Agriculture and the environment in the
EU accession countries
Environmental issue report No 37
Implications of applying the EU common agricultural policy

Agriculture and the environment in
the EU accession countries
Implications of applying the EU common
agricultural policy
Environmental issue report No 37

2 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Cover design: Rolf Kuchling, EEA
Layout: Lorena Marcaletti, EEA
Photo: Mihály Bodnár, Hungary
Legal notice
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European
Commission or other European Communities institutions. Neither the European
Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is
responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report.
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage retrieval
system without the permission in writing from the copyright holder. For rights of translation
or reproduction please contact EEA project manager Ove Caspersen (address information
below).
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).
EEA, Copenhagen, 2004
ISBN: 92-9167-637-3
Printed in Belgium
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
DK-1050 Copenhagen K
Tel: (45) 33 36 71 00
Fax: (45) 33 36 71 99
E-mail: eea@eea.eu.int
Internet: http://www.eea.eu.int
Project managers: Jan-Erik Petersen and Ybele Hoogeveen, EEA

Contents 3
Contents
Preface............................................................................................... 5
Executive summary ........................................................................... 6
1. Introduction .................................................................................. 9
2. Agriculture in the accession countries ......................................... 11
2.1 General characteristics ........................................................................................11
2.2 Recent developments ..........................................................................................14
2.3 Review ..................................................................................................................19
3. Impacts on the environment ........................................................ 20
3.1 Soil ......................................................................................................................20
3.2 Water ..................................................................................................................22
3.3 Air ........................................................................................................................26
3.4 Biodiversity ...........................................................................................................27
3.5 Landscape ...........................................................................................................32
3.6 Review ..................................................................................................................33
4. Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment ....... 34
4.1 Analytical approach ............................................................................................34
4.2 Enlargement process and CAP reform ...............................................................35
4.3 Commodity linked payments -- the 'first pillar' .................................................37
4.4 Rural development -- the 'second pillar' ............................................................41
4.5 Consequences for the environment ....................................................................46
4.6 Review ..................................................................................................................49
5. References .................................................................................... 50
6. Appendix A.................................................................................... 53
6.1 Policy changes arising from the CAP mid-term reform in 2003 ..........................53

4 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries

Preface 5
Preface
This report is based upon a background
study and data compiled and analysed by a
multinational team. The team was led by
David Baldock, Ferenc Tar, Andrew Farmer
and Harriet Bennett of IEEP in London and
had national partners from six accession
countries: Viara Stefanova in Bulgaria,
Jaroslav Prazan in the Czech Republic, Merit
Mikk in Estonia, Zbigniew Karaczun in
Poland, Miroslava Cierna in Slovakia and
Eyup Yuksel in Turkey. Jane Feehan, Katalin
Balazs and Peder Gabrielsen provided
editing and data support at the EEA. We
would like to thank them all for their
important contributions. We are also grateful
to Wolfgang Münch and Olivier Diana at DG
Agriculture for supplying data and comments
in the development of Chapter 4.

6 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Executive summary
Scope of the analysis
Agriculture is very important for the
environment in the 13 EU accession
countries1
. Large areas of farmland of high
nature value are present, but at the same
time farming may cause serious pollution and
environmental stress. Most of these countries
are also remarkable for the extent to which
policies and socio-economic conditions have
changed in recent decades. EU entry will
bring further policy changes.
The structure of the report follows key policy
questions that provide an insight into the
relationship between agriculture and
environment in the accession countries:
· What are the characteristics of agriculture
in AC-13 in terms of farm structure,
management, production and associated
biodiversity and how do these compare to
agriculture in the EU?
· What are the recent agricultural trends and
their underlying drivers?
· How do these agricultural changes affect
the environment and what are the main
concerns?
· What will be the effect of the recent EU
enlargement and CAP2
reform decisions on
agricultural land use and the environment
in the acceding countries?
· What are the key agri-environmental policy
options arising from the new policy
framework?
This report uses forecasts published by DG
Agriculture, environmental information
from various sources and a certain element of
expert judgement. More information is
available on the ten central and eastern
European countries (CEE-10) than on the
Mediterranean countries (MED-3). The focus
of economic analysis by DG Agriculture is on
the ten countries that will join the EU in 2004
(ACC-10): Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Slovakia and Slovenia. For this reason the
policy assessment covers principally these ten
acceding countries (as well as Bulgaria and
Romania where possible).
Agriculture characteristics and
trends
Agriculture's share of the total national land
area ranges from 30­60 % in the 13 accession
countries. Average farm size is small
compared to the EU-15, but considerable
regional differences exist. Very small and very
large farms exist alongside each other in
CEE-10. Most of these rely on outdated
machinery and buildings. Many private
farmers in the accession countries also have
low formal agricultural training.
The political changes in CEE-10 have
affected agricultural development
profoundly. Economic restructuring and lack
of capital caused a sudden drop in
agricultural investment in the 1990s,
resulting in lowered pesticide and fertiliser
inputs (with a consequent reduction of
pollution), and in most countries
abandonment of biodiversity-rich grassland
systems. The reduced investment in erosion
mitigation and in manure storage facilities
poses significant environmental risks if
agriculture intensifies again in the future.
This applies particularly to the central
European countries.
By contrast, agriculture has steadily
intensified in the Mediterranean accession
countries, where inadequate water
management and erosion control are the
principal environmental concerns. It is
increased agricultural irrigation and
overgrazing (the latter mainly in Turkey) that
are the problems rather than abandonment
and scrub encroachment.
(1) Country groupings as used in this report:
ACC-10 (acceding countries according to Copenhagen agreement): Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia.
AC-13 (all present accession countries): Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey.
CEE-10 (central and eastern European accession countries): Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.
MED-3 (Mediterranean accession countries): Cyprus, Malta, Turkey.
The formal status of Turkey is different from the other countries, since negotiations on accession have yet to
be started.
(2) CAP: common agricultural policy of the EU.

Executive summary 7
Main environmental issues
National surveys and international data sets
underlying this report show that agriculture
exerts pressure on soil, air quality, water
quality and quantity, biodiversity and
landscape quality.
Soil erosion has been a problem in the
accession countries for many decades, and it
remains significant today. Land
consolidation, field enlargement, the use of
inappropriate machinery, and tillage
practices are the most important factors
involved.
The economic climate during the 1990s has
not allowed sufficient investment in erosion
mitigation features. Areas of grassland have
been converted to arable land, increasing
erosion risk and causing biodiversity loss.
Agriculture emits several polluting
substances to the air, notably ammonia
(eventually causing eutrophication and
acidification of ground and surface water)
and the greenhouse gases methane and
nitrous oxide (causing global warming).
Ammonia emissions in CEE-10 have dropped
by 40­50 % since 1990 as a result of livestock
reductions. While this has certainly relieved
environmental pressure in the region, more
than 70 % of its ecosystems are still exposed
to eutrophying depositions above critical
threshold levels. The corresponding figure
for acidification is roughly 10 %.
The contribution of agriculture to
greenhouse gas emissions is significant
(currently about 10 % in AC-13), but in
absolute terms this pressure has diminished
considerably. Methane emissions have
roughly halved since 1990, again as a
consequence of livestock reductions (cattle).
Total nitrous oxide emissions show no clear
trend. Separate data on agricultural
emissions of nitrous oxide are not available,
but the contribution of agriculture has
probably gone down, given the decreased use
of nitrogenous fertilisers.
Agricultural water pollution, especially
around large livestock facilities, is a major
problem in many countries. In the CEE-10,
irrigation and the environmental problems
associated with it have decreased markedly
since the 1990s, although facilities are
currently being restored in some areas. The
challenge now is to restore them within an
environmentally appropriate management
framework, avoiding the problems of the
past. In the MED-3, irrigated area is still
increasing, causing considerable
environmental pressure.
Biodiversity on farmland is primarily affected
by intensification and land abandonment.
Surveys of important bird areas (IBAs) show
considerable regional variation of these
factors. While IBAs in Turkey appear to be
experiencing little or no abandonment
problems, this is a dominant issue in
Slovakian and Estonian IBAs. Intensification
is a more dominant problem in IBAs in the
Czech Republic, Slovenia and Poland. The
effects of abandonment on biodiversity
depend on the intensity of previous land use
and the species under consideration. In
Latvia, for example, a number of bird species
currently benefit from abandonment, while
many grassland plant species are
disappearing due to the cessation of
grassland management. In general,
abandonment of extensive farmland has
mostly negative effects from a biodiversity
perspective, while it can increase species
diversity in intensively farmed areas.
Conclusions: implications of
applying EU agricultural
policy
The process of modernisation and
intensification of agriculture has been
disrupted by political changes and sector
reforms in most accession countries around
1990. Agriculture is currently characterised
by low inputs and productivity as well as a
high associated biodiversity (compared to the
EU-15).
Economic change and the implementation of
the CAP in the acceding countries are
expected to lead to some intensification and
expansion of the arable crop area. While
milk and beef production will remain more
or less stable, DG Agriculture predicts a small
increase in pig production and a significant
expansion of poultry output. However, nearly
all agricultural sectors will not reach their
pre-1990 production levels again.
In spite of the limited increase in livestock
production, overall air and water pollution
are expected to be rather stable and will
remain at relatively low levels compared to
1990. Present methane emissions are not
likely to increase given overall stable
numbers of the cattle herd. Nitrous oxide
emissions, however, may go up as the result of
increased nitrogenous fertiliser use in arable

