retirement measure
is actually implemented in a fairly small number of countries in both the EU-15 (in Spain
primarily) and the EU-12 (nearly exclusively in Poland). The inference is that it is by no
means an incentive for new entrants. The marginal impact of the measure, in conjunction
with its weakness, rules out any other persuasion.
The measure geared to modernising agricultural holdings has a much greater
impact (see Table 7) In the three-year period 2007-2009, a total of 104 000 holdings were
supported in the EU-27; in the EU-15, the vast majority was owned by natural persons
(69 %), most of whom were males (79 %). Beneficiary characteristics were similar in the
EU-12. One particularly significant factor, for its possible relationship to the measure for
the inclusion of new entrants, is the number of beneficiaries under the age of 40 (40.3 % of
all natural persons).
Table 7: Measure 121: modernisation of agricultural holdings (number 20072009)
Number of farm holdings supported
Natural persons
Male
Female
Total
Bodies
corporate
Total
<40
40
<40
40
EU-27
25 738
36 143
5 677
10 381
77 939
25 960
103 899
EU-15
16 735
24 970
3 799
8 280
53 784
18 092
71 876
EU-12
9 003
11 173
1 878
2 101
24 155
7 868
32 023
Similarly, the country-by-country data for the measure (see Annex 2G) reveal its uneven
application within the EU-15: in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom the beneficiaries
are predominantly natural persons, whereas in France, the holdings receiving support for
modernisation are primarily owned by bodies corporate, which may reduce their effect on
the inclusion of young farmers. The measure is present in most of the major EU-12
countries, but closely related to youths only in a few such as Poland, for in Hungary and
Romania most of the beneficiaries are bodies corporate.
As Table 8 shows, a substantial number of applications for this measure (over 120 000)
were approved in the period, primarily in the EU-15 (66 % of the total). Significant public
expenditure was also involved (2,900 billion euros in the EU-27, divided equally between
the EU-15 and the EU-12), largely charged to the EAFRD (75 % in the EU-12). This induced
21
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
considerable investment (some 12,800 billion euros) and a concomitantly high investment
per beneficiary: around 123 000 euros in the EU-27 and 185 000 in the EU-12, figures that
cast doubts on the possible effect of this measure on new entries.
Table 8: Measure 121: modernisation of agricultural holdings (expenditure 20072009)
No. of applications approved
Organic
Conventional
production production
Public expenditure (000 eur)
Total
EAFRD
Total
Total
investment
(000 eur)
EU-27
6 800
113 440
120 240
1 691 541
2 887 000
12 816 450
EU-15
4 843
74 697
79 540
582 897
1 423 189
6 886 826
EU-12
1 957
38 743
40 700
1 108 644
1 463 811
5 929 624
The key results by country (see Annex 2H) are indicative of several developments. In some
EU-15 countries such as Germany, this measure may be reinforcing the economic size of
generally viable holdings, whereas in others such as Spain, its primary purpose would be to
raise the economic size of scantly or questionably viable holdings (with mean investments
per beneficiary of 256 000 and scantly 44 000 euros, respectively). In the EU-12, countries
such as Hungary or Romania, with 269 000 and 778 000 euros per beneficiary,
respectively, appear to predominate, which may be a sign of the exclusion of the smaller
size holdings from the programme.
In conclusion, although the programme for encouraging young entrants is very weak in
terms of both scope and results, it has inexplicably remained unchanged for several
decades. In light of the enormous distance between programme objectives and results, the
present model for the inclusion of new farmers is in dire need of redefinition. The new CAP
reform underway constitutes an exceptional opportunity in that regard.
22
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
2.
NEW MODEL TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT NEW

ENTRANTS
The revision of the present youth-oriented model for new entrants can be expanded by
applying part of the measures to any new farmer. The assumption is that in the context of
a severe economic crisis, people from other sectors where unemployment rates are
presently high and climbing may wish to become farmers. A diagram of this new model
shows, however, that the scope of this proposal is very limited, despite the improvements
introduced by a number of European Parliament amendments. These considerations are
discussed in item 2.1.
The obstacles to new farmer entry, particularly in the case of youths and part-timers,
cannot be confronted with agricultural sector measures only. The problem has a territorial
dimension which must be broached, acknowledging that new farmers depend essentially on
the development possibilities in the rural areas where they live. This entails establishing a
new model for rural entry, in which the rural development measures set out in the CAP, the
cohesion policy and each country's national policies complement one another. To this end,
the EU will have to redefine its rural policy, establishing a new Framework Rural Policy as
described in item 2.2.
2.1.
Proposed model and assessment
This analysis now turns to the content of the proposed new model, which like its
predecessor aims to encourage and support new farmers. This new approach is actually a
continuation of the model in place which it aspires to improve with a short number of new
measures relating primarily to the creation of greater and more permanent support for
young farmer start-ups.
The assessment of these new measures necessarily draws from both their legislative
particulars and their economic and administrative implications. As concluded below,
however, the proposals presented by the Commission and the amendments pending
approval by the European Parliament, some of which could be applied to any new entrant,
constitute an insufficient solution to the problem and fail to remedy the main shortcomings
of the present model.
2.1.1. The new Young Farmer Scheme (new YFS)
A comparison of the new model (new YFS) shown in Figure 2 to the present model (see
Figure 1), reveals that the former is essentially an extension or continuation of the latter.
Assuming that the major deterrents to entry are soundly established and that the channels
for entry will narrow with the planned elimination of early retirement benefits, the
variations introduced by the new model lie primarily in the expansion of existing measures
and a single new proposal.
More specifically, the measure consisting of assigning payment entitlements from
national reserves16 has been enlarged with the creation of a new yearly payment for young
farmers17. These two measures (A=A1+A2, Figure 2) are complementary, reinforcing the
permanent support received by new farmers, whether heirs or ex novo entrants. The two
16
17
Article 23, Direct Payment (DP) proposal (EC, 2011a).

Article 36, DP proposal.
23
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
basic features of such support are the definition of "young farmer" and the amount of the
new annual payment entitlement.
Figure 2: New Young Farmer Scheme
The definition of young farmer is of particular importance, the number of potential

beneficiaries and associated public expenditure vary depending on the specific wording. The
main difference between the two definitions proposed18 is that while in the first the young
farmers eligible for the new yearly payment are any "who have already set up a holding
during the five years preceding", in the second, to be eligible, such new farmers must also
"possess adequate occupational skills and competence".
18
Article 36.2 of the DP proposal and Article 2.1 (u) of the RD proposal.
24
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The question arising around the new annual payment entitlement, in turn, calculated by
multiplying a figure corresponding to 25 % of the average value of the payment
entitlements held by the farmer by the number of entitlements he has activated, subject
to a minimum size of 25 hectares or more depending on the MS19, is whether it will
constitute a perceptible economic incentive. This additional payment is actually subject to a
dual constraint: the assignable volume of payment entitlements may be no more than 3 %
of the national reserves (from 2015) and the expenditure may come to no more than 2 %
of the national ceiling20.
Although business start-up aid, the following measure, would be updated21 under the
new scheme, the present 70 000 ceiling is retained. Inasmuch as this measure reinforces
the requirement to submit a business plan by establishing a deadline for its application
("implementation of the business plan has to start within six months from the date of the
decision granting the aid22), it can be associated with the creation of a farm advisory
system23.
The synergies between these two measures (B=B1+B2) stem from the fact that assistance
may be voluntarily requested from the farm advisory system to prepare and implement a
business plan (beneficiaries, whether or not they receive support under the common
agricultural policy, including rural development, may use the farm advisory system on a
voluntary basis24). This additional support may, then, favour the viability of start-ups.
The support for investments in holdings is another measure whose content would be
enlarged and updated25 to cover tangible and intangible investments that entail overall
holding improvements (C=C1+C2). Of particular interest is the explicit support furnished
for land ("access to farm and forest land, land consolidation and improvement26), for land
acquisition is a major obstacle for the ex novo entry of young farmers, i.e., youths whose
holding is not inherited.
Another prominent feature of the new model is the increased intensity of the aid for
investments made by young farmers (from 60 to 90 % of the value of the investment,
depending on the type of country and zone), which may be regarded as additional financing
for business plans. It also reinforces the existing knowledge transfer and information
actions27. Although this second type of support entails no special treatment for new
entrants, its synergies with investment aid are obvious.
Lastly, the proposal includes an innovative small farmer scheme28 which may impact the
entry of new farmers29. Briefly, this scheme (D=D1+D2) provides for the voluntary
simplification of payments for beneficiaries with very small yearly entitlements (the
amount referred shall not be lower than EUR 500 and not be higher than EUR 1 00030).
This sum would be raised over the next seven years ("shall be equal to 120 % of the
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Further to the figure in Article 36.5 of the DP proposal.

Articles 23.1 and 37 of the DP proposal.
Article 20 of the Rural Development (RD) proposal, (EC, 2011b).
Article 20.4 of the RD proposal.
Title III of the Horizontal Regulation (HZR) proposal, (EC, 2011c).
Article 14 of the HZR proposal.
Article 18 of the RD proposal.
Article 18.1c of the RD proposal.
Article 15 of the RD proposal.
Title V of the DP proposal.
Article 20.1c of the RD proposal.
Article 49.2 of the DP proposal.
25
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
annual payment that the beneficiary received under the small farmer scheme31) for
beneficiaries who permanently transfer their holdings to other farmers. These two
measures are related given that the transferees may be new farmers.
The second provision would partially replace the early retirement provisions, which have
been dropped from the new YFS. Given the high concentration of beneficiaries with small
direct payments, this measure might be expected to have an impact on young entries. The
size of the payment provided per holding, however ("an amount corresponding to the
national average payment per hectare multiplied by a figure corresponding to the number
of hectares with a maximum of three32) greatly reduces the number of holdings eligible for
the small farmer scheme that might be transferred to new farmers.
2.1.2. Assessment and legislative amendments
While in some respects an improvement on the present model, the new YFS proposal is not
free of serious shortcomings. The following discussion attempts to corroborate this
perception by assessing the foreseeable impact of the Commission's proposed new
measures and the amendments put forward by European Parliament.
Following the order set out in the diagram in Figure 2, the analysis begins with the
measures to allow new farmers access to payment entitlements and/or raise their
remuneration (A measures). The two factors that determine a new entrant's eligibility are
the number of accessible payment entitlements and the proportion of the total farming
income accounted for by such entitlements.
Since access to payment entitlements (measure A1) depends on the availability and due
management of national reserves, ex novo entry is bound to be more difficult and result in
many fewer entrants. The introduction of an additional annual payment for these
entitlements (measure A2) for young farmers may help offset that difficulty, but will favour
young farmers who already engage in farming (for the five years previous) after entry by
either of the two possible channels, and who have activated entitlements33.
Another question that arises is how large the additional payment should be. To have any
significant impact, it would have to be greater than proposed. This might be accomplished
by raising the percentage of entitlement assignments or the maximum number of hectares
with activated entitlements to which the additional payment may be applied34. In any
event, new entrants should benefit from positive discrimination with respect to the
percentage of entitlement revenues allowed, i.e., the weight of direct payments in the
holding's total income.
Unsurprisingly, young farmers own small and medium economic size holdings (see Annex
1D), a particularly high proportion of whose total income is accounted for by direct
payments. All the foregoing should be viewed against a backdrop in which, as recently
pointed out (European Parliament, 2012: 85-87), subsidies as a percentage of farm income
31
32
33
34
Article 20.7 of the RD proposal

