Annex 3 Summary of ms assessments

Finland

The Rural Development Programme (RDP) of Finland is composed by one mainland report and another report including the Åland Islands. This assessment considers only the contents of the RDP mainland (see below Chapter 2).

Used agricultural area (UAA) covers only 8.9% of the country surface, while 86% of the land area is covered with forests. The Finnish agriculture is based on family farms, and the structure of agriculture is dominated by a large number of small farms. The average farm size is 30 ha and the average private forest size is 37 ha. One of the goals of the current RDP is to increase the average size of farms to 35-50 ha. The GDP from primary production is 3.5% employing 4% of the population. Part-time farming has increased in areas close to employment and population centres (e.g. in Uusimaa region). The majority of the UAA is arable land and it is located in the South and West of Finland. As a result of the different climatic and soil conditions, production diverges regionally. The biggest farm-holdings are found in the South of the country while the smallholding sector is more concentrated in the Northern parts of the country. In Southern and Western Finland there is a special emphasis in cereal and other crops production. In Eastern and Northern Finland the focus is in the dairy husbandry. The vegetable production not grown in greenhouses is concentrated in the provinces of Varsinais-Suomi, South Satakunta, Uusimaa and Kymenlaakso. In 2004, crop production was the main production line for 58% of farms (41,681) and dairy husbandry for 24% of farms (17,490). Intensification problems are concentrated in Southern and Western Finland, especially due to high concentration of livestock production (problems with spreading of manure). However, there is a trend towards more organic production and less animal husbandry. In 2004, 6.7% of the UAA (147,588 ha) and 400 livestock farms were devoted to organic production.

All land in Finland is considered as less favoured area for agriculture (LFA) purposes. Including 52% of mountainous LFAs, 21% other non-mountainous LFAs and 27% special handicapped LFAs. The LFAs present an increasing risk of agricultural land’s marginalisation. The level of support will be differentiated according to severity of handicaps on a regional basis.

Environmental issues in the RD programme are considered as a high priority. This is also reflected in the budget allocated to axis 2 which covers 82% of the total public budget. Specifically, poor water quality is referred to as a main environmental concern. In particular, the RDP states problems with nitrogen and phosphorous loading in surface watercourses and the Baltic Sea and problems with acid groundwater.

Share of the public budget among the three axes

Environmental issues in the RD programme are considered a priority, as 82% of the total public budget is allocated to axis 2. Overall, the water quality is addressed in terms of measures and budget by the RDP. The RDP presents two main measures that are expected to have a positive impact in the quality of waters. They are: agri-environmental measures (214) and natural handicap payments (211, 212). However, measures under axis 1 and 3 should also deliver benefits to water. In particular modernisation of agricultural holdings (121) where farmers can specifically get support for building investments in milk production and cattle farming, including the machinery and equipment, and basic services for the economy and rural population (321) where local authorities get support to implement water management projects should result in benefits to water quality.

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. Objective and context related baseline indicators are considered in the RDP. Programme-specific indicators were also developed to complement CMEF indicators.

The indicators used measure the nitrogen and phosphorous balance and the RDP expects a reduction of both as a result of the RDP´s measures. The RDP provides no specific information about the methods, frequency and location of the samplings.

Three types of control measures are planned to control implementation of the RDP. They are: administrative controls, on-spot controls and ex-post controls. A fixed review of the RDP is planned for the mid-term evaluation that will be carried out by 2010. Although, the review process does not mention the Water Framework Directive (WFD) directly, the water indicators aimed at improving water quality will be reviewed.

The Finish programme is grounded on the specificity of each region following the national strategic priorities and allowing regional choices in order take into consideration the different regional problems. In addition, the RD program considers and integrates other programmes to improve rural areas which are financed through other national funding sources. In the analysis of the situation the RDP makes a good reference to article 5 of the WFD and the agri-environmental measures (AEM) are designed in order to support the implementation of the river basin management plans. Thereby farmers can select from thirty-one measures which are classified in six basic measures, 10 additional measures, three additional measures for horticulture farms and 12 special measures. Unfortunately there is no definition given for these different set of measures. When applying for agri-environment payments farmers have to commit themselves to the basic agri-environment measures for 5 years. Depending on the area the farmer is located in, a farmer must select at least 1 but not more than 4 additional measures . The area eligible for the basic and additional measures must be at least 3 continuous hectares for the entire operation period of the commitment (minimum area). In the case of horticulture, the minimum area is 0.5 ha of arable land under horticultural crops each year. AEMs include also an extensive and diverse set of sub-measures that can be added up or kept at the basic level to fit the needs and desires of the farmer or the specific requirements of each farm. This staggered approach allows farmers quite some flexibility in selecting the measures which are most suitable to them.

The WFD objectives related to water quality are not only being addressed through measures of axis 2 but also with measures of axis 1 and 3 where funding is provided to improve the environmental performance of farming (e.g. measure 121)

In Finland there are 25 Local Action Groups (LAG) altogether, funded under the Leader+ Programme. To ensure the local approach, the membership of the boards of the LAGs is based on the principle of tripartition: a third of the members represent the municipalities, another third the local organisations, and one third consists of individual local residents. When drafting their local development strategies the LAGs, together with the other stakeholders, concentrated on improving the vitality of rural villages, but they also introduced several environmental measures, such as the protection and restoration of wetlands and lake restoration projects.

The Finish RDP program has one of the highest shares to axis 2 within the EU 27. Water is clearly the key priority and several measures under all three axes have the aim to improve the water stats. Also LEADER is used to do so. However as the 2004/5 Impact and Pressure assessment required under the WFD, a revision of the program should consider this assessment more deeply.