8 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
production. Overall, agriculture will
contribute to meeting the 2012 Kyoto targets
for greenhouse gas reduction. Emission
reduction targets for ammonia (2010)3
will
probably be reached, regardless of the new
agricultural policy framework. Nevertheless,
a considerable fraction of natural ecosystems
will still suffer from eutrophication and
acidification (currently 70 % and 10 %
respectively).
If the expected intensification in the arable
sector is accompanied by improved
management of fertilisers and pesticides the
consequences for soil and water resources
may be limited. However, conversion of
grassland, multi-annual fodder crops or long-
term fallow to arable cultivation will increase
the risk of soil erosion, in particular if this
occurs on erosion prone soils, such as on
slopes.
To minimise increases in environmental
pressure associated with higher production
intensity in all sectors, appropriate agri-
environmental measures need to be put in
place (cross-compliance, good farming
practice, farmer advice and training, support
for environmental investment, agri-
environment schemes etc).
Conservation of semi-natural grasslands
remains a major environmental concern. The
current abandonment of high nature value
grassland systems, particularly in the Baltic
States and central European mountain
ranges, indicates that present livestock levels
do not provide sufficient grazing capacity.
Economic support for an expansion of cattle
and sheep numbers has been strongly limited
by the Copenhagen enlargement agreement.
Furthermore, intensification and conversion
to arable land remain important threats to
species-rich grasslands in productive areas.
Accession to the EU (and pre-accession funds
in other countries) will make more resources
available for agri-environment schemes and
other rural development measures. These are
important for reducing the environmental
impact of the agricultural trends outlined
above. National level implementation and
capacity building are key factors for making
EU enlargement a success in this regard.
Improved monitoring and reporting should
be an integral element in the planning and
implementation of rural development
policies.
(3) Agreed under the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

Introduction 9
1. Introduction
1.1. Why this report?
Agriculture has played a central role in
shaping and influencing the environment in
numerous ways throughout Europe over the
centuries, and the EU accession countries4
are no exception to this. Here, the influence
of agriculture on the environment is
particularly clear: large areas of farmland of
high nature value are present, but so are
examples of severe pollution and
environmental stress. The region is also
remarkable for the extent of policy changes
that have occurred in recent decades, and for
the further changes entailed in joining the
EU.
The common agricultural policy (CAP) is
one of the most developed policy areas in the
EU and the preparations for its
implementation are a considerable challenge
for all accession countries (AC-13). The CAP
has been criticised for supporting
agricultural specialisation and intensification
with negative impacts on the environment.
On the other hand, it is also a key policy tool
for ensuring the delivery of public goods by
farmers, e.g. via agri-environment schemes.
The Copenhagen summit in December 2002
has completed the EU accession negotiations
with ten countries of central and eastern
Europe and the Mediterranean. Given the
importance of agricultural policy for the
environmental management of farmland, the
accession treaty agreed in Copenhagen will
have implications for the environmental
resources of farmland in these ten countries
as well as the remaining accession countries
in the future.
1.2. Policy questions and structure
of the report
The structure of the report follows key policy
questions that provide an insight into the
relationship between agriculture and
environment in the accession countries:
· What are the characteristics of agriculture
in AC-13 in terms of farm structure,
management, production and associated
biodiversity and how do these compare to
agriculture in the EU?
· What are the recent agricultural trends and
their underlying drivers?
· How do these agricultural changes affect
the environment and what are the main
concerns?
· What will be the effect of the recent CAP
enlargement and reform decisions on
agricultural land use and the environment
in the acceding countries?
· What are the key agri-environmental policy
options arising from the new policy
framework?
Chapter 2 deals with questions 1 and 2 by
setting out important socio-economic and
farm structure parameters for the AC-13 and
by reviewing the richness of biodiversity of
farmland in central and eastern Europe in
particular. The changes that have taken place
in farm and land management and their
socio-economic drivers are discussed.
Building on this, Chapter 3 focuses on the
associated pressures on the rural
environment, positive as well as negative, and
provides an indication of the most important
agri-environmental concerns (question 3).
Chapter 4 focuses on the likely implications
of the 2002 EU enlargement decision and the
2003 mid-term reform of the CAP for
farming and the environment in the ten
acceding countries (questions 4 and 5).
Information from earlier chapters and
underlying research is used to build an
assessment of the potential farm
management changes and impacts on
environmental resources of farmland in
central and eastern Europe in particular.
This analysis utilises production forecasts
(4) Country groupings as used in this report:
ACC-10 (acceding countries according to Copenhagen agreement): Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia.
AC-13 (all present accession countries): Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey.
CEE-10 (central and eastern European accession countries): Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania.
MED-3 (Mediterranean accession countries): Cyprus, Malta, Turkey.
The formal status of Turkey is different from the other countries, since negotiations on accession have yet to
be started.

10 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
published by DG Agriculture, environmental
information from various sources and expert
judgement. Given the scale and importance
of the potential impacts of extending the
CAP to accession countries, a full-scale
sustainability impact assessment would be
justified. This report seeks to explore some of
the ground that such an assessment would
cover.
1.3. Approach to data collection and
analysis
There are few sources of consistent agri-
environmental data covering the thirteen
accession countries, FAO statistics being the
main such source. Eurostat is building up its
coverage of agricultural statistics in the
accession countries, and economic and
livestock data were already available for this
report. In the area of biodiversity,
information supplied by BirdLife
International or compiled in ongoing semi-
natural grassland surveys sponsored by the
Dutch government had the best regional
coverage. However, most of the agricultural
and environmental information has been
gathered from national sources and is
generally not sufficiently standardised to
allow reliable, quantitative comparisons to be
made between countries. In the report a
combination of international data sets,
national level information and some expert
judgement was used to provide a
comprehensive analysis of agri-
environmental issues.
The report covers all thirteen accession
countries. However, far less information is
available on the three Mediterranean
countries Cyprus, Malta and Turkey (MED-3)
which restricts the integration of the MED-3
in the various chapters. Agro-economic
background studies by DG Agriculture
analyse the central and eastern European
countries (CEE-10) only. Due to these
restrictions on background data, and to
reflect the recent EU enlargement decisions,
the policy assessment in Chapter 4 focuses
for the most part on the ten acceding
countries (ACC-10). Further research is
required to fill remaining data gaps
regarding relevant agro-economic and
environmental information.