Article 49.1 of the DP proposal
A possible amendment that would make new farmers in general eligible for the improvements envisaged for
young farmers in Article 36 of the DP proposal would mean distributing limited resources among a larger
number of potential beneficiaries, as well as the disappearance of an incentive geared specifically to youths,
who constitute the core of the problem of the present and future scarcity of farmers.
Amendments 88, 89 and 90 proposed in the Capoulas Santos Report to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural
Development of European Parliament (2011a) might suffice in this regard, for under those provisions all young
farmer entitlements would receive an additional payment in most cases.
26
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
have continued to grow after each successive CAP reform and now amount to over 50 % of
the total (see Graphic 6).
Given the connection between the measures proposed in the two CAP pillars and that the
overall aim pursued by YFS is to recruit professional farmers, the elements of the two
existing definitions of young farmer35 should logically be combined. One controversial area
that these definitions fail to address, however, is the degree of professionalism (time
devoted) required, which is one of the criteria generally used by MS to establish priorities
when distributing aid. Since the vast majority of holders of small and mid-sized holdings
are "part-timers", neither their working hours nor their income are primarily farm-based, a
circumstance that should not be overlooked in this context.
Graphic 6: Farm subsidies in the EU-15, 1995-2008
Source: EP, 2012: 87. Calculated by authors using EU FADN.
A number of remarks are in order in connection with the measures for supporting young
farmer start-ups (B measures). The effectiveness of the start-up premium (measure B1),
the existing ceiling for which is retained, may be regarded to be insufficient in practice,
given that the sums granted by MS are usually much lower than the upper limit (see Annex
2E). In light of this, would it make sense to raise the start-up ceiling? Would that ensure
better results?
A possible reply lies in the enhancement of conditions established for the business plan,
whose partial financing is associated with the start-up premium. Despite the importance
attached to direct payments in highly subsidised European agriculture, the sole way to
guarantee larger numbers of new entrants is to provide them with viable, long-lasting and
sufficiently funded business plans to consolidate holdings that generate employment and
revenues. Linking such business plans to the creation of a farm advisory system (measure
B2) therefore makes perfect sense, although the use of the latter should be made
mandatory for start-up premium beneficiaries36.
35
36
This appears to be more reasonable than the provision in amendment 87 in the Capoulas Santos report
(2011a) whereby each MS would be able to establish specific definitions.
Article 20.5 of the RD proposal could be amended to establish this requirement.
27
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Nonetheless, successful implementation of business plans may require greater financing for
investments. Since rises in start-up premiums are subject to MS budgetary limitations, the
synergies between this measure and holding modernisation measures (C measures)
need to be reinforced. As some analyses have shown (EC, 2008: 26-27), the budget for
holding modernisation, which accounts for 11.1 % of rural development expenditure in the
EU-27 (compared to a mere 3 % for start-up premiums), doubled over the period 2007-13,
climbing to 30 % of the moneys expended to improve competitiveness (Axis 1).
These measures should therefore be more closely interlinked, conditioning the award of a
modernisation subsidy for a new entrant (measure C1) to the satisfactory submission of a
business plan37. The maximum setting up subsidy for young farmer could also be raised in
all types of regions when their investments form part of their business plan38. That would
reinforce and ensure financing for the business plan (measure C2), although such a
possibility would have to be ratified by MS decisions. In addition, closer ties could be
established between these measures and knowledge transfer and information actions39.
The final relationship to be assessed in connection with the model proposed is between
new entrants and the small farmer scheme (D measures). After the elimination of the
early retirement measure, this is the sole measure in the new YFS proposal that relates
retirement to new entry. Nonetheless, the primary aim of the small farmer scheme
(measure D1) is to simplify the administrative costs associated with direct payments, while
offering an additional incentive to abandon this type of holdings.
Therefore, this measure is not expected to raise the number of new entrants, young or
otherwise, to any significant extent, despite the large number of potential beneficiaries. The
data available (see Graphic 7) reveal a high concentration of beneficiaries with direct
payments of under 1 000 (around 60 % of the total number of recipients but barely 5 %
of the total payments), although only a small fraction would be eligible for this measure
(those who receive over 500 and under 1 000 euros). Furthermore, the amount offered to
encourage small farmers to exit (measure D2) would appear to be scarcely attractive40.
37
38
39
40
Article 18.3 of the RD proposal could be amended to include the same requirement as in Article 20.5 in
connection with the business plan.
This would entail amending Article 18.3 and Annex I of the RD proposal.
Article 15 of the RD proposal
Amendments 23, 26, 29 and 30, as well as amendments 102, 103 and 104, listed in the Capoulas Santos
report (2011b) would constitute a perceptible improvement, although they would be unlikely to encourage new
entry.
28
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Graphic 7: Distribution of direct payments and the small farmer scheme
Source: European Commission: Directorate General of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Indeed, the withdrawal of the early retirement measure in the YFS proposal might be
reconsidered, as suggested in a number of amendments41, despite its scant success in the
few countries where it has actually been applied (see Annex 2F). That would be unlikely to
have a perceptible impact on new farmer entry, however, for a very powerful reason: for
older farmers, payment entitlements, collected as direct payments, constitute a
considerably larger financial supplement than their retirement pensions. Moreover, most of
these payment entitlements are in the hands of older farmers.
In conclusion, the new YFS model proposed should not be expected to have much of an
impact, for it is in line with the (insufficient and somewhat off-target) basic strategy of
creating greater and more permanent public economic support, consistent with what can be
expected of the post-2013 CAP. The most prominent measures in this regard are access to
and overpayment of entitlements, without which holding viability would appear to be
unattainable. Investment measures in connection with the implementation of business
plans, in turn, should merit greater attention. But, is this all that can be done?
Another approach might be envisaged, more as a complement than as an alternative to the
model proposed. In it, the causes underlying the scarcity of farmers, in particular young
farmers, would be viewed from the wider perspective of the countryside in general, rather
than farming only. This problem actually forms part of a broader issue, the scarcity of
young people in the countryside, which is severe in many areas. The inference is that the
solution may lie in improving the future of rural areas by enhancing their potential for
development and reducing territorial imbalances.
41
Amendments 24 and 27 in the Capoulas Santos (2011b) report provide for recovery and revision of this
measure.
29
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
2.2.
New farmers and countryside development
The difficulties faced by people choosing a farming career, in particular youths, form part of
the larger picture of the obstacles confronted by young people in general wishing to live
and work in the countryside. In addition to sector-specific deterrents, these youngsters
have to deal with other hindrances associated with the retarded development that prevails
in many rural areas. A redefinition of the model for inclusion of new entrants, not only to
farming but to any other activity, is therefore put forward here. This new approach
addresses a variety of multisectoral options and a wide range of measures to further rural
development.
The need to develop a new model to encourage youths to establish in rural areas is the
result of the failure of European rural policy to effectively rise to a dual challenge: to
maintain farming activity in many rural areas, not only for economic, but also for social and
environmental reasons; and to curb the depopulation of the countryside, in particular as
regards the younger members of that society. In the European context, suitably confronting
these challenges entails drawing a distinction between agrifood and agri-environmental
policies on the one hand and territorial rural policies on the other.
2.2.1. New model for establishment in rural areas (NRS)
This new model is justified by the profound change that is taking place in the European
countryside. As a number of analyses have shown (Regidor et al. 2008:13-20, EC-DG
AGRI, 2010: 39-52), the countryside in general is characterised by its retarded economic
and social development, which can be attributed to inter-related economic, social and
political factors. Briefly, the economic causes are mirrored, among others, by the decline in
farming activity in all manner of rural areas, where it has ceased to constitute the main
source of employment and income. The social causes, in turn, are most visible in the scant
presence of youth in many rural areas and the huge obstacles that must be overcome to
practise a profession in that environment.
The political causes are reflected in the relative lack of attention paid to these areas by
public authorities and in particular the unsuitability of or the limits to the measures adopted
to further their development. In the European Union, after two decades of CAP reform and
steady Cohesion Policy growth, rural policy has been relegated to a secondary position.
Despite its shortcomings, however, Europe's rural policy is the main source of the
applicable measures for MS that lack policies of their own.
Against this backdrop, the new model for establishment in rural areas (see Figure 3) aims
to provide a more suitable response to Europe's new rural reality, in which even the
minority of youths who work on farms do so mostly part-time. These young rurals
consequently need to expand their career possibilities in the countryside by seeking
employment in other sectors. New entrants to farming need other rural policy measures,
just as agriculture depends for its survival on territorial development with a multisectoral
perspective.
Two essential channels for earning a rural livelihood can therefore be envisaged, as
a new farmer or as a young and other rural, although in many cases the two may be
complementary. The measures from which youths can draw for a career in farming are
discussed in item 2.1.1 and simplified in the figure (measures A, B, C and D). Briefly, they
consist of access to reinforced direct payments (measure A), a one-off start-up premium
associated with a business plan (measure B), special support for investment in the holding
30
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(measure C) and voluntary access to the small farmer scheme, either maintaining or
permanently exiting farming (measure D).
Figure 3: New Rural Scheme
New non-youth farmers would qualify only for two types of measures: direct payments
(measure A) and the stayer benefits stemming from the small farmer scheme (measure D),
i.e., they could enlarge their holdings after other small farmers permanently exit theirs.
This schedule of incentives is less advantageous than the measures in place for youths,
even though new entrants over the cut-off age are confronted with the same scant options
as young ex novo farmers. This approach should not, then, be expected to draw large
numbers of such new entrants.
31
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The scant effectiveness of these measures in the consolidation of professional farming
among new entrants, i.e., enabling them to acquire economically viable holdings and
devote their working hours and obtain their incomes primarily from farming, has prompted
the formulation of this model. Its contribution is to surmise that, in light of the
aforementioned shortcomings, other measures (measures E, F, G and H)42 may provide
more decisive support for the successful establishment of young rural start-ups. Some of
these other measures are presently non-existent, while others can be found scattered
across the Second Pillar of the CAP, the Cohesion Policy and certain MS's own rural policies.
In other words, since youths can hardly make a livelihood in farming, the proposal is to
favour their establishment in the countryside as young rurals. To this end, a temporary
support measure could be created in the form of a basic annual income for young
rurals (under 35) (measure E), to be optionally paid as a one-off subsidy, subject to
integration in a rural development project able to create jobs. This measure, similar to the
business start-up aid (envisaged in measure B, would constitute an alternative open to all
young rurals, adaptable their preferences and opportunities.
One particularly important factor to consider is the sum to be granted, which might be
defined to be at least equivalent to the present setting up aid for young farmers (10 000
per year over 7 years, for instance). A second consideration would be how to integrate this
measure in the proposed legislative framework. The most plausible options would be
insertion in the RD proposal or, perhaps more appropriately, in the Common Strategic
Framework (CSF) Funds43 proposal, given its close ties to multisectoral development
projects.
One of the most significant contributions made by this new proposal for a European rural
policy is the reinforcement of the use of the LEADER44 method to enhance support for local
development by improving coordination among the various structural funds (CSF Funds)45.
The first measure proposed, support for investment projects (measure F), will continue
to be one of the more prominent options for encouraging rural entrepreneurs to implement
job-creating projects. The large number of projects involved, their multisectoral nature and
the presence of local action groups (LAGs) in all the Union's rural areas evince the signal
importance of this measure, especially in light of its cooperative, innovative and vitalising
content.
Measure F will maintain a broad territorial presence, given its generous co-financing (from
50 to 90 % depending on the type of region) and the provision for a mandatory minimum
expenditure: "at least 5 % of the total EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development) contribution"46. Moreover, if linked to the creation of a basic annual income,
this measure would gain specific weight as a requisite equivalent to the business plan
required of young farmer start-ups, for it constitutes one of the most readily accessible
options for young rural entrepreneurs to set up a business.
Extending the LEADER method to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and
the European Social Fund (ESF), in addition to its current application to the rural
development (EAFRD) and fishing (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF) funds,
may enable the MS to ensure the coordinated use of all these funds (measure G) in
42
43
44
45
A new farmer of whatever age could also benefit from these measures (measures F, G and H), which may
prove to be determinants for establishment in a rural area.
European Commission, 2011d.
Articles 42-45, RD proposal.
Articles 28-31, CSF Funds proposal.
32
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
their territories. Briefly, this measure entails furthering community-led local development
focusing on specific sub-regional territories, supported by local action groups whose
members represent public and private socio-economic interests, with a view to conducting
integrated and multi-sectoral local development strategies (LDS)47.
Measure G envisages the possibility of co-financing all manner of public and private
investment projects in rural areas delimited as such, in accordance with the objectives laid
down in their LDS, by applying an action plan demonstrating how objectives are translated
into actions, a description of the management and monitoring arrangements of the
strategy and a financial plan of the strategy, including the planned allocation of each of
the CSF Funds48. One decisive factor in this regard, which remains outstanding, is the
allocations to be made to the various funds and the financial conditions available under
each, on which the actual scope of the measure will depend.
Finally, a small but growing number of MS have strong national rural policies (measure
H), with nationally financed specific actions. Under the umbrella of these policies, hosts of
projects are being spawned in the countryside that not only supplement the EU projects,
but in some cases have overtaken them in importance. The countless projects initiated
under national measures are indispensable in those countries, where they remedy obvious
European shortcomings and expand the career opportunities for young people.
France, United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands and more
recently Spain, all EU-15 countries, have rural policies of their own, with extensive
legislative backing and innovative programming. Some of the more prominent actions
rolled out under these national policies include the furtherance of all manner of economic
activity in rural revitalisation zones in support of territorial projects implemented by
intercommunity organisations, such as in France; support for the weakest rural zones,
favouring rural inhabitants' access to quality public services, such as in the United
Kingdom; or the implementation of environmental projects supported by a network of local
development agencies, such as in Austria.49
2.2.2. Assessment and application of the New Rural Scheme
Most of the shortcomings of the present European rural policy can be traced back to the
CAP and Cohesion Policy reforms implemented at the turn of the century. The consolidation
of this policy as an exclusive but minority part of the CAP weakened its content and scope,
due to the adoption of a narrow approach, predominantly geared to agrifood and agrienvironmental activities. The new CAP has consequently been barely able to counter the
increasingly concentrated social and territorial impacts generated by the policy itself50.
Briefly, as it is neither multisectoral nor territorially applicable, it fails to benefit the entire
rural population (except in the minority measures under Axes 3 and 4).
While the new proposals for reform contain a number of improvements, such as the
reinforced use of the LEADER method and the application of CSF funds to community-led
46
47
48
49
50
Article 65, RD proposal.

