Annexe 32 - Etude de cas Baden Württemberg

Comm/Agri

Informations

• Publié par: Thuwyer
• Nombre de lectures: 29
• Langue: English

Extrait

FORSCHUNGSGRUPPE Agrar- und Regionalentwicklung TRIESDORF









EVALUATION DES MESURES
AGRO-ENVIRONNEMENTALES



AGRI/ G4/ 2004






ANNEXE 32 : ETUDE DE CAS BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG







Dipl. Ing. (FH) Lioba Degenfelder
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Simon Lösch
Prof. Dr. Otmar Seibert



Novembre 2005




Forschungsgruppe Agrar- und Regionalentwicklung Triesdorf (ART)
Steingruber Str. 2, D-91746 Weidenbach-Triesdorf – Tel.: xx49/9826/ 654 204 Etude de cas Baden-Württemberg
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PREAMBLE ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Presentation of the case-study region Baden-Wuerttemberg.......................................... 1
1.1.1 General aspects of agriculture in the case-study region............................................................... 1
1.1.2 Water-quality as the first aspect of the case study....................................................................... 3
1.1.3 Landscape as the second aspect of the case study 4
2. DESCRIPTION AND TYPOLOGY OF MEASURES......................................................... 5
2.1 Detailed description of the Agri-Environmental Measures............................................. 5
2.2 Typology of measures ......................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Explanation about area designation of specific measures............................................................ 8
2.3 Data basis............................................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Theme nº 1: Environmental impacts of agri-environmental measures - Sub-theme nº
1: biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.1 Q 1: To what extent has biodiversity been maintained or enhanced by agri-environmental
measures?................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2 Q 2: To what extent have habitats been maintained or enhanced by agri-environmental
measures?............. 18
2.4.3 Q 3: To what extent have genetic resources been maintained or enhanced by agri-
environmental measures through the safeguarding of endangered breeds or plant varieties?... 21
2.5 Theme nº 1: Environmental impacts of agri-environmental measures - Sub-theme nº
2: Natural resources.......................................................................................................... 23
2.5.1 Q 4: To what extent has water quality been maintained or enhanced by agricultural measures?
................................................................................................................................................... 23
2.5.2 Q 5: To what extent has water quantity been maintained or enhanced by agricultural measures? 36
2.5.3 Q 6: To what extent has soil quality been maintained or enhanced, and soil erosion has been
prevented by agri-environmental measures? ............................................................................. 36
2.5.4 Q 7: To what extent agri-environmental measures had impacts on other environmental
resources not covered above (e.g. air …) or have other environmental impacts not listed? ..... 39
2.6 Thème nº 1: Environmental impacts of agri-environmental measures - Sub-theme nº
3: Landscape...................................................................................................................... 40
2.6.1 Q 8: To what extent have rural landscapes been maintained or enhanced by agri-environmental
measures?................................................................................................................................... 40
2.7 Theme nº 2a: Institutional and contextual issues which determine the success of agri-
environmental policy......................................................................................................... 47
2.7.1 Q 9: To what extent have institutional structures and working methods at all levels in the
Member states facilitate/hindered the construction of good quality agri-environmental programs
and measures?............................................................................................................................ 47
2.7.2 Q 10: To what extent is funding for agri-environmental programs and measures adequate (e.g.
in the EU contribution, Member states budget, Regional budget, payment levels for farmers,
etc.) and how has the level of funding influenced uptake and program quality? ...................... 51
2.7.3 Q 11: To what extent is the monitoring, evaluation and control of agri-environmental measures
in place in the Member states adequate to the task? To what extent have the results of
monitoring and evaluation been used to improve the program? What lessons can be learned
from best practices on monitoring, evaluation and control?...................................................... 53
2 Etude de cas Baden-Württemberg
2.7.4 Q 12: To what extent have other implementation or contextual factors (such as the attitude
towards/knowledge about agri-environment at all levels in the Member states, the level of GFP,
other CAP/EU measures, minimum 5-years contracts, farmers as the only beneficiaries, etc.)
influenced programs uptake and environmental effectiveness? ................................................ 54
2.8 Theme nº 2b: Economic efficiency of measures. Payment mechanism. ....................... 56
2.8.1 Q 13: What differences are there in the budget spending and the administrative effort of
different measures having similar environmental outcomes? How could less efficient measures
be improved? What lessons can be learned from very efficient measures (best practices)? ..... 56
2.8.2 Q 14: Is the present way of applying payment mechanism (based on costs incurred plus income
foregone plus an incentive where necessary) suited to achieve the desired environmental
outcome? Do payments reflect costs incurred and income foregone? Are incentive payments
when used, being justified? Can any improvements be suggested to the payment mechanism,
which would maintain compatibility with WTO rules?............................................................. 57
2.9 Theme nº 3: The socio-economic impact of agri-environmental measures.................. 59
2.9.1 Q 15: To what extent have agri-environmental measures provided farmers with opportunity of a
gainful activity (provision of environmental services)? To what extent have they contributed to
enhancing the image of agriculture as a provider of services to society?.................................. 59
2.10 Theme nº 4: Objectives and targeting of agri-environmental measures...................... 60
2.10.1 Q 16: To what extent agri-environmental measures have been designed with clear
environmental objectives? To what extent have Member states and Regions chosen to target
their agri-environmental measures to areas and topics covered by Community environmental
legislation or objectives? ........................................................................................................... 60
3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 63
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 68
Annex 1: List of people met........................................................................................................ 68
Annex 2: Main bibliography identified in relation with the study ......................................... 69
3.1.1 Issue water ................................................................................................................................. 69
3.1.2 Issue landscape .......................................................................................................................... 70
3.1.3 Comprehensive publications......................................................................................................71
Annex 3: Presentation of holdings............................................................................................. 72
Farmer 1a................................................................................................................................................ 72
Farmer 2a 76
Farmer 3a 81
Farmer 4a.......................... 84
Farmer 1b 88
Farmer 2b 93
Farmer 3b.......................... 98
Farmer 4b........................ 103
Farmer 5b 108
Farmer 6b 112


Etude de cas Baden-Württemberg
TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1. Farms in Baden-Wuerttemberg by type of farming and size classes (2003)................................... 2
Table 2. Utilisation of UAA in Baden-Wuerttemberg 2003 ......................................................................... 2
Table 3. Categories of MEKA....................................................................................................................... 6
Table 4. Typology of