Annex 3 Summary of ms assessments

Lithuania

The Lithuanian Rural Development Programme (RDP) covers the entire territory (65.3 thousand sq. km) of the country. The entire territory of Lithuania is classified as eligible under the Convergence Objective. About half of the rural working force (contributing ca. 16% to employment in the country) works within the agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishery sectors but employment is decreasing. The rural economy is characterized by low labour efficiency, partial employment and is predominantly small semi-subsistence farms, which are increasing. Fragmented farm structure characterised by small average farm size, as well as scattered land plots within one farm, lack of cooperation and an increasing average age of farmers are perceived to be the key factors hindering the competitive development of the agricultural sector.

Utilised agricultural area (UAA) accounts for almost 40% of the country’s total area and the total forestland area accounts for ca. 30% (status in 2005). Of total UAA, arable land constitutes 48%, whereas permanent pasture covers approximately 45% and 12% is declared as orchards. Set-aside as well used for purposes like bio-fuel production, which has been increasing in recent years. There are characteristic regional differences such as intensive agriculture in certain areas and abandonment of land in other areas. Within intensive farming areas, usage of fertilisers, pesticides and chemicals causes environmental damage. Large areas (18% of UAA) of abandoned land result in loss of existing natural values (landscape, biodiversity) or abandonment of traditional agricultural practices in some high nature valued areas. The areas in which agricultural losses are incurred due to limited productivity of agricultural land and where the density of rural population is below the country’s average, or the viability of rural communities is decreasing, have been classified as less favoured areas (LFAs), which cover approximately 44% of the total UAA in Lithuania. The percentage of UAA used by organic farming is 2.3% (status in 2005) and growing. An average certified organic farm covers 38 ha. These farms are mainly plant growing farms (ca. 55%) or mixed farms (ca. 41%). Despite recent growth, organic production remains relatively small scale and fragmented and this is hampering effective marketing. Twelve percent (12%) of the country’s total territory is part of the NATURA 2000 network, which continues to increase in size. Although average livestock density in Lithuania is very low, not exceeding 0.5 LSU/ha in recent years, milk and meat production makes up half of total agricultural production of all farms, due in particular to favourable natural conditions. Crop production, on the other hand, is regarded as a supplementary source of production.

In general, agricultural soil is not exhausted in Lithuania. The main problem related to soil is acidity. About 66% of soils are considered acidic (pH≤5.5), and this percentage is increasing. About 14% (2000) of agricultural land is affected by erosion. Of the three types of soil erosion identified in Lithuania as being caused by human economical activity (i.e. water, wind, mechanical), the main destructive effects are a result of water erosion, which is caused by moving water in hilly areas. The main areas with soil erosion are in the hilly regions of Lithuania, which are primarily in less favourable areas. Intensive arable farming activities contribute to the pollution of water with nutrients. Large quantities of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) entering bodies of water from arable land have a significantly negative impact on water bodies. There is also bad quality drinking water in dug wells.

The main environmental strengths of the primary agricultural and forestry sectors (SWOT analysis) are the available resources of drained land and fertile soil, relatively low level contamination of soil, water and air, and high biodiversity. The main environmental problems include the usage, within intensive farming areas, of fertilisers, pesticides and chemicals that cause environmental damage; poor drinking water quality; big areas of abandoned land resulting in the loss of existing natural values (landscape, biodiversity), abandonment of traditional agricultural practices in some high nature valued areas; poor technical and environmental status of water management systems (canals, drainage systems, hydraulic structures); and lack of sustainable forest management practice in private forests. While water pollution caused by the agricultural sector is recognised as the biggest water issue, morphological conditions and quantity of water is either addressed only indirectly, or not at all. SWOT does not indicate the WFD.

Therefore, the infrastructure improvement and modernisation activities are one of the priorities in the Lithuanian RDP. It might lead to intensification of agriculture (and thus increased negative environmental impacts), if not enough attention is paid to extensive farming practices and environmental standards.