Agriculture in the accession countries 11
2. Agriculture in the accession
countries
This chapter describes agriculture in the 13
countries on the road to EU accession and
the development of agriculture in response
to the shockwave of political and economic
change during the 1990s. It focuses on the
adaptation of the agricultural sector in the
1990s to a market economy. This was not an
easy process, and the sector is in fact still
struggling with severe socio-economic
constraints. The actual impact of the
agricultural transition on the environment
will be discussed in Chapter 3.
2.1. General characteristics
Utilised area and products
On average, agriculture is an even more
important land use in CEE-10 and Turkey
than in the EU-15 (Figure 2.1). Its share of
total national land area varies considerably
but lies between 40­60 % for most countries,
encompassing a wide range of different
farming systems and cropping patterns.
Forestry and woodland is an even larger land
use in Estonia and Slovenia. Cyprus has only
a very small share of its total land under
agriculture due to its mountainous terrain
and high population density in coastal areas.
Source: Eurostat, 2003.Figure 2.1 Share of utilised agricultural area (UAA) in total land area
The major agricultural products in the
accession countries are similar to those in the
existing EU, with cereals and livestock
predominant in the north, and a wider range
of crops including fruit, vegetables, wine and
olives in the south. Farming accounts for a
much larger share of employment than in
the existing EU, particularly in Romania,
Turkey, Bulgaria and Lithuania. On average
nearly 30 % of the workforce is employed in
farming, although this disguises a
considerable degree of over-capacity of farm
labour and includes a large number of semi-
subsistence farms of a kind that are now
rarely found in most parts of the EU.
Agricultural area, employment, trade and
major products are shown in Table 2.1.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
H
ungary
PolandCzech
Republic
Lithuania
ACC-10Slovak
Republic
EU-15
Latvia
M
alta
Slovenia
Estonia
Cyprus
Note: The share of UAA
in total land area is
calculated as an average
of the years 1999­2001.
For the EU-15 data only
cover 1999­2000, for
Cyprus and Slovenia only
2000­2001, and for Malta
only 2001.

12 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Source: CEC, 2002c. Table 2. 1 Key features of agriculture in the accession countries in 2000
*1999 figure
**estimates
Farm structure and management
Farm size and structure vary greatly in central
and eastern Europe. Most countries went
through a period of collectivisation after
1950, resulting in the emergence of large-
scale collective and state farms. At the same
time, small (semi-)subsistence farms and
household plots survived alongside the
collectivised holdings and have remained a
central feature of farming in many countries.
The collectivised holdings were largely
privatised after the political changes in the
1990s. Considerable differences, however,
exist between the accession countries. Small
private farms have always characterised the
agricultural sector in Poland and Slovenia. By
contrast, large co-operative or joint stock
holdings (successors to previous collective
farms), dominate farm structure in the Czech
Republic and particularly in Slovakia. In the
Baltic States, Romania and to a lesser degree
in Bulgaria and Hungary many new private
farms have been established, often on the
basis of pre-war farm infrastructure. In 1999,
these private holdings accounted for about
50 % (in Bulgaria and Hungary) to 95 % (in
Latvia) of all agricultural land.
Overall the accession countries are
characterized by a juxtaposition of many very
small and few very large holdings. In general,
the share of large-scale previously collective
farms in the total agricultural land area is
declining (CEC 1998), with private holdings
increasing in number and in size. Table 2.2
gives an overview of the current farm
structure in a number of central and eastern
European accession countries. Very small
holdings are also common in the
Mediterranean accession countries.
Utilised
agricultural
area (UAA)
Share of agriculture (%) Major products
in 1000 ha total area GDP employment
Bulgaria 5 582 50.3 14.5 25.2 wheat, maize,
sunflower, wine
Cyprus 134 14.5 4.2 9.3 fruits and vegetables
Czech Republic 4 282 54.3 3.9 7.4 cereals, oilseeds,
sugarbeet, pork
Estonia 986 21.8 6.3 7.4 beef, pork, poultry,
milk
Hungary 5 854 62.9 4.1 4.8 wheat, maize,
sunflower, pork
Latvia *2 488 38.5 **4.5 **13.5 dairy products, beef
and pork
Lithuania 3 489 53.4 7.5 19.6 barley, wheat,
fodder, milk
Malta 12 38.1 2.5 1.8 potato, flowers,
tomatoes, milk
Poland 18 220 58.8 3.3 18.8 cereals, potato, pork,
milk
Romania 14 767 61.9 12.6 42.8 maize, wheat,
sunflower, wine
Slovakia 2 444 49.8 4.5 6.7 wheat, oilseeds,
sugar, milk
Slovenia 486 24.0 3.25 9.9 maize, wheat, potato,
grape/wine
Turkey 39 050 50.3 14.3 41.3 fruits and vegetables,
cereals, sheep
EU-15 130 004 40.2 2.0 5.0

Agriculture in the accession countries 13
Source: After Fritzsch et
al., 2003.
Table 2. 2 Farm structure in selected CEE countries
Many of the small private farms rely on very
old and partly self-built machinery and farm
buildings. While mechanisation is often
limited, use of available land can be very
intensive. Use of off-farm inputs, such as
fertilisers and pesticides, is generally low.
Livestock are often kept in old buildings and
manure storage facilities are self-built where
present. Many of the small private farmers
belong to the older generation and have little
formal education. (Semi-)subsistence
farming is not unusual in this type of
farming, which means that little or no farm
produce is sold on the market.
Mowing of grassland with old machinery.
Photo: Mihály Bodnár, Hungary
Larger co-operative or joint stock holdings
generally also work with outdated machinery,
old buildings and restricted use of chemical
inputs. Investment, if any, generally goes into
machinery that provides immediate
productivity gains rather than into
environmental infrastructure or buildings.
Most farm managers on such holdings
possess either university-level or professional
training, but the socialist agricultural
education was rather production-oriented,
covering little relevant environmental
information.
Biodiversity on farmland in the accession
countries
The process of creating very large state farms
and cooperatives under the socialist regime
led to the loss of many landscape elements
and habitats, often accompanied by
increased drainage and irrigation. However,
in much of Poland, Slovenia, and
mountainous areas elsewhere small-scale
production still predominates. Thus, the
accession countries contain sizeable areas of
little disturbed semi-natural habitat and high
nature value farming systems, usually
associated with more traditional, less
intensive forms of production. Table 2.3
gives an overview of the significant areas of
semi-natural grasslands remaining in the
CEE-10.
These semi-natural habitats, including large
areas of both wet and dry grasslands,
constitute a major conservation resource. Of
the estimated 7 million hectares of semi-
natural grasslands in the CEE-10, about 30 %
are in Poland, a further 30 % in Romania and
12 % in Hungary. There is a very substantial
area of grassland in Turkey -- around 31 %
of the agricultural area in 1984 (Baris, 1991).
Turkey, with an estimated 9 000 species, has
the richest flora of any country in Europe,
with an estimated 2 800 endemic species
(Byfield, 1998). It is likely that grassland
habitats play an important role for the
conservation of these species (Veen et al.,
2000). In Cyprus and Malta there is little
permanent grassland, but precise data on its
extent or habitat quality are not available.
Year Share of UAA used by
family farms /
household plots (%)
Average size of
family farms /
household plots (ha)
Average size of
private and state-owned
holdings (ha)
Slovenia 2001 94 6 290
Poland 1996 82 7 426
Romania 1997 67 3 2 491
Hungary 2000 55 9 312
Czech Republic 2001 27 28 1 035
Bulgaria 1999 26 1 519
Slovakia 2000 23 4 1 399