A precedent for this measure can be found in the rural development programme in place until 1999 under the
Cohesion Policy for rural areas in the Union's most advanced regions (called region objective 5b). This
programme included measures such as allocation for infrastructures, economic diversification, improvement of
the rural habitat, protection and conservation of natural resources and human resources and was co-financed
by the European structural fund covering the respective area of specialisation.
Article 29.1, Funds proposal.
See Soto Hardiman, P., 2008, for a full discussion.
See 2nd Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, 2001: Part II, 2.4.
33
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
local development projects, globally they are much too weak to confront serious challenges
such as the shortage of new farmers and the scarcity of youths in the European
countryside. Suffice it to say that, of the stated priority aims, territorial and multisectoral
rural development ("promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic
development in rural areas) has been relegated to sixth place.
Hence, Europe is lacking a genuine rural development policy, a shortcoming that only some
MS have remedied with national rural policies. A New Rural Scheme is therefore necessary
to more suitably integrate agrifood sectoral, multisectoral and territorial measures and to
serve as a general reference framework for all countries (Regidor, 2011). The content and
implementation of this new NRS would be conditioned by certain determinants, however.
Above all, in the context of the scarcity of new farmers, greater importance would need to
be attached to "part-time farming". Although the proposals for supporting new entrants
do not exclude this formula, their primary aim would appear to be the establishment of
professional farmers. A review of the growing prevalence of part-time farming in the EU,
however, measured as the percentage of total working time devoted by family farm
managers to that activity (see Table 9), is indicative of how unrealistic that aim may be.
Table 9: Time devoted to farming by family farm managers (% AWU)
2003
2003
2003
2007
2007
< 50%
of fulltime
hours
EU-27
2007
Variation 2003-2007
50% -<
100% of
full-time
hours
Full time
< 50%
of fulltime
hours
50% -<
100% of
full-time
hours
Full time
< 50%
of fulltime
hours
64.3
17.3
17.6
66.5
17.5
15.3
3.3
1.4
-13.3
EU-15
57.6
16.0
24.8
58.0
15.3
25.2
0.7
-4.3
1.5
EU-12
69.0
18.1
12.6
72.2
19.0
8.5
4.7
4.7
-32.5
50% -<
100% of
full-time
hours
Full time
In the EU-27, most of the time devoted to farming by family farm managers is part-time
work (58 % of the total AWU in the EU-15 and 72.2 % in the EU-12 are worked in hours
when less than half of the working time is spent farming). This development goes hand-inhand with a steep decline in full-time farm work in the EU-27 and especially in the EU-12. A
country-by-country review (see Annex 3A) reveals this same pattern across most of the
EU-15 (with a few exceptions such as France and Germany) and the entire EU-12, where
very high part-time work percentages are recorded for some countries. As some analyses
have shown, this development falls within the pattern of a declining share of primary
activities, its contribution to GVA and the steady increase of shares of the secondary and
tertiary sectors in GVA over the period 2000-2008 (EC, 2012:14-15).
The measures designed to favour entry may not be suitably addressing this reality,
although hard evidence in this regard specifically referred to young farmers is not presently
available51. The vast majority of today's farmers have semi-subsistence or very small
economic size holdings (in 2007 81 % owned holdings of under 8 ESU in the EU-27), only
15 % of which belonged to youths. Hence, farming sector measures alone will not suffice to
deal with the troublingly low farmer replacement rate, for the vast majority of those
concerned are part-time farmers.
51
The information on part-time farming is not broken down by age bracket in the EUROSTAT databases.
34
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
More specifically, the main core of the proposals (measures A, B and C) may be effective
for candidates aspiring to be professional farmers, whereas the new small farmer scheme
(measure D) maintains the support and incentivises the elimination of this type of holdings.
How, then, can these measures alone counter the paucity of farmers? The answer lies in
the support that youths can obtain to set up in the countryside, many as part-time farmers,
but engaging primarily in some other type of work. The other measures proposed in the
NRS (measures E, F, G and H) are designed to do just that.
Consequently, greater attention needs to be paid to the importance and present state
of rural youths. As some recent analyses have noted, "most youth policies ignore 'rural'
and most rural policies ignore 'youth' and the specific challenges of addressing youth
unemployment in rural contexts go unacknowledged. A search of several recent EU policy
documents found no mentions of rural youth (EP, 2010: 9-10). In particular, much more
political attention has been paid to the entry of young farmers than to the establishment of
young rurals.
This pattern merits revision, however, for despite the scant information available, some
estimates indicate that the relative weight of youths (ages 15 to 24) in predominantly rural
(PR) regions continues to be high in the EU-27 (3.1 %), with a particularly high proportion
in EU-12 countries (5.9 %) compared to the EU-15 (2.3 %) (see Table 10). The percentage
of young people is higher in intermediate (IR) and predominantly urban (PU) regions than
in PR in the EU-15, but not in the EU-12. An assessment of the absolute country-bycountry data (see Annex 3B) for this type of region shows that, despite the declining
number of young rurals, a significant portion of the population still falls under this category
and merits substantial political attention.
Table 10: Distribution of the population of 15-24 year-olds by type of region
(estimate)
15-24 year-olds (% of total
population)
15-24 year-olds (absolute numbers)
PR
IR
PU
PR
IR
PU
EU-27
3.1
4.6
5.2
15 602 588
23 134 447
25 750 848
EU-15
2.3
4.2
5.7
9 267 569
16 691 137
22 470 119
EU-12
5.9
5.5
2.7
6 143 479
5 688 549
2 780 386
Source: EUROSTAT database and European Parliament, 2010: Table 1.
These estimates would justify the need to further youth self-employment in many rural
areas, for which purpose some of the measures proposed may be particularly useful
(measures E and F). These measures are inter-related, inasmuch as the existence of a
basic annual income (measure E) is subject to participation in a development project, a
requirement that greatly lowers the number of eligible beneficiaries. Measure E might in
any event be limited to only one type of priority rural zones, which would enhance its
financial viability.
In that case, the support for rural investment projects (measure F) would have to be
greatly reinforced, increasing the number of projects and surmounting some of the
obstacles to the application of the measure that have been identified in the successive
assessments of the LEADER programmes. If it is not reinforced, the measure will continue
to be limited in scope, despite the high rate of co-financing envisaged (50 to 90 %,
depending on the type of region), due primarily to the small size of the mandatory
minimum EAFRD expenditure provided ("at least 5 % of the total EAFRD contribution).
35
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The substantial results attained by the 1 460 LAGs spread across the EU, in which truly
moderate public expenditure has sufficed to reach a large number of projects and
beneficiaries, provide an indication of the yet untapped potential of this measure52. In
keeping with the aforementioned link between it and measure E, the public budget for
measure F would need to be reinforced to ensure that establishment in rural areas,
particularly by young people, is not hindered by a want of funding. The LEADER method,
indeed, has always had greater potential than deployed in its successive applications.
Another determinant for the content and application of this New Rural Scheme is the
characterisation of and importance attached to rural territory. A territorial approach
to the problems affecting the countryside is needed to drive integrated rural development
strategies to meet territories' multisectoral needs, as well as endogenous rural
development strategies to draw value from all manner of presently unused resources. It is
especially necessary to implement sustainable rural development strategies that foster
economic activity and raise the standard of living while advocating the conservation of
natural and cultural resources (Regidor et al., 2008: 26-35).
Therefore, regardless of the strategy adopted in rural development, policy measures must
be defined territorially and applied in a manner that honours rural diversity. Such territorial
zoning has been defined along two distinct lines in the EU: one constitutes the official
territorial typology for statistical and socioeconomic analysis53, and the other, a variable
zoning system by country and region with a subregional dimension (NUTS 4) for applying
the LEADER method. This latter system is bound to play a lead role in the implementation
of Europe's new local development policy for rural areas laid down in the Common Strategic
Framework Funds proposal.
The adoption of a territorial approach, however, inevitably entails zonal characterisation, in
accordance with a typology with political and administrative impacts. Like the scheme in
place for the Cohesion Policy54, this typology constitutes grounds for prioritising and
modulating the level of support for rural areas. While such a characterisation would be
necessary to implement any of the measures proposed, it is indispensable to further
community-led local development in the European countryside (measure G).
Nonetheless, this measure, which can be regarded to be of utmost importance given its
possible impact on rural development, is defined as an option, not an obligation. Such
voluntary implementation is complex and would call for a substantial improvement in
governance between the CE and its MS, as pointed out in previous reports (Ntre Europe,
2011: 19-32). More than that, it needs to be satisfactorily integrated into many countries'
national rural policy measures (measure H). That will require additional improvements in
those countries' domestic governance, necessarily a medium-term endeavour.
In short, as far as young rural and the furtherance of their entry into farming and
establishment in the countryside are concerned, this option is a step in the right direction,
for it contributes to defining a new Rural Policy Framework for the EU that would include all
the measures under the NRS proposed (see Figure 4). In this framework, some European
measures would continue to be implemented under the PAC (measures A, B, C and D) and
others under the Cohesion Policy (measures E, F, G and H), while national policy (measures
H) would be aligned within the new Rural Policy Framework for the EU.
52
53
54
See the information given in the European Network for Rural Development.
This new EUROSTAT (2010) methodology is an updated version of the OECD method, adapted to NUTS 3 region
indicators.
See Articles 82 and 84, CSF Funds proposal.
36
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4: New NRS and new European Rural Policy
37
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
38
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
3.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
State-of-play and deterrents to new entry

