General overview of the situation in rural areas in the MS

Sweden

Agricultural land covers only 8% of Sweden’s surface area. In 2004, the agricultural sector in Sweden employed 1.4% of the employed population. About one third of the agricultural holdings are full-time farms, but this number has been falling. Though the number of agricultural holdings has fallen by 25% since 1995, however, their average size is growing, both in terms of land area and the size of livestock units. Today, the bigger, more specialised farms are responsible for producing the most food and account for most of the land use. The size of the average farm is 40 hectares. Approximately 50% of the total agricultural land in Sweden is classed as Less Favoured Areas (LFAs). The average size of farm in Sweden’s LFAs is 26 hectares and production within the LFAs is dominated by milk production. Over the last 10 years, the number of active agricultural holdings in the LFAs has decreased by 43% -- one of the reasons for this is the growing international competition that leads to the abandonment of less productive areas.

In comparison to other EU states, Sweden’s dairy production sub-sector is competitive, but its cereal production sub-sector is not. Approximately 40 % of the agricultural holdings in Sweden keep livestock, 33% of holdings grow crops and 10% are used for mixed farming. Agricultural structure and production vary widely in different parts of the country. In the northern part of Sweden, small holdings keeping livestock dominate. In mid-Sweden (Svealand and northern Götaland) there are a lot of large arable farms. In the forest counties of southern Sweden, livestock holdings (beef) dominate, while in the arable farms of Skåne agriculture dominates. Organic farming is reported to be increasing. In 2005, 510,000 hectares were under organic farming, only 35% of this area is certified “organically grown”. There are no planned LEADER activities related to water in the Rural Development Programme (RDP).

The main pressures from agriculture reported in the Swedish RDP are on water quality, as nitrogen and phosphorous from arable land is a significant cause of eutrophication of lakes, waterways and the Baltic Sea. Leaching was estimated as being responsible for almost 50% of the anthropogenic emissions. Residues of plant protection products have also been found in both surface and ground water. Sweden’s RDP reports a trend of intensified use of plant protection products. This is due to changes in the choice of crops and crop rotations as a result of Sweden’s entry into the EU. Loss of biodiversity results from land use change (e.g. trend toward increased monoculture forest) and intensification of agriculture, with the removal of obstacles to cultivation and small-scale biotopes from cultivated fields (e.g. wetlands). This threatens the habitats of many species and thus biodiversity. Water abstraction is reported to be insignificant (about 4% of the overall water use) and the issues of flooding and hydro-morphological changes due to agriculture as well.

Approximately 14 % of the RDP’s total public budget is allocated to Axis 1, with a clear focus on measure 121 on modernisation of farms (121 receives 48% of public budget allocated to axis I and on measures 111 and 114 receive together 28% of public budget allocated to axis I)..The budget granted to Axis 2 covers 69% of the total public expenditure of the RDP. The budget consigned to agri-environmental measures (AEM) represents 54% of the total public expenditure. About 8.3% of the public budget is allocated to Axis 3.

Of the total budget of the RDP, approximately 6.7%will be implemented within the framework of Leader. The Leader method will mainly be applied to measures and operations in Axis 3, but will also be applied within Axes 1 and 2.

Monitoring, control and review

The guidelines of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) are used to monitor the impacts of RDP measures. Output, result and impact CMEF indicators are assessed for all measures. Programme-specific indicators are also assessed for some measures to monitor and evaluate programme implementation (e.g. AEM).

The water quality will be assessed twice during the program period and a reduction of nitrogen leakage to 2,600 tonnes is expected. No indicator is presented to measure impacts of the different measures on the concentration of phosphate and plant protection chemicals.

Three types of control measures are planned to control implementation of the RDP. They are: administrative checks, on-the-spot checks and ex-post checks. The checks undertaken depend on the measure. The programme also reports on the existence of cross-compliance checks. No information is provided about the frequency of these checks. In Sweden prescribed minimum levels of controls is applied, if not particular levels are stipulated the minimum levels are 100 % (administrative controls), 5 % (on spot) and 1 % (cross-compliance)

The RDP will be reviewed in relation to all of the targets it describes.

Main strengths and weakness of the RD programme with regard to water

Sustainable development and the sustainable use of natural resources in accordance with the adopted environmental objectives form a general basis for the programme. The preservation and the development of an attractive, environmentally healthy, open landscape, which allows grazing on pastureland, is one central priority. Another priority is the protection of water. Both issues are clearly reflected in the design of the measures, even if water is not always addressed directly. The priority of environmental issues is also clearly reflected by the fact that Axis 2 receives most of the public funding.

The most significant measures in terms of budget and impact on water provided under Axis 2 are LFA payments (212) and agri-environmental payments (214) allowing the address of various production patterns, local conditions and environmentally harmful agricultural practices. The creation of wetlands is also covered both in the agri-environmental measures (214) and as a non-productive investment (216). This allows farmers to address the largest water problems considering different circumstances. However, for some of the measures, the effect of the measure itself is considered by the Swedish program to be hard to assess (p. 98). One of the reasons for this might be that impact indicators are not often used. So there is a national level indicator to monitor nitrate´s leakage and no indicators are reported to monitor RDP performance regarding the emissions of phosphates and plant protection products.

Improvements in water quality are also addressed under Axis 1. The funding for modernisation of farms requires that positive impact on the environment be demonstrated in the business plan. It remains unclear, however, whether this will materialise in practice. Under Axis 3, no direct link to water is established, but some measures (e.g. village renewal) might have positive effects on water courses.

The link to the WFD is well established because the Art 5 Impacts and pressure assessment required under the WFD was used as one of the baselines for developing the RD program. Further it is expected that after, the programmes of measures required under the WFD is finalised it should form an important basis for the design of types of payment within the framework of the rural development programme.

Conclusions and options for further improvements of the RD with regard to water

The measures provided under the Swedish RDP allow the water related pressures mentioned in the SWOT assessment to be targeted. However, because specific indicators for concretely measuring the improvements are missing, the effectiveness of the measures remain difficult to judge. In order to better assess the effects of the agri-environmental measures, the set up of additional indicators is recommended. With regard to water, these indicators should be in line with those used for monitoring the impacts of the WFD.