14 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Table 2. 3 Estimated distribution of semi-natural grasslands in CEE-10 countries in 1998
* Figure adapted according to Table 2.1
Bird data confirm the importance of the
CEE-10 and MED-3 countries for biodiversity.
Many rare species are much more abundant
than in the EU-15 countries (see Table 2.4).
A number of Important Bird Areas (IBAs)
have been identified in the accession
countries. The purpose of the IBA concept is
to identify and protect a network of sites that
are critical to the long-term viability of bird
populations (Veen and Seffer, 1999). The
importance of agricultural management in
IBAs across Europe has been extensively
surveyed (Tucker and Evans, 1997, Heath
and Evans, 2000).
Source: Heath and Evans,
2000.
Table 2. 4 Populations of some breeding birds in the 15 EU Member States compared with the 13
accession countries
Box 2.1: The Red-backed Shrike: a bird species in decline
The Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio) has shown a widespread decline in Europe. A large proportion of the
European population breeds in eastern Europe, with particularly large numbers in Poland, Russia, Ukraine,
Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria. While most of the European population -- north-western Europe in particular
-- suffered a large fall in numbers during 1970 to 1990, key populations in Russia, Romania and Bulgaria
remained stable. Preferred habitats in eastern Europe are open meadow landscapes, interspersed with
scattered bushes and some forest. Other agricultural habitats include vineyards, heath and fallow land. In
intensively farmed areas with few bushes, adults have problems feeding young because of the difficulty in
foraging at long distances from the nest. It is thought that the triggering factor for the general population
decline is heavy application of inorganic nitrogen fertiliser and the use of broad-spectrum insecticides that
reduce the abundance of insect food.
Source: Pain & Pienkowski, 1997.
2.2. Recent developments
Socio-economic context
The collapse of the communist regimes
caused a social and economic crisis that
profoundly affected agriculture in central
and eastern European countries. The market
situation changed drastically, with a
downward trend of gross domestic product
(GDP). For example, Poland's GDP fell by
11.6 % in 1990, Romania's by 12.9 % in 1991,
and Lithuania's by 34 % in 1992. This was
associated with a decreasing average
consumer income and a lowered demand for
agricultural products. In addition, important
foreign markets, such as the former Soviet
Union, were lost.
The economic crisis also put pressure on
national budgets. As a result, state support to
the agricultural sector was reduced
Country Total
agricultural
area (UAA)
(1 000 ha)
Total area of
permanent
pasture
(1 000 ha)
Total semi-
natural
grassland area
(1 000 ha)
Total mountain
grassland area
(1 000 ha)
Semi-natural
grassland
% of UAA
Slovenia 500 298 268 30 53.7
Romania 14 781 4 936 2 333 285 15.8
Hungary 6 186 1 147 960 0 15.5
Czech Republic 4 282 950 550 1,8 12.8
Slovakia 2 443 856 295 13 12.1
Poland 18 435 4 034 1 955 414 10.6
Bulgaria 6 203 1 705 444 332 7.2
Estonia *986 299 73 0 7.4
Lithuania 3 496 500 168 0 4.8
Latvia 2 486 606 118 0 4.7
Species Estimated population in the 13
accession countries
Estimated population in the 15 EU
Member States
Corn Crake 92 225 4 000
Lesser Grey Shrike 46 255 3 098
White Stork 79 809 15 439
Source: EEA, 2003
(original data derived
from Brouwer et al., 2001
and FAOSTAT).
Note: Semi-natural
grasslands are defined
according to their
dependence upon
continuing agricultural
management in order to
persist. Alpine pastures
above 1 900 m that can
be maintained without
any human intervention
are not included.

Agriculture in the accession countries 15
drastically. At the same time, large-scale
restructuring of the agricultural sector
occurred. Land was privatised and most of
the collectivised farm structures were
dismantled. The registration of new
landownership, however, progressed slowly,
adding to the uncertainties of the individual
farmer. To make things worse, capital and
credit facilities were lacking in the private
sector.
Inputs
These changes led to a strong reduction in
the use of external inputs. Having risen
strongly for three decades the consumption
of N-fertiliser in central and eastern
European countries dropped by half around
the year 1990 and is now far below the EU
average (Figure 2.2). Similar declines can
also be observed for phosphate and potash
use. No similar decrease occurred in the
Mediterranean accession countries although
fertiliser use remains low in Turkey (at levels
similar to central and eastern European
countries).
Reliable data on pesticide consumption in
the AC-13 are not available for the decades
leading up to 1990. However, figures for the
period 1989 to 1997 show a strong decline of
pesticide use (to about 40 % of 1989 levels)
in the CEE countries (Figure 2.3). No such
decrease occurred in the MED-3 countries
although average pesticide consumption per
hectare of land remains low in Turkey (0.2 kg
active ingredient/ha, similar to the CEE
average).
Figure 2.2 N-fertiliser consumption in selected central and eastern European countries and the EU
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997
CEE countries EU-15
kg/ha
Source: FAOSTAT, 2002.
Note: Due to limited data
availability, the description
of the trend in fertiliser
consumption is limited to
the following accession
countries: Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Hungary,
Poland, Romania and
Slovakia.

16 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Figure 2.3 Pesticide consumption in CEE-10 and EU-15
In most cases the reduction in the use of
fertilisers and pesticides was a result of
economic necessity rather than
environmental awareness. The lack of
running capital on new private holdings and
remaining collective farms made it difficult
to buy in more than the minimum of farm
inputs. The low level and fluctuation of
agricultural product prices as well as
uncertainty over land ownership required
farm managers to operate with minimum
cost as returns on investment even into farm
inputs are not guaranteed. As a result,
farmers may have been relying on fertility
reserves in the soil although data for nutrient
input-output accounting at farm or national
level are generally not available.
Irrigation
Irrigation played an important part in the
large-scale collectivised agriculture promoted
under the Soviet regime, particularly in the
Pannonian and Danubian Plains. About 25 %
of the agricultural area of Bulgaria and 21 %
in Romania was under irrigation during the
1980s. By contrast, less than 1 % of the
agricultural area in the Baltic States was
irrigated (CEC, 2000).
The overall picture of lowered agricultural
effort in the CEE countries is also reflected in
the use of irrigation. There has been a
decline in the proportion of irrigated
agricultural land of up to 90 % in some
countries. In Romania for example, water
consumption for livestock farming decreased
by 60 %. Extensive irrigation systems,
constructed during the period 1950 to 1980
to provide water for 3.2 million ha of arable
land, are now malfunctioning and
deteriorating, and 40­50 % of the water used
in Romanian irrigation systems is lost
through seepage and percolation. In
Slovakia, irrigation use has dropped from
12.2 % (1993) to 7.3 % (1999) of total
agricultural land. On the other hand,
irrigation has increased significantly in the
Mediterranean. Between 1989 and 1999 the
proportion of irrigated agricultural land rose
from 9.5 % to 11.5 % in Turkey, from 21.7 to
27.2 % in Cyprus (Figure 2.4) and from 7.7 to
22.2 % in Malta.
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
CEE-10
kg/ha
EU-15
Source: FAOSTAT, 2002.
Note: The pesticide and
agricultural land area
dataset has an incomplete
time-series for CEE-10
countries and for all EU-15
countries except Finland
and Denmark. The graph
expresses mean
consumption of pesticides
(active ingredients classed
as insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides and others) per
unit area agricultural land.