The steady decline in the number of holdings and farmers in the EU has led to a distressing
shortage of new farmers. Today the Union is consequently faced with a dual problem: the
scarcity of young farmers and the rapid ageing of the farmer population.
A review of the presence of young farmers in the EU-27 today reveals a serious problem:
stated in numerical terms, scarcely 6 % of the Union's farm holders are under the age of
35 (5 % in the EU-15 and 7 % in the EU-12). Moreover, the problem is intensifying. The
age distribution of farm holders in recent years shows a very significant decline (30 % from
2003 to 2007) in the number of farms in the hands of youths.
At the same time, the farm holder population is ageing (over 55 % in the EU-27 is over
55), with scant differences between the EU-15 and the EU-12 in this respect. Moreover, the
forecasts for continued ageing are alarming in many countries. These two closely interrelated problems form part of a broader context of decline in the number of holdings in the
EU-27 as a whole (a downturn of around 9 % between 2003 and 2007).
Improvements in both regards depend on a higher rate of young new entrants, who
generally own small and mid-sized farms. Despite the shortcomings in the existing
statistical information, most young EU-27 farmers may be presumed to have small holdings
(under 16 ESU, under 38 ESU in the EU-15 and under 4 ESU in the EU-12) and to generate
a very limited volume of employment (scantly 15 % of the total AWUs, compared to the
44 % generated by the over-55s).
These data indicate that the absence of youths is a firmly entrenched structural problem,
especially in EU-15 countries, but to a significant degree in the EU-12 as well. Devastating
confirmation of the severity of the situation can be found in the holder replacement rate:
18 % in the EU-27, 15 % in the EU-15 and 20 % in the EU-12 in 2007. While reflecting the
magnitude of the problem, these figures also help identify the main deterrents to new
entry.
Essentially, new entrants face three obstacles, finding it extremely difficult to acquire
holdings that: a) are economically viable (i.e., yielding around 40 ESU); b) provide full-time
employment (at least one AWU); and c) enable them to earn a sufficient income (if access
to CAP payment entitlements is not assured). These three factors may be regarded as
determinants in themselves, inasmuch as they constitute the central core of the economic
and social reasons for venturing into farming.
Current Young Farmer Scheme (YFS)
The CAP measures in place to confront this situation, which constitute the current Young
Farmer Scheme (YFS), have apparently had very limited effects. One of the most
prominent features of the present model is that it determines the possible entry channels
for new farmers (inheritance, early retirement and ex novo), on which eligibility for the
specific measures available depend. Inheritance is by far the most favourable of these
channels, for it affords access to payment entitlements and to the land required to activate
them. The absence of such entitlements is a major obstacle in general, and for ex novo
entry in particular.
39
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The current YFS measures can be classified into four categories: A) measures providing
access to payment entitlements from national reserves; B) measures involving setting up
aid (of up to 70 000) as a one-off premium, plus a rebate for interest on possible loans to
finance setting up expenses; C) measures that provide special support for young farmers
investing in the modernisation of their holdings, which complements measure B; and D)
measures that foster early retirement, encouraging farmers to transfer their holdings to
youths. As might be deduced from the results, this model is globally weak and fails to
effectively counter the paucity of new entrants.
Young farmer setting up aid, for one, has yielded very poor results. Barely 38 500 youths in
the EU-27, two-thirds of whom live in the EU-15, benefited from this measure in 20072009. Support for young farmer modernisation may be somewhat more effective, since
young holders accounted for 40 % of the 78 000 farms belonging to natural persons that
received support in the EU-27 in the above period. Finally, the impact of fostering early
retirement is negligible, with around 19 200 beneficiaries in 2007-2010, 80 % of whom in
EU-12 countries. The present model for the inclusion of young farmers is consequently in
dire need of redefinition.
Proposals for reform and a new YFS
The proposals for reform introduced by the Commission envisage a new YFS that is
essentially a continuation of the present scheme, although the economic support envisaged
is permanent and more generous. The innovations can be summarised by measure
category. Under measure A), the payment entitlements activated by young farmers would
qualify for an additional annual payment whose sum, while limited, would raise the
revenues accruing under these entitlements and hence total farm income.
In a context in which the relative weight of subsidies in farm income has grown steadily
with each new CAP reform (and are now estimated to come to over 50 %), this measure
could have some impact on new entry. Nonetheless, one controversial issue is the definition
of "young farmer", and in particular the degree of professionalism (time devoted) to be
required for eligibility. Given that the vast majority of holders of small and mid-sized
holdings are "part-timers", neither their working hours nor their income are primarily farmbased, a circumstance that is generally ignored.
The new scheme maintains the setting up ceiling under measure B), but subjects eligibility
to the submission of a business plan. A larger number of new entrants can only be
attracted to farming if they have access to sound plans for a viable, long-lasting and
sufficiently funded business. Associating these plans with the creation of a farm advisory
system therefore makes perfect sense, although the use of the system should be made
mandatory for beneficiaries of the setting up premium.
Under measure C), the new scheme expands the support for modernisation investments, in
particular as regards access to land. These provisions could be improved, however, by
binding this measure more tightly to measure B), i.e., by subjecting eligibility to
compliance with the business plan requirement. In addition, the maximum setting up
subsidy for young farmers might be raised when their investments form part of their
business plan.
Lastly, the small farmer scheme created under new measure D) would primarily seek to
simplify the administrative costs of handling small direct payments, while encouraging
farmers with such holdings to exit the profession. Since the early retirement provision has
40
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
been withdrawn from the new scheme, this is the sole measure that relates retirement to
new entry, although its impact will foreseeably be minor.
Some of the measures proposed could be applied to any new entrant, however, as reflected
in the legislative amendments introduced by European Parliament. That notwithstanding,
new farmers who are no longer young would qualify for only two types of measures: direct
payments (measure A) and the stayer benefits of the small farmers' scheme (measure D),
i.e., they could enlarge their holdings in the wake of the permanent renunciation of other
small farmers of theirs.
Another approach might be envisaged, more as a complement than as an alternative to the
model proposed. In it, the causes underlying the scarcity of farmers would be viewed from
the wider perspective of the countryside in general, rather than farming only. In other
words, it recognises that the new entry problem actually forms part of a broader issue, the
scarcity of young people in the countryside, which is severe in many areas. The premise
openly broached is that the solution may lie in improving the future of rural areas by
enhancing their potential for development and reducing territorial imbalances.
New model for establishment in rural areas (NRS)
A new model to encourage people to set up in the countryside should provide a more
suitable response to Europe's new rural reality, in which only a minority of new farmers'
holdings provide them with full-time work. These new entrants consequently need to
expand their career possibilities by seeking employment in other sectors. Two main
channels for a rural livelihood can therefore be envisaged, as a new farmer or as a young
and other rurals, although the two may often be complementary.
In addition to measures designed to persuade new entrants, youths in particular, to be
professional farmers, others should be adopted that would place greater emphasis on
careers as young rural. Four such other measures could be created or reinforced. Measure
E) would provide temporary support in the form of a basic annual income for young rural
(under 35), subject to integration in a rural development project able to create jobs. This
alternative to the setting up measure would be open to all young rural and adaptable to
personal preference and opportunity.
Another measure, F), would support investment projects, reinforcing the use of the LEADER
method and increasing its financing. This measure would contribute to compliance with the
requirement established for the basic annual income, since it constitutes one of the most
accessible start-up options for young rural entrepreneurs. It would be complemented by
measure G), which would call for more rigorous application of the LEADER method to
coordinate the integrated use of all the European funds (CSF Funds). This would enable MS
to foster community-led local development focusing on specific sub-regional territories.
Finally, all MS should establish national rural policies (measure H), envisaging specific,
nationally financed action. All manner of projects have been implemented in the
countryside under the aegis of such policies, supplementing EU action. Such additional
initiatives, supported by national measures, are indispensable, for they remedy obvious
European shortcomings and expand the career opportunities for young people.
In other words, Europe is lacking a genuine rural development policy, a shortcoming that
only some MS have remedied to date by instituting national rural policies. That
circumstance reveals the need for a New Rural Scheme (NRS) to more suitably integrate
41
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
agrifood and agrienvironment sectoral, multisectoral and territorial measures and to serve
as a general reference framework for all countries. The content and implementation of this
new NRS would be conditioned by certain determinants, however.
Above all, in the context of the scarcity of new farmers, greater importance would need to
be attached to "part-time farming". Farming sector measures alone will not suffice to deal
with the troublingly low farmer replacement rate, for the vast majority of those concerned
are part-time farmers. The answer lies in the support that youths can obtain to set up in
the countryside, many as part-time farmers engaging primarily in some other type of work.
Greater attention also needs to be paid to the importance and present state of rural youths.
The entry of young farmers has merited much more political action than the establishment
of young rurals. Measures are consequently needed in many rural areas to encourage youth
to establish themselves through integration in development projects, acknowledging that
the LEADER method has always had greater potential than deployed in its successive
applications.
A final determinant would be the importance and characterisation of rural territory.
Regardless of the rural development strategy adopted (integrated, endogenous or
sustainable), policy measures must be defined territorially and applied in a manner that
respects rural diversity. Zoning is bound to play a lead role in the implementation of
Europe's new local development policy for rural areas, as laid down in the Common
Strategic Framework Funds proposal. That optional rather than ideally mandatory measure,
while still insufficient, constitutes a step in the right direction to set up a new Rural Policy
Framework for the EU that covers all the measures of the new NRS proposed.
42
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES:
Capoulas Santos, 2011a, Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments under support
schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy, Committee on
Agriculture and Rural Development, European Parliament.
Capoulas Santos, 2011b, Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for rural development by the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Committee on Agriculture and Rural
Development, European Parliament.
EC Regulation 1698/2005, Council Regulation on support for rural development by the