In the Lithuanian RDP, emphasis is put on the economic development of the agricultural, forestry and rural development sectors in order to improve their competitiveness and to increase the level of incomes. Therefore, the infrastructure improvement and modernisation activities are one of the priorities in the Lithuanian RDP. This priority is also expressed in the total public expenditures planned for it. Axis I has the highest budget planned and comprise 41.14%of the overall public budget. The second biggest budget of total public expenditures is allocated to Axis II with 36.38%. Axis III and LEADER have relatively small budgets with 12.19 and 6.06 %.

The Lithuanian RD Programme does not put strong emphasis on the implementation of the WFD (two measures make a link to the WFD), but there are a large number of measures with a link to water (quality) issues. Both Axis I and Axis II have a set of measures which link to water.

The Axis III measures do not consider environmental issues directly. Nevertheless, one measure on Village Renewal and Development (Code 322) has a link to water issues, even if it aims to create an attractive environment for work and life in rural areas by having more attractive and modernized villages. This measure is designed to ensure the restoration and development of rural areas (renovation of buildings, arrangement or establishment of public infrastructure) including construction and renovation of drainage system; installation of public drinking water supply and sewage management systems in rural areas with a population of less than 500 inhabitants.

The priorities of LEADER do not consider environmental issues directly.

Monitoring, control and review

The Ministry of Agriculture – as the managing authority – and the Monitoring Committee have the responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation system based on the EU common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF). On-going monitoring and evaluation shall be conducted mainly through the annual progress reports to be submitted to the Commission every year by the 30th of June. The annual progress report will include all the quantitative and qualitative information indicated in article 82 of Regulation 1698/2005. In particular, these reports will include: 1) a table on the financial implementation of the programme providing, for each measure, a statement of the expenditure paid to beneficiaries during the calendar year (according to Annex VII of Regulation 1974/2006), 2) the monitoring tables, which will include quantitative information based on the common output and result indicators, and 3) a summary of the on-going evaluation activities.

The Ministry of Agriculture/National Paying Agency is responsible for the control of rural development measures of the Rural Development Programme. The control of the development measures consists of the administrative and on-the-spot checks controls. The Lithuanian RD Programme states that the administrative and on-the-spot checks will be conducted ‘so that the compliance with the eligibility and payment criteria for support is secured and the effectiveness and appropriateness of implementation is verified’.

Under the Agri-Environment Payments measure, quantified targets for community common indicators (on outputs, results, impact and baseline indicators) are given. The result indicators, along with other parameters, consider water quality (the pressure indicated in the SWOT). In relation to water quality, the baseline indicators consider pollution by pesticides and nitrates as well as gross nutrient balance. In general, the overall system is well balanced, but the list of indicators used is not extensive enough to make a judgment on the overall effectiveness of the agri-environmental program. For example, a judgment of the effectiveness of certain sub-measures on different environmental media is not possible because the baseline indicators only consider limited factors (e.g. organic farming has a potential to reduce pollution caused by agricultural activities, however there are no water related indicators under this sub-measure).

The number of measures that directly or indirectly address water issues is quite large, however they focus only on water quality issues (the only agricultural pressure according to the SWOT analysis) and consider neither water quantity, nor hydro morphology of water bodies. The consideration of the WFD Article 5 Report is not mentioned in the Lithuanian Rural Development Programme.

However the set of measures to address water quality issues is quite broad and various types of farms are addressed (e.g. animal, crops, mixed production). Since the majority of measures with a link to water have high budgets planned, a wide up-take by farmers should be possible.

There are two measures demonstrating a link to the WFD, i.e. Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to the WFD (Code 213) and Improving the status of water bodies at risk (Code 214.4). The first measure (Code 213) focuses only on Natura 2000 issues, and the second measure must be revised after the river basin management plans have been adopted. In addition, both measures have relatively small budgets.