Agriculture in the accession countries 17
Figure 2.4 Average irrigated area as a percentage of agricultural land area for selected accession
countries and EU-15
Productivity
The above changes are reflected in
agricultural productivity. Figure 2.5 shows the
wheat yield since 1961. Up to the 1980s the
EU and central and eastern Europe followed
similar tracks of intensification. Not
surprisingly, given the lowered investment
and lack of fertilisers and pesticides, yields
dropped significantly in the CEE-10 due to
economic restructuring in the 1990s.
Figure 2.5 Changes of wheat yield in selected CEE-10 countries and the EU-15
Significant changes also occurred in livestock
production. Meat and dairy products are
relatively expensive compared to other food
items and it is more difficult to transfer large
livestock production facilities into private
ownership than arable land. In addition,
meat production requires considerable
capital for livestock and production facilities
which was and is not available to many
emerging producers in CEE-10. Figure 2.6
%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1980 1982 19841986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Bulgaria Romania Slovakia Cyprus Turkey EU-15
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
EU-15 CEE countries
Tonnes/ha
Source: FAOSTAT, 2003.
Note: Irrigated area data
was not available for
Slovakia until 1993. There
is no direct correlation
between total irrigated
area and actual irrigation
volumes.
Source: FAOSTAT, 2002.
Note: Due to limited data
availability, the description
of the trend in cereal yield
is limited to the following
accession countries:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland, Romania
and Slovakia.

18 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
shows the strong decline of cattle and sheep
population in a number of CEE-10 countries.
Since around 1990 numbers of these
livestock have fallen by approximately 50 %
in most CEE-10 countries. Cattle and sheep
are particularly relevant for the landscape
and nature management function of
agriculture throughout Europe.
The livestock figures for the MED-3 are much
more stable although there seems to be a
decline in Turkey since the 1980s
(Figure 2.7).
Source: FAOSTAT, 2002. Figure 2.6 Livestock index (cattle and sheep) in selected CEE-10 countries
Source: FAOSTAT, 2002. Figure 2.7 Livestock index (cattle and sheep) in the Mediterranean accession countries
Index(1961=100)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Bulgaria HungaryPoland Romania
0
50
100
150
200
250
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Cyprus Malta Turkey
Index(1961=100)

Agriculture in the accession countries 19
2.3. Review
Agriculture is an important sector in the
accession countries, both in terms of area
and GDP. The sector is structured very
differently within the various accession
countries. On average farm size is relatively
small, but in central and eastern Europe also
very large holdings occur as remnants of
collective farming systems. Productivity is
generally low compared to the EU.
Agriculture in the CEE-10 and MED-3
country groups is different in many ways and
has been subject to different socio-economic
drivers. While the political and economic
changes in CEE-10 caused a sudden drop in
agricultural investment, agriculture has
steadily intensified in the Mediterranean
countries. In the 1990s agricultural
developments in CEE-10 were dominated by
lowered inputs and productivity, livestock
reductions and regional land abandonment.
This may be a temporary phenomenon, and
when economic conditions allow renewed
intensification can be expected.
The environmental consequences of the
observed changes are not straightforward.
Pressures on the environment are steadily
increasing in MED-3, especially in terms of
water stress and pollution. The situation in
the CEE-10 is ambivalent. On the one hand,
the observed reduction of inputs and general
stocking density is beneficial for air and water
quality. On the other hand, undergrazing
and abandonment are a threat to the
biodiversity value of semi-natural grasslands.
The environmental impacts of agriculture
will be examined further in Chapter 3.

20 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
3. Impacts on the environment
Having explored the development of
agriculture in the accession countries, this
chapter focuses on the environmental
pressures and impacts arising from these
changes. In particular, the impacts on soil,
water, air and biodiversity will be examined.
There is a considerable shortage of data on
the character and magnitude of many
environmental issues, for example on
biodiversity and landscape change. In many
cases therefore, it was necessary to rely on
national level data rather than drawing on
recognised statistical data sources, such as
Eurostat or FAOSTAT.
3.1. Soil
Soil degradation is a major environmental
problem in large parts of Europe, including
the accession countries. Some problems arise
from urbanisation and industrialisation
(such as soil sealing and contamination) but
many are agriculture-related. The main
pressures on soil caused by agriculture are:
· compaction, due to the use of heavy
machinery;
· diffuse contamination with chemicals such
as herbicides and pesticides;
· acidification caused by ammonia emissions;
· erosion.
A lack of reliable and geographically explicit
data makes it difficult to pinpoint the
problems exactly, but overall they raise
considerable concern (EEA/UNEP, 2000).
The first three problems have become less
prominent because of the general decrease
of agricultural production intensity, both
with regard to livestock density and
agricultural inputs. This is not due to a
structural change of management, however,
and improving economic circumstances may
lead to renewed intensification and
associated increasing pressures.
Erosion is the only soil-specific pressure for
which more detailed information is available
and will be dealt with below.
Erosion
Soil erosion has been a problem in the
accession countries for many decades, and it
remains significant today. Since 1950 soil
erosion has gradually increased as a result of
inappropriate land use in combination with
natural vulnerability factors. Land
consolidation, field enlargement, the use of
inappropriate machinery, and tillage
practices are the most important factors
involved.
The economic climate during the 1990s has
not allowed sufficient investment in erosion
mitigation features. Currently soil erosion
and degradation affect large areas in central
and eastern Europe (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2).
The situation is the most severe in Romania
(6.7 million ha), Bulgaria (4.8 million ha,
described in more detail in Box 3.1), Poland
and Hungary (4.7 and 3.8 million ha). In
Turkey, approximately three quarters of the
27 million ha of arable land are affected.
Example of serious gully erosion.
Photo: Csaba Centeri, Hungary.

Impacts on the environment 21
Source: Soil and Terrain
Database, Land
Degradation Status and
Soil Vulnerability
Assessment for central
and eastern Europe.
CD-ROM version 1.0
(1:2.5 million scale).
FAOSTAT, 2000.
Figure 3.1 Topsoil erosion due to water in central and eastern Europe
Source: Soil and Terrain
Database, Land
Degradation Status and
Soil Vulnerability
Assessment for central
and eastern Europe.
CD-ROM version 1.0
(1:2.5 million scale).
FAOSTAT, 2000.
Figure 3.2 Topsoil erosion due to wind in central and eastern Europe
Despite efforts to fight erosion in several
countries (in particular in Hungary, Slovakia,
Estonia, the Czech Republic and Turkey), the
extent of the problem and the lack of proper
incentives for farmers to improve their
practices now require comprehensive and
concerted action to tackle the issue. It is
possible that the abandonment of some
agricultural areas and the subsequent
development of permanent vegetation and
scrub are reducing erosion in some areas.
However, such processes do generally not
occur in intensive arable regions that often
suffer most from erosion. Combating erosion
in these areas requires the planting or
construction of windbreaks and other
landscape features as well as the introduction
of farm practices designed to minimise soil
erosion processes.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Bulgaria Hungary Romania Czech
Republic
Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Estonia
Light Moderate Strong
%ofcountryarea
0
5
10
15
Bulgaria Hungary Lithuania Czech
Republic
Latvia Poland Romania Slovakia
%ofcountryarea
Light Moderate Strong