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
EC Regulation 73/2009, Council Regulation establishing common rules for direct support
schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy.
European Commission, 2008, Review of Rural Development Instruments: DG Agri

project 2006-G4-10, by Janet Dwyer et al.
European Commission -DG AGRI, 2010, Rural Development in the European Union
Statistical and Economic Information, Report 2010.
European Commission, 2001, 2 Report on Economic and Social Cohesion.
European Commission, 2011a, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament

and of The Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support
schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy.
European Commission, 2011b, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament

and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development (EAFRD).
European Commission, 2011c, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and
of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common
agricultural policy.
European Commission, 2011d, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament

and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
covered by the Common Strategic Framework.
European Commission, 2012, A View on Employment, Growth and Innovation in Rural

Areas, Commission Staff Working Document.
European Parliament, 2010, How to Promote the Role of Youth in Rural Areas of
Europe?, by Mark Shucksmith (Newcastle University, UK), Directorate General for
Internal Policies Policy, Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies.
EUROSTAT, 2010, Urban-rural tipology,

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Urban-rural_typology
Notre Europe, 2011, The Common Strategic Framework and its Impact on Rural
Development, by Nadge Chambon et al.
43
PE 495.830
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Regidor J. G. et al. 2008, The New Rural Challenge, in "Sustainable Rural Development
in Spain", J.G. Regidor (ed.), Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affaires,
Madrid.
Regidor J. G., 2011, Building the New Cap: Balanced Territorial Development, in Cap
Reform Through Analytical Lenses, Debate of the European Commission with the Polish
Presidency and the European Parliament, 19 December 2011.
Soto Hardiman, P., 2008, A Comparison of European Rural Policies, in "Sustainable

Rural Development in Spain", J.G. Regidor (ed.), Ministry of Environment and Rural and
Marine Affaires, Madrid.
44
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1
ANNEX 1A: HOLDINGS BY AGE OF HOLDER AND COUNTRY
2003
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total EU-27
2005
Total
54 940
665 550
Under
35 (%)
8.8
5.1
55 or
over
(%)
41.2
65.9
45 770
48 610
412 300
36 860
135 620
824 460
1 140 730
614 000
1 963 820
45 200
126 610
272 110
2 450
773 380
10 990
85 500
173 770
2 172 210
359 280
4 484 890
77 150
71 740
74 950
67 890
9.2
9.1
12.1
8.7
12.7
7.3
7.1
10.6
4.1
6.4
8.6
7.1
11.4
5.9
6.9
7.3
13.2
2.9
8.9
3.9
5.8
10.0
6.9
280 630
15 021 410
4.9
7.5
2007
Total
51 540
534 610
Under
35 (%)
7.3
4.2
55 or
over (%)
42.3
67.5
43.2
39.2
25.3
49.6
40.3
56.9
53.7
34.9
63.4
46.0
49.0
57.7
32.7
53.5
44.1
41.2
24.0
69.3
60.1
56.5
50.2
31.3
45.2
42 250
51 680
389 880
27 750
132 670
833 590
1 079 420
567 140
1 728 530
45 170
128 670
252 950
2 450
714 790
11 070
81 830
170 640
2 476 470
323 920
4 256 150
77 170
68 490
70 620
75 810
9.9
7.3
9.1
7.0
10.7
6.6
6.0
9.1
3.5
3.2
7.8
5.3
8.2
7.8
6.1
5.3
12.0
12.5
2.4
5.3
4.4
4.4
9.3
6.2
53.5
56.4
286 750
14 482 040
4.4
6.9
2010*
Total
-
Under 35
(%)
-
55 or
over
(%)
-
45.7
43.5
30.1
54.9
49.0
56.5
55.9
36.8
66.8
58.9
49.9
57.3
36.5
54.6
55.4
43.8
26.0
35.1
72.1
66.8
58.4
58.9
36.0
49.9
22 860
299 130
19 610
989 800
83 390
199 910
12 530
72 320
305 270
74 650
24 460
63 870
71 090
11.7
7.1
6.9
5.3
5.4
5.9
4.8
3.6
2.6
4.3
7.1
8.6
4.8
40.8
31.8
51.8
55.3
50.5
53.6
57.5
44.4
71.4
56.6
51.0
39.8
54.3
57.4
55.4
2 238 890
5.3
53.0
Total
48 010
493 130
Under 35
(%)
6.1
3.1
55 or
over (%)
43.2
70.1
44.2
42.0
28.0
53.3
44.8
56.8
55.1
36.1
66.0
54.1
50.0
53.8
34.3
51.4
49.7
42.6
26.0
34.2
70.5
64.8
56.9
54.5
33.9
48.8
39 400
44 620
370 480
23 340
128 240
860 150
1 043 910
527 350
1 679 440
40 120
107 750
230 270
2 300
626 320
11 020
76 740
165 420
2 390 960
275 080
3 931 350
75 340
68 990
68 230
72 610
9.7
5.9
7.7
6.2
8.1
6.9
5.2
8.1
3.1
2.4
7.1
4.4
7.4
7.6
4.9
4.0
11.0
12.2
2.2
4.4
4.0
3.8
9.2
6.0
55.1
54.1
299 830
13 700 440
3.6
6.3
Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010). (*) 2010: Holdings by age of manager.
45
PE 495.830

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1B: PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG FARMERS IN AGRICULTURE: KEY VARIABLES BY COUNTRY
2003
Country
No. holdings
UAA
AWU
Belgium
8.8
10.8
10.0
Bulgaria
5.1
6.2
5.4
Czech Republic
9.2
5.5
4.4
Denmark
9.1
11.1
11.1
Germany
12.1
10.4
11.2
Estonia
8.7
8.8
9.1
Ireland
12.7
14.0
11.3
Greece
7.3
13.1
11.0
Spain
7.1
9.5
9.3
France
10.6
15.5
13.6
Italy
4.1
7.9
6.6
Cyprus
6.4
7.2
6.3
Latvia
8.6
10.4
8.2
Lithuania
7.1
7.8
6.4
Luxembourg
11.4
16.8
13.1
Hungary
5.9
6.8
5.9
Malta
6.9
8.6
8.4
Netherlands
7.3
7.7
8.4
Austria
13.2
13.3
12.8
Poland
Portugal
2.9
6.7
3.6
Romania
8.9
5.5
7.1
Slovenia
3.9
4.9
3.8
Slovakia
5.8
4.7
4.4
Finland
10.0
11.9
10.3
Sweden
6.9
7.9
7.5
United
Kingdom
4.9
6.5
6.1
Total EU-27
7.5
9.8
8.0
(*) Total 2003 (all variables): Poland not included; total 2003 (only
2007
LSU
13.4
6.3
4.0
14.8
12.5
11.0
14.6
16.6
11.0
17.3
12.4
11.4
8.6
7.1
18.0
8.2
7.2
9.6
16.2
8.8
8.2
5.2
5.5
13.4
9.2
ESU
12.6
7.2
4.7
13.4
10.8
10.6
15.0
13.0
10.0
14.7
9.1
8.0
10.2
8.0
16.4
7.3
8.8
9.6
14.7
7.9
6.7
5.0
12.1
8.6
No. holdings
6.1
3.1
9.7
5.9
7.7
6.2
8.1
6.9
5.2
8.1
3.1
2.4
7.1
4.4
7.4
7.6
4.9
4.0
11.0
12.2
2.2
4.4
4.0
3.8
9.2
6.0
6.9
6.3
12.0
10.8
ESU): Slovenia not included.
3.6
6.3
UAA
7.4
8.3
6.7
8.4
6.8
10.6
9.0
11.6
7.5
11.6
6.8
4.8
10.4
7.5
9.3
7.5
5.8
3.9
11.1
16.5
6.0
4.5
6.4
7.2
11.5
7.1
AWU
6.5
4.4
5.3
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.6
11.2
7.5
10.0
5.3
3.3
6.7
4.6
8.5
6.7
7.8
4.7
10.7
15.1
3.4
3.7
4.3
4.8
10.1
6.8
LSU
9.6
8.1
5.5
11.7
8.1
7.6
10.2
16.3
9.5
12.2
10.0
6.2
8.2
5.7
10.7
7.8
9.2
5.1
13.8
17.3
7.4
4.3
7.5
10.2
12.6
8.1
ESU
8.7
7.5
5.9
9.6
7.0
9.4
10.3
12.3
8.4
11.1
7.2
5.0
10.1
7.3
9.8
7.5
7.3
5.6
11.6
17.1
7.0
4.4
6.5
8.0
11.4
8.3
4.7
8.6
4.4
7.9
5.0
9.7
4.8
8.8
Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2005, 2007)
46
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1C: NUMBER OF FARM HOLDINGS BY ECONOMIC SIZE AND COUNTRY (%)
Country
Total
Belgium
54 940
Bulgaria
665 550
Czech
Republic
45 770
Denmark
48 610
Germany
412 300
Estonia
36 860
Ireland
135 620
Greece
824 460
Spain
1 140 730
France
614 000
Italy
1 963 820
Cyprus
45 200
Latvia
126 610
Lithuania
272 110
Luxembourg
2 450
Hungary
773 380
Malta
10 990
Netherlands
85 500
Austria
173 770
Poland
2 172 210
Portugal
359 280
Romania
4 484 890
Slovenia
77 150
Slovakia
71 740
Finland
74 950
Sweden
67 890
United
Kingdom
280 630
Total EU-27 15 021 410
Under 8
ESU
24.4
98.7
2003
From 8
From 16
to 15.9
to 39.9
ESU
ESU
10.0
16.8
0.5
0.3
From 40
to 99.9
ESU
29.4
0.2
100 ESU
or over
19.4
0.2
Total
48 010
493 130
Under 8
ESU
22.2
97.7
2007
From 8
From 16
to 15.9
to 39.9
ESU
ESU
9.8
15.6
1.0
0.6
From 40
to 99.9
ESU
26.7
0.3
100 ESU
or over
25.7
0.3
78.5
20.0
35.4
95.1
45.8
77.2
65.4
31.5
77.7
85.0
97.2
98.3
25.7
96.8
81.0
11.2
54.8
90.0
85.7
99.4
87.8
95.7
38.4
53.8
6.8
17.3
12.2
2.3
20.8
13.6
13.7
9.6
9.9
7.0
1.6
1.0
11.0
1.6
8.3
11.8
17.0
6.7
7.0
0.3
7.9
1.1
18.1
13.1
6.2
20.7
19.0
1.4
19.0
7.9
13.1
19.9
7.5
5.0
0.8
0.5
15.9
0.9
7.4
17.0
20.8
2.8
4.8
0.1
3.7
1.0
27.2
13.7
3.3
17.7
21.4
0.6
12.3
1.2
5.7
26.5
3.4
2.3
0.3
0.2
39.6
0.4
2.7
27.7
6.7
0.4
1.8
0.1
0.5
0.8
14.5
13.2
5.2
24.5
12.0
0.6
2.1
0.1
2.1
12.6
1.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
7.8
0.2
0.5
32.2
0.8
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
1.4
1.9
6.3
39 400
44 620
370 480
23 340
128 240
860 150
1 043 910
527 350
1 679 440
40 120
107 750
230 270
2 300
626 320
11 020
76 740
165 420
2 390 960
275 080
3 931 350
75 340
68 990
68 230
72 610
72.4
26.5
37.5
89.3
48.9
74.8
57.0
28.9
72.2
82.9
94.8
96.3
23.0
95.4
86.5
11.1
54.7
89.7
86.2
99.4
84.4
95.0
39.8
62.6
8.4
16.7
11.9
4.2
20.2
14.5
16.1
9.2
11.2
7.8
2.7
2.0
10.9
2.2
6.6
11.7
14.6
6.1
6.3
0.3
9.5
1.4
17.8
11.2
8.1
19.6
18.4
3.4
17.5
8.8
15.7
19.1
9.5
5.3
1.6
1.1
17.0
1.5
5.4
16.7
20.1
3.4
4.6
0.2
4.9
1.3
23.8
11.7
4.6
14.3
20.2
1.6
11.4
1.7
7.9
27.0
4.8
2.8
0.6
0.4
35.7
0.6
1.3
25.3
8.7
0.6
2.0
0.1
0.9
0.9
15.6
9.7
6.4
22.9
12.0
1.4
2.1
0.2
3.3
15.8
2.4
1.1
0.3
0.2
13.9
0.4
0.2
35.2
1.9
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.3
1.4
3.0
4.7
58.0
82.8
8.2
6.1
11.2
5.5
12.1
3.7
10.3
1.9
299 830
13 700 440
63.7
81.1
7.5
6.6
10.2
6.1
10.0
4.0
8.5
2.2
47
PE 495.830