The measures under Axis I consider water issues. For example, one specific objective of the measure on modernization of agricultural holdings (Code 121, Art. 26) is to implement the Nitrates Directive (in holdings having more than 10LU) and protect waters from eutrophication. In addition, this measure plans activities to construct new manure storage facilities and/or sewage storage tanks and/or reconstruction of old ones. The measure on infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry (Code 125) foresees two activities which have a link to water. One of the activities on agricultural water management aims to provide support for renovation and reconstruction of general access drainage systems and their hydrotechnical constructions. The second activity on improvement of forest infrastructure also foresees, amongst other things, the installation or restoration of forest drainage systems.

The measures under Axis II that consider water issues have both a preventative approach and focus on “existing hotspots”. Most important are measures with payments linked to NATURA 2000 and agri-environmental measures (Code 213, Code 214) which focus mainly on water quality improvement (mostly reduction of nutrients (nitrate) and organic substances) through extensive agricultural practices, and the limiting of livestock numbers. The measure on the Scheme for improving the status of water bodies at risk (Code 214, Scheme 15.4) directly links this measure with the achievement of the WFD goals. The measure Code 213 could also be important for implementation of the WFD. However, until the adoption of the river basin management plans, after which detailed rules for support will be fixed, the measure focuses mainly on NATURA 2000 sites.

Furthermore, there are a number of measures that have a multi objective benefit since they do not provide a link to water issues but might have an indirect link to water quality improvement. For example, the measures on first afforestation of land (Code 221) and on first afforestation of non-agricultural land (Code 223) consider the protective role of forest. Forest is one of the most valuable natural resources in Lithuania, covering about one third of the countries’ territory. Forestry measures bring multiple, i.e. socio-environmental benefits, since these measures in addition to the increased economic value of forests, have many positive environmental effects, e.g. groundwater protection/improvement, biodiversity protection/improvement, climate change mitigation.

The measure on non-productive investments (Code 227) considers as a main aim nature protection, but it foresees a creation and renovation of small ponds of up to 300 m² as well as works of restoration of the hydrological regime, which was disturbed by drainage in forests.

Both measures that refer directly to the WFD will be reviewed and become operative after the river basin districts management plans has been adopted. These are: the measure for improving the status of water bodies at risk (Code 214, Scheme 15.4) and the measure on Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to the WFD (Code 213). The revision of other RDP measures with a link to water after the adoption of the river basin districts management plans would be also useful.

Generally, the measures foreseen in the Lithuanian RDP are consistent with the identified strengths and weaknesses in the country and bring multi-objective benefits:

• The first and most urgent concern in the Lithuanian rural areas is the outdated physical structure of farms and poor infrastructure. Therefore, the Lithuanian RDP puts emphasis on the economic development of agricultural, forestry and rural development sectors in order to improve their competitiveness and to increase the level of incomes. Consequently, one of the priorities with the highest budget planned in the Lithuanian RDP is infrastructure improvement and modernization activities. Modernization activities are necessary but may lead to further intensification of agriculture and thus increased negative environmental impacts if not enough attention is paid to extensive farming practices and environmental standards. With reference to water, a good example is the measure under Axis I on modernization of agricultural holdings (Code 121). This measure, in addition to investments in equipment (improved equipments), foresees protection of waters from eutrophication (one of the recognised key problems in Lithuania) through the improved implementation of the Nitrates Directive. This measure brings multi-objective, i.e. socio-environmental benefits.

• In order to support and improve the consideration and implementation of environmental standards and sustainable land use and farm management, farm advisory services, as well as monitoring and controlling, have to be enhanced. The farm advisory services measure is planned in the Lithuanian RDP. However, the planned budget is not very high, and should be increased, since the role of the farm advisory services is more important in the new Member States and Lithuania is one of them.

• A second good example in the Lithuanian RDP is that a big number of forestry related measures are foreseen. The measures however have comparatively small budgets which might lead to weak motivation to implement them. In addition, it would be more effective if the implementation of these measures were to be coordinated in between.