22 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Box 3.1: Soil erosion in Bulgaria
One of the major environmental problems facing agriculture in Bulgaria is soil erosion -- both by wind and
water. The risk of soil erosion is determined both by natural conditions (relief, climate and soil features), and
the type of land use (e.g. crops cultivated, cropping patterns, soil cultivation techniques etc.). Soils in Bulgaria
are naturally at risk of water erosion due to a number of factors:
· about half of the country is occasionally exposed to heavy rainfall with a considerable erosion risk;
· over 80 % of the country is hilly or mountainous with slopes greater than 3° and therefore susceptible to
surface run-off and serious erosion during heavy rainfall;
· many soil types are naturally vulnerable to erosion.
Before 1946 most farmers in Bulgaria possessed relatively small areas of land with a mixture of crops grown
on small fields or plots divided by boundary strips. From early times anti-erosion techniques, such as contour
cropping and terraces, were practiced on sloping land. Old terraces reinforced by stones and now overgrown
with bushes and trees can be seen in the mountain areas where grapes and tobacco were grown for many
generations. From the beginning of the 20th century, eroded slopes and vulnerable river banks were planted
with trees to control the risk of further erosion by water, whilst in those areas with larger fields (e.g. the cereal
growing region of Dobrudja), shelter belts were planted to reduce the risk of wind erosion. When large-scale
agriculture was first organised in the late 1940s and 1950s, field sizes were increased dramatically by
destroying and ploughing-up the traditional field boundary strips and shelter belts. As a result wind and water
erosion increased dramatically. In less than 20 years, about 10 % of arable land had been eroded so badly that
it was no longer suitable for cropping or afforestation. Field crops were also lost periodically due to dust
storms. In the early 1970s, soil erosion was recognised as a major national problem and many erosion control
projects were planned and implemented -- but rarely finished. Various estimates (Konishev et al., 1999)
suggest that currently:
· over 78 % of cultivated land and 15 % of forests are highly susceptible to water erosion and over 38 % are
susceptible to wind erosion;
· the total average annual soil loss from all types of land in Bulgaria is approximately 136 million tonnes per
year, of which 30­60 million tonnes are lost by wind erosion.
It is too early to identify the impact of privatisation and land restitution upon the incidence of soil erosion, but
it seems reasonable to suggest that it will remain a major problem in Bulgaria -- especially in the current
economic circumstances where soil conservation is not a high priority for most farmers.
Source: Stefanova, 2002.
3.2. Water
Agriculture has serious impacts on both
water quality and quantity in almost all
accession countries. The main environmental
problems can be characterised as follows:
· Diffuse pollution of ground and surface
waters with nitrates and phosphates due to
the poor management and excessive
application of mineral fertilisers and
animal manures, especially on highly
vulnerable soils. This problem is not
widespread, but locally there are many
farms with very intensive input use. The low
level of environmental law enforcement
allows such local problems to persist.
· Point source pollution of surface waters by
poorly stored and managed manure, slurry,
silage effluent and other farm wastes.
Although livestock numbers decreased
dramatically during the past decade, there
are still a considerable number of highly
specialised and very intensive
establishments in the CEE-10. Few of these
store their manure and manage their wastes
according to official requirements and
there are many examples of farm effluent
causing the pollution of irrigation canals,
rivers, streams and irrigation lakes.
· Point source pollution of ground and
surface waters with pesticides due to their
poor management. Average pesticide use in
the CEE-10 is not very high currently, but
poor management can lead to localised
water pollution problems from inadequate
storage, over-application, inappropriate
disposal or accidents by spray operators.
· Drainage of wetlands and pollution of land
by contaminated irrigation water.
· Data on pesticide concentrations in
ground- and surface water and their effects
are currently not available. The pollution
section will therefore concentrate on
nutrients.
Nutrient pollution
Excess nutrient input has generally
decreased in the CEE-10 countries due to the
strong decline in fertiliser use and livestock
numbers. The relatively strong reduction
becomes particularly apparent if one
compares the CEE countries to those EU
Member States that are closest to them in
terms of agricultural share of GDP or general
intensity of agricultural production (i.e.
Ireland, Portugal, Spain, see Figure 3.3).

Impacts on the environment 23
Figure 3.3 Change in the nitrogen balance (kg/ha of total agricultural land) (1985­87 to 1995­97)
Nevertheless, national nutrient balances may
hide considerable regional or local nutrient
surpluses and do not provide any
information about the quality of manure
management. Inadequate storage and
handling of manure was a key factor for
eutrophication and water pollution problems
during the socialist era. This problem was
often linked to oversized livestock farms that
made the proper use of manure and slurry
difficult if not outright impossible.
Sometimes the issue of manure storage and
handling was not addressed at all in the
planning of large livestock production
facilities, leading to direct overspill of slurry
into watercourses or rivers. Most of such
oversized livestock production units have
been closed down, but this problem is not yet
fully eliminated (EEA, 2003). In most of the
larger livestock farms that remain, manure
storage and handling facilities are available
but require considerable investment for
upgrading and modernisation. Similar
investment needs can also be found on most
private or joint-stock holdings.
For both nitrogen and phosphorus, run-off
tends to increase with the intensity of
production. Despite the overall low input
levels in the 90s the average run-off of
nitrogen may be as high as 15 kg/ha in the
most intensively farmed areas of Latvia. In
low intensity areas, the typical figure is 5 kg
per ha (data from 1994­98; Redman, 2002).
Any renewed intensification as a result of a
general recovery of the agricultural sector is
thus likely to increase environmental
pressure on water quality.
Excessive nitrate levels in ground and surface
water are a widespread problem in the
accession countries, despite the relief of
environmental pressure that was associated
with lowered fertiliser inputs and the
reduced livestock in the 1990s. The
percentage of localities where water samples
contain more than 50 mg/l varies roughly
between 10 and 50. In the Mediterranean
countries, where such a productivity drop has
not occurred, the situation is even worse, as is
exemplified by the disturbing figure of 80 %
for Malta (Figure 3.4).
­140 ­120 ­100 ­80 ­60 ­40 ­20 0 20 40
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
France
EU-15
Sweden
Turkey
Poland
Czech Republic
Hungary
%
Source: OECD, 2001.
Note: Nitrogen balance is
the difference between
annual nitrogen inputs to
and outputs from the soil.

24 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Source: IEEP, 2002. Figure 3.4 Percentage of samples (national averages) where nitrate concentration exceeds 50 mg/l
All of Malta's groundwater is highly
vulnerable to nitrate pollution because of
geological characteristics and the intensive
nature of its agriculture. Approximately
116 000 tonnes of animal manure and slurry
is produced each year. Storage is normally ad
hoc and only a small number of animal units
have adequate facilities. There is little
provision for management of dilute effluents,
such as dirty water, generated from dairy
parlour washings, and for runoff from yards
and hard standings used by stock. Mineral
fertilisers are also applied to crops. It is
suspected that at present fertiliser prices and
in the absence of soil testing or nutrient
budgeting (e.g. to make allowance for
nutrients in animal manure) excessive
'insurance' fertilisation is practiced (Redman,
2002).
In Cyprus, problems caused by pollution
from the spreading of livestock wastes and
from the use of inappropriate irrigation
water are both exacerbated by the nature of
the Mediterranean climate. The most
pressing problem for water pollution derives
from the spreading of waste from intensive
pig units on land, particularly since many
intensive pig units are situated close to
vulnerable aquifers. In Cyprus there are
about 250 intensive pig units and production
is aimed predominantly for the export
market. The spreading of pig wastes results in
nitrate pollution and contamination with salt
(due to high levels in the waste).
Interestingly, the salt contamination problem
is considered to be more significant than the
nitrate problem. The concentrations of salt
(and other pollutants) from animal waste are
made worse by the reduced dilution afforded
by the low annual rainfall in Cyprus:
groundwater is relatively slow to recover from
pollution ingress. The recovery process for
such groundwater bodies generally takes
several decades, with considerable variation
according to substance and groundwater
renewal rate.
In summary, agriculture is placing a severe
pressure on water quality in considerable
areas, despite the overall sharp reduction in
both fertiliser and pesticide use, as well as the
dramatic decline in livestock numbers. While
some of the impacts on water quality may be
explained by delayed responses in
groundwater, it is nevertheless clear that
intensive cropping and livestock production
remain important sources of pollution. This
results from improper fertiliser/pesticide
application methods and storage facilities
and a lack of priority given to environmental
protection. Pollution 'hot-spots' can be found
in almost all accession countries and will
continue to be found until management
practices are changed and environmental
requirements are enforced.
Irrigation
The impact of agricultural irrigation on the
environment varies considerably from
country to country. However, it is rarely
singled out as a separate factor for habitat
destruction or other negative environmental
impacts, perhaps because it is one of a
number of closely related stresses on water
supply that include wetland drainage and
industrial water consumption. Nevertheless,
negative environmental impacts that still
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Malta Poland Lithuania Czech
Republic
Estonia Slovakia Hungary Slovenia