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1D: FARMERS UNDER 35: TOTAL VALUE OF KEY VARIABLES / No. OF HOLDINGS
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total EU-27
UAA
31.2
5.3
47.8
67.0
35.4
21.8
35.0
8.6
29.5
66.1
12.9
3.9
14.2
10.1
76.9
6.4
1.2
24.8
18.9
23.8
1.9
8.1
24.0
35.8
53.1
76.4
16.2
AWU
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.9
1.2
0.7
1.1
0.7
1.9
0.7
0.5
2.5
1.0
1.6
0.5
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.6
0.9
2003
LSU
110.0
3.0
21.7
151.8
46.8
11.2
54.0
7.3
19.2
62.2
15.3
10.1
3.6
4.3
102.3
4.8
4.6
94.6
17.7
19.8
1.5
10.2
12.6
21.2
36.2
72.8
16.3
ESU
84.0
2.3
16.3
112.4
45.7
4.4
24.3
11.1
21.3
66.1
21.9
8.1
2.3
1.8
61.3
2.8
9.4
126.3
15.6
17.5
0.9
6.1
27.0
35.5
49.7
15.9
ESU/AWU
55.7
1.8
9.3
73.6
29.4
4.2
23.0
10.0
18.7
34.5
18.2
11.6
2.2
2.5
33.0
4.1
18.7
50.3
15.9
11.1
1.8
4.9
20.1
31.3
31.7
16.9
UAA
34.8
16.5
62.3
84.6
40.3
66.6
36.2
8.0
34.8
74.9
16.7
7.3
24.1
19.9
71.2
6.7
1.1
24.7
19.4
8.7
34.9
3.6
10.4
53.3
42.0
51.2
70.2
17.3
AWU
1.5
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.9
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.9
0.6
0.6
2.5
1.0
1.2
1.9
0.5
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.1
2007
LSU
125.0
6.6
29.8
203.1
51.0
16.5
58.2
7.3
25.2
64.6
19.2
15.9
5.2
5.9
100.8
4.0
8.4
107.1
18.6
6.6
25.1
1.5
13.8
28.9
23.1
33.4
64.6
15.4
ESU
101.5
5.2
25.1
130.3
44.7
11.7
24.7
12.9
33.5
73.4
34.8
16.7
4.4
4.1
68.7
3.2
7.3
155.6
17.6
5.1
21.2
1.0
9.6
15.1
29.8
34.3
41.2
15.8
ESU/AWU
69.3
3.7
13.0
81.4
28.7
7.4
22.9
11.9
24.9
38.9
26.1
18.8
4.8
5.0
36.5
5.7
11.9
61.8
18.5
4.3
11.1
2.0
8.0
9.0
25.8
33.6
29.8
14.7
48
PE 495.830

______________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1E: HOLDER REPLACEMENT INDEX BY COUNTRY (HOLDERS UNDER 35

/HOLDERS 65 OR OVER)
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU-15
EU-12
EU-27
2003
41.9
12.5
51.4
51.3
203.7
33.7
56.3
20.7
18.5
64.0
9.7
31.4
31.5
18.7
47.6
19.4
25.8
42.7
150.1
110.4
5.7
22.8
11.4
20.2
151.9
33.0
12.0
20.6
31.7
27.2
2005
33.5
9.9
56.5
38.9
126.0
23.0
34.1
18.5
14.9
56.5
7.7
11.9
26.7
16.4
39.0
28.1
22.0
30.8
97.7
74.3
4.6
11.8
13.0
13.8
147.2
26.3
10.2
16.9
22.4
20.2
2007
27.6
6.8
53.1
29.3
103.5
16.8
27.9
18.8
12.2
51.4
6.6
8.4
24.5
10.4
33.3
27.3
16.5
21.3
88.0
75.7
4.0
9.5
11.4
10.9
147.1
25.4
8.1
14.7
20.1
17.9
Source: Eurostat.
49
PE 495.830

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1F: ANNUAL WORK UNIT (AWU) BY AGE AND SEX (%/ OF TOTAL)*
TOTAL
Country
Total
Under 35
Belgium
55 920
11.9
Bulgaria
542 870
7.5
Czech
Republic
37 740
17.2
Denmark
38 190
12.0
Germany
449 710
13.1
Estonia
23 460
14.2
Ireland
141 660
17.3
Greece
492 200
15.0
Spain
649 480
13.5
France
422 920
11.9
Italy
1 126 420
9.2
Cyprus
20 870
8.3
Latvia
118 450
14.1
Lithuania
192 980
12.4
Luxembourg
3 330
16.2
Hungary
367 050
13.5
Malta
3 680
17.4
Netherlands
109 690
14.3
Austria
148 690
16.6
Poland
2 146 720
22.2
Portugal
329 690
10.2
Romania
2 353 050
15.7
Slovenia
86 760
17.9
Slovakia
42 040
17.5
Finland
70 320
15.3
Sweden
53 350
11.6
United
Kingdom
232 530
11.6
Total EU-27
10 259 770
15.0
*Estimated family labour force.
MALES
FEMALES
55 or
over
35.5
61.7
Total
38 610
312 370
Under 35
8.8
4.5
55 or over
25.0
35.8
Total
17 310
230 500
Under 35
3.1
3.0
55 or over
10.5
25.9
40.2
39.6
32.3
49.0
43.2
44.2
46.8
33.4
54.4
52.8
45.3
44.8
32.7
47.4
38.3
33.6
21.8
26.8
63.1
51.0
40.6
46.2
31.0
44.5
27 130
29 580
308 460
12 150
111 470
320 840
493 350
307 750
742 730
13 730
56 710
95 500
2 420
216 370
3 390
80 030
83 340
1 225 670
179 730
1 280 000
49 510
26 540
47 270
39 050
13.5
8.4
9.7
8.2
14.5
9.9
10.3
10.0
6.8
5.7
7.8
6.8
12.9
8.3
15.2
11.2
10.9
13.0
6.1
8.8
11.1
11.3
10.8
8.4
28.5
31.8
22.4
23.8
32.6
29.4
35.2
23.1
37.0
34.6
19.5
21.0
23.1
26.6
34.2
25.3
12.3
15.0
35.6
26.5
22.1
27.1
21.8
34.0
10 620
8 610
141 250
11 310
31 830
177 210
175 700
115 170
383 690
7 500
61 740
97 480
990
157 490
490
29 660
65 350
941 250
149 960
1 099 610
37 240
17 350
23 040
14 300
3.7
3.6
3.4
6.0
2.8
5.1
3.2
1.9
2.4
2.5
6.4
5.6
3.3
5.2
2.2
3.1
5.7
9.2
4.1
6.9
6.9
6.2
4.5
3.2
11.7
7.8
9.9
25.2
10.6
14.9
11.6
10.3
17.5
18.2
25.8
23.8
9.9
20.9
4.1
8.3
9.5
11.8
27.6
24.5
18.5
19.1
9.2
10.5
48.2
43.6
170 890
6 274 590
9.5
9.5
35.3
26.3
61 640
4 068 290
2.1
5.5
12.9
17.3
Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2005).
50
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 1G: NET FARM INCOME PER ANNUAL WORK UNIT (AWU) BY COUNTRY
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
Estonia
France
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Finland
Sweden
Slovakia
Slovenia
United Kingdom
UE-27
0 - <4 ESU
1 836
1 697
6 637
5 432
4 726
3 102
7 479
3 388
2 915
2 668
3 046
2 469
2 135
2 713
4 - <8 ESU
3 367
2 636
5 766
8 139
9 642
5 704
6 515
7 094
10 722
5 890
4 390
3 695
4 906
4 722
2 111
6 669
8 - <16
3 658
8 615
8 030
12 378
12 577
13 103
7 182
8 731
8 542
11 897
11 593
11 988
5 905
8 192
14 015
5 702
7 354
6 991
10 094
10 805
5 820
4 727
10 945
9 915
Mean 2007-2009 (euros)

ESU
16 - <40 ESU
40 - <100 ESU
17 526
31 318
4 856
7 061
12 043
15 171
13 192
17 212
23 350
42 106
15 981
30 325
16 954
21 522
19 896
30 215
13 210
15 625
15 715
25 186
13 591
20 718
19 635
36 663
17 545
29 159
18 694
26 310
16 353
31 884
9 367
11 990
11 982
24 932
13 070
34 071
21 720
32 602
10 518
16 988
12 107
17 984
9 706
12 281
19 059
28 432
20 724
34 294
8 275
6 913
9 452
23 554
20 848
31 362
16 305
27 132
>= 100 ESU

44 493
10 359
21 247
13 006
60 770
39 896
37 490
40 917
15 377
38 324
18 913
51 527
55 352
17 870
48 360
14 471
26 106
46 125
35 916
16 334
26 777
18 738
31 590
54 177
5 711
47 390
36 860
Total
36 713
3 891
8 449
12 784
49 987
31 773
11 616
20 249
10 754
27 664
13 004
19 438
24 278
9 013
32 668
6 897
13 429
40 339
23 482
5 728
7 887
3 641
23 797
32 644
5 969
4 337
37 324
15 717
51
PE 495.830