Impacts on the environment 25
persist today can be discerned in several
countries where irrigation was widespread in
the past.
In Romania about 7.1 million hectares of the
plateau and plain areas in the south and east
of the country are susceptible to drought due
to low average rainfall. This led to a strong
investment in irrigation facilities (see
Chapter 2). Heavily polluted water from
rivers was used for irrigation, and nitrate
pollution of groundwater was particularly
serious in irrigated areas along the Danube.
Soil salinisation, oil pollution and salt water
intrusion were all points of concern. Many of
these irrigation systems are now in bad
condition or have collapsed altogether,
reducing productivity substantially. There are
currently plans to modernise Romanian
irrigation infrastructure with the assistance of
World Bank funding, and the challenge
clearly is to prevent or minimise such
problems in the future. Water users and
management organisations should be given
environmental information and training, and
projects should involve the environmental
administration (CEC, 2000).
In Hungary, agricultural water consumption
is one important factor behind the serious
loss of wetlands that occurred in the 1950s.
Reservoirs for water storage caused the
destruction of riverine forests. Irrigation
enabled the planting of new crops such as
rice, which was grown on several thousand
hectares in Hungary on areas that were
previously wetlands, and which were thus
suitable for flood irrigation. These rice
paddies were all abandoned by 1990 leaving
uncultivated 'wasteland' areas that are no
longer suitable habitats for most wetland
birds (CEC, 2000). In recent years, the
impact of irrigation practices on wetlands has
declined in Hungary and increasing water
prices support a trend towards drip
irrigation. This will hopefully minimise the
recurrence or expansion of the
environmental problems associated with
irrigation in the past.
The biggest environmental concern,
however, is the increasing irrigation in the
Mediterranean countries. The situation in
Turkey, with its vast areas of irrigated land, is
highlighted in Box 3.2. In Cyprus water
shortage has resulted in farmers using water
from abandoned mines. These artificial
ponds are often contaminated with metals
from the mine works, most notably boron,
but also arsenic and cadmium.
Contamination arising from this irrigation
water has been recorded in groundwater
aquifers.
Box 3.2: Water abstraction and irrigation in Turkey
Annual water withdrawal in Turkey has more than doubled since 1980 and will soon reach 42 billion cubic
metres. 80 % of this is from surface waters, but groundwater use has doubled since 1980, now accounting for
70 % of exploitable groundwater resources. Many aquifers are exploited beyond their sustainable yield (i.e.
the quantities withdrawn are greater than the natural recharge locally), in particular in the Mediterranean
region, where two-thirds of drinking water is supplied from groundwater. Around three-quarters of total
freshwater withdrawal is for agriculture.
Most dams in Turkey are linked to irrigation schemes. Irrigated areas, which have increased by two-thirds over
the last 15 years, currently represent 17 % of the total cultivated area. Since the 1960s, up to 100 thousand
hectares of land per year have been converted to irrigation. Out of 8.5 million hectares with irrigation
potential, 4.1 million hectares are already irrigated (60 % by dams).
Over the next ten years the South-eastern Anatolia Project (GAP) aims to develop an area of more than 7
million hectares within the basins of the Dicle (Tigris) and Firat (Euphrates), which constitute 30 % of Turkey's
total river flow. The aim is to irrigate 1.7 million hectares; 10 % of this target has already been met. The Atatürk
Dam alone can irrigate 882 000 hectares. The GAP project will have a series of positive and negative
environmental impacts caused by dams and lakes, demographic changes, irrigation projects and increased
availability of domestically produced hydroelectricity.
According to the 1998 national environmental action programme (NEAP), the land in the GAP area is already
degraded due to deforestation, overgrazing, poor farming practices and rapid population growth. The region
has insufficient basic infrastructure and low levels of education and environmental awareness. Major
investment, especially in dams and irrigation, has altered disease vectors (e.g. for malaria), flooded vast areas
of land, destroyed some historic sites and produced microclimatic change.
The NEAP proposes an environmental action plan for the GAP Region, which would include preparation of an
EIA for GAP investments and mitigation measures. Important issues include soil salinisation and release of
salts, nutrients and pesticides to the Firat (Euphrates). In April 1998, a protocol was signed between the
minister for environment and the GAP administration regarding identification of existing and prospective
environmental problems such as local climate change, emerging diseases, pollution, erosion and
infrastructure problems due to rapid urbanisation.
Source: OECD, 2000.

26 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
3.3. Air
Agriculture affects air quality mainly through
emissions of ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide
(N20) and methane (CH4). Ammonia
contributes to eutrophication and
acidification, whereas nitrous oxide and
methane are important greenhouse gases. In
the following sections these topics will be
dealt with separately.
Ammonia emissions
The agricultural sector remains a major
source of ammonia emissions , with pigs,
cattle and poultry rearing being responsible
for the largest contributions. Ammonia
volatizes into the air from animal manure.
This type of emission accounts for roughly
20 %5
of all emissions of eutrophying and
acidifying compounds to the air (EEA, 2003).
The ammonia emission to the air has wide-
ranging consequences, since vulnerable
ecosystems at a long distance of pollution
sources may still be affected. Recent
estimates indicate, that 50 % of western-
European ecosystems are vulnerable to
eutrophication of this kind, while more than
70 % in the accession countries are affected
(EEA, 2003). The corresponding figures for
acidification are lower, with roughly 10 % of
ecosystems suffering from depositions above
critical threshold levels.
Average ammonia emissions in the accession
countries (excluding Malta) have been
reduced by more than 40 % since 1990 as the
result of reductions in livestock numbers
(Figure 3.5). Nearly all these countries have
thus reached their 2010 emission targets for
ammonia of the CLRTAP (Convention on
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution)
Gothenburg Protocol. Emissions can be
further reduced through improved manure
management, including ploughing in
manure that has been spread on the fields,
covering slurry storage tanks and by different
livestock feeding regimes.
Figure 3.5 Index of ammonia (NH3) emissions in the accession countries
Greenhouse gas emissions
The greenhouse gases emitted by agriculture
are nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4).
They account for approximately 10 % of total
greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. These
gases are responsible for global warming and
climate change. European mean
temperature has risen by about 1.2o
C in the
past 100 years and is expected to rise further
with 1.4 to 5.8o
C in the 21st
century (EEA,
2003). This will have serious environmental
consequences, not in the least for
agriculture. Sea level will rise and
(5) Contribution to eutrophying agents: EU-15 24 %, CEE-10 20 %, contribution to acidifying agents: EU-15
31 %, CEE-10 13 %. Source: EEA, 2003
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Index
Source: EEA, 2004.
Note: No data are
available for Malta.