____________________________________________________________________________________
52
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2
ANNEX 2A: TOTAL SUBSIDIES (EXCLUDING INVESTMENT SUBSIDIES) BY ESU AND COUNTRY
Mean 2007-2009 (euros)
Country
0 - <4 ESU 4 - <8 ESU 8 - <16 ESU 16 - <40 ESU 40 - <100 ESU >= 100 ESU
Belgium
12 459
20 956
34 456
Bulgaria
905
2 360
4 579
12 570
34 173
131 702
Cyprus
1 213
1 949
4 376
7 956
15 846
25 855
Czech Republic
7 971
12 672
24 358
61 863
305 971
Denmark
6 538
14 481
28 432
70 612
Germany
14 857
26 085
80 478
Greece
3 011
4 166
7 003
12 258
22 640
13 636
Spain
832
3 335
3 868
8 101
15 710
31 448
Estonia
7 931
8 727
15 755
24 664
47 637
168 056
France
8 978
16 127
27 996
47 931
Hungary
2 110
3 597
7 218
15 972
41 762
243 789
Ireland
8 785
11 975
18 633
27 707
33 214
46 318
Italy
1 761
2 867
5 773
11 954
34 199
Lithuania
3 811
6 647
11 437
21 381
43 913
122 727
Luxembourg
26 874
40 793
69 720
Latvia
4 549
7 218
12 972
26 439
58 437
227 064
Malta
4 196
11 424
31 658
82 128
Netherlands
6 265
11 923
24 828
Austria
14 286
19 651
28 478
32 318
Poland
2 494
3 273
4 811
8 954
18 877
105 289
Portugal
1 783
3 338
5 267
10 550
23 155
57 401
Romania
834
2 448
7 704
21 105
59 994
243 782
Finland
19 748
39 294
73 431
121 044
Sweden
17 613
25 661
43 685
89 975
Slovakia
14 076
41 002
103 265
428 481
Slovenia
4 921
6 158
9 124
15 507
33 876
United
Kingdom
20 001
27 691
41 446
76 620
UE27
1 627
3 294
5 834
12 784
25 011
58 034
Total
24 338
3 829
4 049
71 457
33 085
34 831
6 114
7 552
20 854
27 747
13 871
20 076
5 691
8 970
41 307
12 818
10 941
16 711
20 217
4 649
5 656
1 812
48 111
35 852
156 555
7 421
45 710
10 446
53
PE 495.830

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2B: BUSINESS START-UP AID AND ESTIMATED* NET FARM INCOME BY YOUNG FARMER (ESTIMATE)*
Net farm income (mean 2007-2009) (euros)
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
Estonia
France
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Finland
Sweden
Slovakia
Slovenia
United
Kingdom
0 - <4
ESU
3 205
1 302
4 - <8
ESU
9 096
2 391
8 - <16
ESU
12 897
10 130
563
747
724
569
298
058
413
729
793
583
862
6 886
8 545
10 176
8 670
6 281
6 474
8 603
10 121
7 593
5 975
6 831
10 870
3 542
11 581
5 600
15 862
14 746
13 222
11 658
11 379
12 655
11 863
21 526
11 879
11 155
17 710
10 771
11 880
23 555
5 468
9 157
13 651
9 193
27
17
21
28
28
29
19
29
25
25
43
18
26
24
17
33
23
22
38
25
23
30
22
12 008
27 097
5
4
6
2
5
5
4
3
3
3
16 - <40
ESU
21 888
29 416
22 186
608
251
904
810
672
777
844
161
367
222
488
607
090
876
086
100
799
901
146
170
588
412
082
Business
start-up
No.
aid
ESU/AWU
(2007(2007)
2009)
()
19 171
69.3
12 524
3.7
18.8
Business
start-up
aid/Net farm
income) (%)
40 - <100
ESU
50 342
65 305
50 025
>= 100
ESU
127 582
294 041
72 406
Total
74 037
9 832
10 099
66 390
55 133
53 686
51 105
58 845
72 623
43 886
69 510
59 419
64 415
102 959
55 108
61 976
77 777
60 717
62 752
57 460
53 135
105 120
58 765
58 189
55 327
73 257
452 269
198 398
184 326
146 946
139 991
311 091
123 288
466 839
131 527
281 337
347 688
119 351
400 283
157 532
190 799
109 385
243 796
120 874
549 783
124 614
188 363
271 379
-
97 594
79 043
72 942
13 740
28 485
28 475
52 503
24 600
22 004
33 229
17 347
53 980
15 365
25 352
111 815
37 153
10 014
12 262
5 850
34 807
48 472
99 788
7 293
72 840
11 250
25 296
38 278
16 772
32 875
14 989
13 497
37 849
26 000
36 085
12 192
13 099
11 530
12 000
10 034
18 057
21 124
13.0
81.4
28.7
11.9
24.9
7.4
38.9
5.7
22.9
26.1
5.0
36.5
4.8
11.9
61.8
18.5
4.3
11.1
2.0
25.8
33.6
9.0
8.0
628.9
51.4
88.2
569.3
84.5
1 279.7
59.1
53.5
748.3
139.7
817.8
36.8
22.8
97.1
334.9
39.9
76.5
596.5
57 773
204 972
86 720
1 500
29.8
5.5
38.1
390.8
-
Source: European Commission, Farm Accounting Data Network. (*) from data in Annexes 2E and 1D.
54
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2C: IMPORTANCE OF MODERNISING FARM HOLDINGS TO ATTRACT YOUNG NEW ENTRANTS (ESTIMATE)
No. of young
farmers
assisted 2007Country
2009 (A)
Belgium
602
Bulgaria
1 476
Czech Republic
332
Denmark
0
Germany
124
Estonia
187
Ireland
704
Greece
0
Spain
2 222
France
12 956
Italy
3 947
Cyprus
0
Latvia
59
Lithuania
1 169
Luxembourg
81
Hungary
1 467
Malta
0
Netherlands
0
Austria
3 254
Poland
5 112
Portugal
247
Romania
507
Slovenia
844
Slovakia
0
Finland
713
Sweden
759
United Kingdom
2
Total EU-27
36 764
Young
beneficiaries of
agricultural
holding
modernisation
2007-2009 (B)
2 457
117
95
13
1 901
205
1 215
0
3 561
2 549
2 091
0
60
1 330
195
1 754
75
663
4 558
6 642
157
251
332
20
210
610
354
31 415
Agricultural
holders under
35 2007 (C )
2 590
15 050
3 590
2 600
28 280
1 220
8 880
60 420
44 260
33 840
49 070
980
7 760
9 740
120
46 850
460
2 830
15 660
293 750
5 170
166 870
2 990
2 390
6 120
3 730
7 460
822 680
(A/B)*100
24.5
1 261.5
349.5
0.0
6.5
91.2
57.9
62.4
508.3
188.8
98.3
87.9
41.5
83.6
0.0
0.0
71.4
77.0
157.3
202.0
254.2
0.0
339.5
124.4
0.6
117.0
(B/C)*100
94.9
0.8
2.6
0.5
6.7
16.8
13.7
8.0
7.5
4.3
0.8
13.7
162.5
3.7
16.3
23.4
29.1
2.3
3.0
0.2
11.1
0.8
3.4
16.4
4.7
3.8
Source: European Commission (European Network for Rural Development) and Eurostat (Agriculture database).
55
PE 495.830

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2D: FARMERS 55 OR OVER: TOTAL VALUE OF KEY VARIABLES/ No. HOLDINGS OWNED
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total EU-27
UAA
17.5
2.9
AWU
1.1
1.1
LSU
39.7
2.0
2003
ESU
35.4
1.1
ESU/AWU
32.6
1.0
UAA
20.8
3.5
AWU
1.2
0.9
LSU
44.2
1.7
2007
ESU
43.4
1.3
63.4
44.8
38.3
14.2
29.3
3.6
16.9
25.4
4.9
3.0
8.8
7.3
29.4
3.6
0.8
21.1
15.9
7.9
2.4
5.4
15.2
24.2
36.0
3.2
1.1
1.7
0.9
1.3
0.6
0.7
1.1
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.3
0.6
0.4
1.8
0.8
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
41.9
62.0
38.4
5.0
41.0
1.9
7.2
15.8
2.7
2.7
2.9
3.2
32.4
2.4
2.5
51.2
9.3
4.4
1.5
5.9
7.6
10.4
18.1
26.2
55.1
47.4
2.3
16.9
4.6
11.2
26.4
7.1
5.1
1.4
1.2
23.2
1.5
5.4
70.0
9.5
4.6
1.0
4.0
16.8
20.7
8.2
49.5
28.3
2.7
13.2
7.5
15.3
24.9
10.8
7.3
1.3
1.5
18.0
2.5
14.3
38.6
12.1
3.8
1.6
3.3
13.8
22.3
83.2
50.6
44.2
23.0
29.6
3.6
18.2
31.7
5.6
2.9
11.2
8.0
38.4
5.2
0.8
21.9
16.1
4.1
9.4
2.9
5.2
16.9
26.3
35.0
3.6
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.2
0.5
0.8
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.3
1.8
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
54.4
70.8
42.8
7.4
39.0
1.8
7.8
19.5
3.1
3.8
2.8
3.2
44.0
2.9
3.2
58.7
9.2
2.5
4.8
1.3
5.2
6.6
9.8
17.3
40.8
60.2
46.2
4.5
15.3
5.2
15.0
32.3
10.3
6.1
1.9
1.6
33.6
2.5
3.8
78.1
11.5
2.1
4.6
0.8
4.5
4.5
17.3
19.6
11.4
56.1
28.3
3.7
12.7
9.7
19.3
28.6
15.3
10.2
2.1
2.2
24.3
4.0
12.3
43.6
14.5
2.8
4.0
1.5
4.3
4.2
17.9
24.2
43.8
7.7
1.1
0.8
37.3
5.3
27.2
6.3
25.3
7.9
44.2
8.5
1.0
0.7
35.6
5.5
23.0
7.0
22.9
10.0
ESU/AWU
37.5
1.4
56
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2E: SETTING UP YOUNG FARMERS (2007-2009)

No. of applications approved
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total EU-27
Public expenditure ('000 eur)
Early
retirement
Other
Total
EAFDR
Total
Total
investment
('000 eur)
80
0
145
0
0
0
229
0
284
20
24
0
1
180
0
28
0
0
0
595
0
0
71
0
404
0
0
2 061
576
1 476
705
0
124
187
475
0
2 483
12 936
3 926
0
234
1 304
81
1 439
0
0
3 254
4 517
247
507
790
0
321
759
2
36 343
656
1 476
850
0
124
187
704
0
2 767
12 956
3 950
0
235
1 484
81
1 467
0
0
3 254
5 112
247
507
861
0
725
759
2
38 404
3 462
14 790
18 117
0
697
5 369
5 276
0
21 177
107 347
23 140
0
1 810
33 184
421
35 446
0
0
19 389
50 220
2 136
4 867
13 371
0
3 214
6 831
1
370 264
11 541
18 486
24 183
0
1 395
7 158
10 552
0
56 207
217 300
53 271
0
2 129
44 245
2 106
48 228
0
0
39 674
66 960
2 848
6 084
17 829
0
7 154
13 705
3
651 056
106 603
18 486
24 183
0
5 182
7 242
10 552
0
103 099
3 851 511
203 663
0
2 661
57 097
2 106
49 349
0
0
n/a
105 594
31 023
10 196
17 829
0
127 666
14 267
3
4 748 309
No. of young farmers aided

Male
Female
513
847
203
0
115
137
656
0
1 332
10 667
2 619
0
45
869
76
973
0
0
2 490
4 353
159
378
706
0
626
543
2
28 309
89
629
129
0
9
50
48
0
890
2 289
1 328
0
14
300
5
494
0
0
764
759
88
129
138
0
87
216
0
8 455
57
PE 495.830

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2F: MEASURE 113: EARLY RETIREMENT (2007-2010)

Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total EU-27
Number of beneficiaries
Number of
applications
approved
55-64
>64
Total
Number of
hectares
released
0
0
574
0
0
0
572
0
2 488
36
430
0
0
1 749
0
82
0
0
0
13 678
40
0
133
0
0
0
0
19 782
0
0
307
0
0
0
569
0
2 262
26
295
0
0
1 657
0
82
0
0
0
13 544
35
0
133
0
0
0
0
18 910
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
53
0
2
0
0
92
0
0
0
0
0
134
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
289
0
0
307
0
0
0
572
0
2 315
26
297
0
0
1 749
0
82
0
0
0
13 678
40
0
133
0
0
0
0
19 199
0
0
14 860
0
0
0
18 702
0
98 318
465
2 500
0
0
22 160
0
1 735
0
0
0
131 102
427
0
1 541
0
0
0
0
291 810
Public expenditure ('000

eur)
EAFRD
Total
0
0
2 434
0
0
0
9 583
0
20 889
314
1 463
0
0
3 666
0
121
0
0
0
89 858
188
0
1 149
0
0
0
0
129 665
0
0
3 245
0
0
0
19 167
0
39 842
470
2 794
0
0
4 887
0
161
0
0
0
119 811
222
0
1 532
0
0
0
0
192 131
58
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2G: BENEFICIARIES OF MEASURE 121: MODERNISATION OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (2007-2009)

Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total EU-27
Number of farm holdings supported

Natural persons
Bodies corporate
Male
Female
Total
40
40
<40
<40
2 195
2 542
262
239
5 238
707
105
140
12
13
270
306
Total
5 945
576
83
13
1 812
185
1 191
0
3 060
2 297
1 455
0
36
1 123
179
1 522
72
619
2 725
5 376
119
207
279
15
191
543
92
21
3 452
571
3 066
0
4 170
3 204
882
0
82
1 612
468
4 098
92
14
4 214
3 781
108
83
565
57
262
1 620
12
0
89
20
24
0
501
252
636
0
24
207
16
232
3
44
1 833
1 266
38
44
53
5
19
67
11
0
134
121
238
0
1 143
418
406
0
67
407
112
797
6
0
5 289
571
58
10
91
7
18
174
198
34
5 487
897
4 519
0
8 874
6 171
3 379
0
209
3 349
775
6 649
173
677
14 061
10 994
323
344
988
84
490
2 404
409
26
2 197
344
7
0
2 033
10 298
1 258
0
1 416
297
7
2 977
8
367
255
343
185
1 178
33
557
46
602
607
60
7 684
1 241
4 526
0
10 907
16 469
4 637
0
1 625
3 646
782
9 626
181
1 044
14 316
11 337
508
1 522
1 021
641
536
3 006
336
25 738
947
36 143
18
5 677
51
10 381
1 352
77 939
104
25 960
1 456
103 899
59
PE 495.830

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 2H: KEY RESULTS OF MEASURE 121: MODERNISATION OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (2007-2009)
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total EU-27
No. applications approved

Organic
Conventional
production
production
90
0
444
2
373
262
11
0
213
0
547
0
435
12
0
228
2
19
3 212
190
37
157
92
135
57
255
27
6 800
5 611
576
1 668
58
8 102
1 372
4 515
0
12 839
17 935
4 132
0
2 110
3 829
1 850
14 298
179
1 846
12 688
11 314
471
1 365
1 246
786
490
2 751
1 409
113 440
Public expenditure ('000 eur)

Total
EAFRD
Total
Total investment
('000 eur)
5 701
576
2 112
60
8 475
1 634
4 526
0
13 052
17 935
4 679
0
2 545
3 841
1 850
14 526
181
1 865
15 900
11 504
508
1 522
1 338
921
547
3 006
1 436
120 240
11 284
57 142
42 874
1 931
182 510
46 647
20 751
0
63 059
104 967
24 246
0
43 821
108 513
7 682
356 389
603
4 199
111 350
227 405
5 643
97 853
17 991
109 404
6 906
36 075
2 296
1 691 541
37 613
71 428
59 898
3 860
464 372
62 196
41 529
0
176 224
244 373
55 902
0
56 046
144 683
38 408
471 906
804
31 227
226 441
303 206
8 124
122 317
23 989
147 337
15 567
72 250
7 301
2 887 000
436 215
140 797
228 327
10 034
1 965 464
142 246
122 174
0
476 688
1 037 994
751 802
0
155 855
331 350
100 778
2 589 225
1 767
99 841
972 956
746 562
329 470
1 183 660
94 834
315 000
169 684
413 725
n/a
12 816 450
60
PE 495.830

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 3
ANNEX 3A: TIME DEVOTED TO FARMING BY FAMILY FARM MANAGERS (% AWU) BY COUNTRY (2003-2007)
2003
Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
2003
2007
< 50% of
full-time
hours
25.4
41.7
42.3
43.8
30.4
76.4
21.4
69.0
62.0
37.9
71.6
75.3
46.3
70.3
16.9
74.8
71.0
19.0
38.6
49.5
48.8
82.4
53.8
69.1
37.1
50.8
2003
50% -<
100% of
full-time
hours
9.0
31.0
22.4
11.7
26.7
12.3
19.1
20.0
11.0
11.2
12.7
13.6
32.1
27.3
22.3
18.4
15.6
15.9
22.2
20.7
33.1
13.7
31.1
23.5
18.7
20.5
Full time
65.5
26.9
35.4
43.6
42.9
10.0
57.1
11.0
18.9
50.9
15.6
11.2
18.7
2.1
57.4
5.7
9.3
65.1
38.8
29.4
18.0
3.8
15.1
7.3
43.9
28.3
< 50% of
full-time
hours
23.9
54.6
45.5
45.8
35.3
63.7
23.2
71.9
59.2
37.4
69.7
80.8
57.3
74.6
17.7
79.7
79.9
19.0
40.4
57.4
48.6
83.0
55.9
75.2
51.3
59.3
2007
50% -<
100% of
full-time
hours
9.2
26.1
23.2
13.8
21.6
18.9
23.2
17.5
12.9
10.3
12.4
11.5
28.5
19.8
20.8
15.4
6.8
18.1
21.5
22.9
30.6
15.9
29.6
19.0
11.8
18.4
51.9
13.1
2007
Full time
66.9
19.1
31.1
39.8
43.2
16.5
52.5
10.6
20.4
52.2
17.8
7.6
13.1
4.4
58.8
5.0
9.7
62.9
36.8
19.1
20.9
1.1
14.5
5.8
36.6
21.8
32.9
56.1
12.0
29.4
Variation 2003-2007
50% -<
100% of
< 50% of
full-time
full-time
hours
Full time
hours
-6.1
2.0
2.1
30.9
-15.6
-29.0
7.6
3.4
-12.1
4.5
17.2
-8.7
16.2
-19.3
0.6
-16.6
53.7
64.8
8.5
21.1
-8.0
4.2
-12.5
-3.7
-4.7
18.1
8.1
-1.3
-7.9
2.7
-2.7
-2.3
14.0
7.4
-15.2
-31.7
23.8
-11.3
-30.0
6.2
-27.5
104.5
4.5
-6.8
2.5
6.5
-16.7
-12.6
12.5
-56.3
3.4
-0.1
14.3
-3.4
4.6
-3.0
-5.2
15.9
10.4
-35.0
-0.6
-7.8
15.8
0.7
15.6
-71.4
3.9
-4.9
-4.0
8.8
-19.1
-21.4
38.2
-36.8
-16.6
16.9
-10.2
-22.8
8.0
-8.5
-10.7
61
PE 495.830

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX 3B: PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG RURALS IN OVERALL POPULATION, BY COUNTRY (ESTIMATE)*

Country
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany (including
1991)
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
PR
1.1
4.9
4.5
5.0
15-24 year-olds (%)

IR
3.0
5.8
5.7
4.5
PU
8.1
2.0
2.7
2.5
2.0
8.1
10.4
6.1
1.5
3.1
2.2
6.3
7.4
6.2
0.1
4.9
6.1
3.8
6.6
5.1
7.3
5.3
3.1
0.4
4.6
7.4
1.5
4.2
4.6
4.6
2.1
5.0
11.8
4.6
3.5
3.2
5.0
1.8
6.4
7.0
5.9
3.7
7.5
3.1
4.8
4.5
6.3
5.1
4.9
3.5
6.7
3.6
1.8
14.1
8.6
4.1
3.7
5.3
1.4
1.5
3.3
2.6
8.7
15-24 year-olds (number)

PR
IR
PU
122 553
323 818
870 999
370 819
440 579
152 800
466 329
593 300
280 488
276 636
246 031
139 043
former GDR from

1 664 648
108 767
463 302
685 894
700 942
2 013 068
1 304 779
143 276
246 832
624 177
12 925
411 497
2 312 560
408 915
1 411 105
103 260
395 528
283 019
283 661
223.282
3 739 307
99 791
167 893
1 925 700
2 986 494
2 767 777
48 482
166 180
58 233
464 234
581 124
265 697
1 920 599
188 995
1 374 793
141 631
321 298
197 857
697 077
1.889.737
3 973 014
199 691
709 045
2 356 026
3 184 307
2 094 852
152 592
120 237
181 390
58 319
1 418 289
344 746
1 392 226
565 795
297 369
79 506
175 161
240 230
5.386.675
Source: EUROSTAT database and European Parliament, 2010: Table 1. (*) Estimate: % of total population.
62
PE 495.830

Instalarea Tinerilor Fermiei in Limba Engleza

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Instalarea Tinerilor Fermiei in Limba Engleza

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

EU MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE AND

ABOUT THE EDITOR

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

EU MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE AND

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

1.2. Content and assessment of the present model

1.2.1. The current Young Farmer Scheme (YFS)

2. NEW MODEL TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT NEW ENTRANTS

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

INTRODUCTION: STATE-OF-PLAY AND NEW FARMERS

Present situation and new entry into farming

Young farmers present situation

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

(*) 2010: Holdings by age of manager.

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

-9.2 8 782 460 8 038 000

-8.8 6 238 950 5 662 440

Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2007).

2007 2003 2007 2003* 2007

UAA: utilised agricultural area (ha)

LSU: livestock unit

ESU: economic size unit (1 ESU: 1 200)

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2005, 2007).

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2003, 2005, 2007).

Main factors that discourage new entrants

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

LSU: livestock unit

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

EU-12 5 935 670

Source: Eurostat (Agriculture database 2005).

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

Source: European Commission, Farm Accounting Data Network.

Content and assessment of the present model

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

Articles 22, 23 and 26, EC Regulation 1698/2005.

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

Article 41, EC Regulation 73/2009.

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

Source: European Commission, Farm Accounting Data Network.

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

Article 26, EC Regulation 1698/2005.

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

Source: European Commission, European Network for Rural Development.

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

Table 6: Measure 113: early retirement (2007-2010)

Number Public expenditure (000 eur)

Source: European Commission, European Network for Rural Development.

Source: European Commission, European Network for Rural Development.

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

Public expenditure (000 eur)

Source: European Commission, European Network for Rural Development.

EU measures to encourage and support new entrants

NEW MODEL TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT NEW