Impacts on the environment 27
precipitation and growing conditions will
change. These long-term effects, however, go
beyond the scope of this report.
Nitrous oxide is formed in the soil out of
nitrate (in a process called de-nitrification)
and subsequently diffuses into the air.
Nitrous oxide emission is therefore indirectly
caused by (excess) appliance of nitrogen
fertilisers. In EU-15 nitrous oxide emissions
have fallen by 4 % during the 1990s as the
result of a decrease in nitrogen fertiliser use.
In CEE-10, nitrogen inputs dropped
markedly around 1990 and have remained
more or less stable since then. The nitrous
oxide emissions in CEE-10 do not show a
clear trend and were in 2000 at about the
same level as in 1990 (EEA, 2003, see also
Chapter 2).
Methane arises from enteric fermentation in
cattle, sheep and goats. Cattle herds are the
main source of methane emissions. Their
reduction in CEE-10 has caused methane
emissions to decrease by as much as 46 %
since 1990. Herd reductions in EU-15 have
been more moderate, resulting in a decrease
of methane emissions of 9 % between 1990
and 2000 (EEA, 2002b).
3.4. Biodiversity
The developments in agriculture outlined so
far all affect biodiversity in one way or
another. The floristic diversity of agricultural
landscapes is strongly related to agricultural
inputs, such as fertiliser and herbicide use.
Pesticides reduce the abundance of many
invertebrates and also indirectly affect the
organisms that feed on them, such as birds
and mammals. Structural changes in the
landscape, such as drainage of wetlands and
field enlargement reduce the variety of
habitats and the occurrence of small
landscape elements such as hedgerows.
Extensive farming has in the past created the
living conditions for a wide variety of species
and habitats, such as semi-natural grasslands.
Many of these are of great importance for
biodiversity conservation at European level,
and targeted by the EU habitats directive.
The share of extensively used farming areas
with valuable associated biodiversity is still
relatively high in the accession countries, but
two opposing processes threaten these
systems.
The first trend is intensification: the
increased use of fertilisers, pesticides,
modern machinery and rationalisation of
land use, all of which generally cause
biodiversity loss. The other process is land
abandonment. Total cessation of agricultural
land use avoids the negative impacts of
fertilisers and pesticides but is generally not
beneficial for biodiversity as it also eliminates
positive management by farming, such as the
mowing of meadows. Since land
abandonment primarily occurs in extensively
farmed areas it tends to affect biodiversity-
rich farming systems the most.
Few data are available from the accession
countries to clearly document biodiversity
trends in response to agricultural change. At
present, the best comparative figures arise
from the BirdLife International Important
Bird Areas (IBA) monitoring programme.
Figure 3.6 displays the percentage of IBAs
affected by abandonment and/or
intensification. Out of a total of 571 IBAs in
AC-13, 157 are affected by abandonment,
and 189 by intensification. Many IBAs are
experiencing problems with both processes,
which reflects the size of the designated areas
and the small-scale mix of farming practices
in many of them. It must be emphasised that
these figures concern only the designated
IBAs, and therefore do not necessarily reflect
the extent of abandonment and
intensification on agricultural land as a
whole. Nevertheless, IBAs generally
encompass areas that are particularly
biodiversity-rich, and it is very useful to have
an indication of relevant agricultural trends
in such areas.

28 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Figure 3.6 Percentage of IBAs affected by land abandonment and/or intensification
Abandonment is of particular concern in the
Baltic States and central European countries
whereas intensification has a bigger weight in
Mediterranean countries, in particular
Turkey. This highlights the very different
agricultural circumstances in the individual
CEE-10 and MED-3 countries.
The effects of these two diverging pressures
on biodiversity are described separately in
the following paragraphs.
Abandonment
Agricultural management is a key factor in
the maintenance of valued cultural
landscapes and biodiversity-rich grasslands all
over Europe. The cessation of such
management has occurred in many marginal
farming areas in various regions of Europe. It
often leads to the loss of rich cultural features
such as traditional stonewalls, the
replacement of small-scale landscape mosaics
with closed forested landscapes or even forest
plantations. The decline of agricultural
grazing or mowing results in the gradual
overgrowing and elimination of species-rich
semi-natural grassland habitats by
encroaching bush and forest species.
The effects of land abandonment on
biodiversity depend on the intensity of
previous land use and the species under
consideration. In Latvia, for example, a
number of bird species appear to benefit
from abandonment, while many grassland
plant species are disappearing due to the
cessation of grassland management (see
Box 3.3). In general, abandonment of
extensive farmland has mostly negative
effects from a biodiversity perspective, while
it can increase species diversity in intensively
farmed areas.
The major forms and causes of land
abandonment are the following:
· cessation of management due to low (or
even negative) profitability;
· insufficient grazing livestock in pastoral
areas to maintain grasslands;
· cessation of management of grasslands and
arable land purchased after privatisation
for speculative reasons;
· abandonment of farmland due to financial
and legal uncertainty or lack of capital for
investment.
Bulgaria
Latvia
Poland
Rom
ania
Slovakia
M
alta
Lithuania
Czech
Republic
Estonia
H
ungary
Cyprus
Turkey
Slovenia
0
20
40
60
80
90
%IBAs
10
30
50
70
Intensification Abandonment
Source: Important Bird
Areas in Europe, BirdLife
International, 2002.
Note: No data were
available for
abandonment on Malta.

Impacts on the environment 29
Box 3.3: Biodiversity changes due to abandonment in Latvia
In Latvia, the areas of cereals, sown grasslands and pastures have remarkably decreased due to land
abandonment. Overall abandonment figures conceal a greater rate of grassland abandonment compared to
that for tillage land. Combined with this, the use of fertilisers has decreased markedly, although it can still be
considered quite high in certain areas.
The low intensity of agricultural activity is favourable for many bird species. Over ten thousand White Stork
(Ciconia ciconia) pairs nest in Latvia, and despite the decreasing number of fledglings per nest, the overall
population appears to be increasing substantially. The number of Corncrakes (Crex crex) also continues to
grow, now estimated at 26 000­38 000 pairs.
Source: Latvian
Ornithological Society,
1998.
Figure 3.7 White Storks in Latvia
Additional studies demonstrate that the populations of forest and shrub generalist bird species are also
increasing, associated with the increase of forest and shrub areas in Latvia due to overgrowing of abandoned
lands (Aunins and Priednieks, 2001).
Plants, however, are more negatively affected by abandonment. Most rapidly decreasing are those grassland
species which are dependent on regular grazing pressure. The marsh gentian (Gentiana pneumonanthe) is close
to extinction, and other species in rapid decline are those characteristic of wet meadows and pastures, such as
narrow-leaved marsh dandelion (Taraxacum palustre), alpine bistort (Polyganum viviparum) and birdseye primrose
(Primula farinosa). Since the disappearance of livestock grazing on wetland areas, there arefew possibilities for
managing these grasslands appropriately as modern machinery is too heavy to be used on wet soils. Coastal
brackish grasslands and marshes near Riga, Jurmala and Liepaja are experiencing the most serious decline. With
grazing reduction or cessation, species such as red bartsia (Odontites littoralis) appear to have disappeared, and
sea plantain (Plantago maritima) and saltmarsh flat sedge (Blysmus rufus) are also in decline.
Source: Aunins and Priednieks, 2001, and Latvian Environment Data Centre, 2000.
6,8
6,4
5,8
6,3
10,6
2,7 2,7
2,6
2,5
2,1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1934 1958 1974 1984 1995
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
Number of occupied nests Average number of young per nest
Nests(thousands)
No.ofyoung

30 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Source: Statistical Office
of Estonia, 1995, 1999
and 2001.
Figure 3.8 Land abandonment on arable land in Estonia
National reports from CEE-10 countries (the
MED-3 appear hardly affected by the
phenomenon) indicate that land
abandonment is a large-scale phenomenon,
but precise figures are lacking for many
countries. Figure 3.8 shows the abandonment
on arable land in Estonia. About 30 % of the
1.5 million hectares of Estonian farmland is
abandoned at present. This proportion is
even higher for permanent grasslands
(56 %). Among semi-natural grasslands of
medium or high nature value (37 000 ha),
only 40 % is still under management (Mägi
and Lutsar, 2001). The maintenance of the
high nature value of these agricultural
habitats depends on the continuation of
appropriate grazing and mowing (Mikk,
2002). The fact that these areas are
particularly affected by abandonment is
therefore a major cause for concern.
Estonian Alvar in bloom. Insert: consequences of land
abandonment.
Photos: Merit Mikk, Estonia.
In Slovakia, land abandonment and the
changes in management practices such as
reduced grazing intensity over the last
decade have affected 21 (66 %) of the IBAs
to a severe extent. 27 % of the grassland area
in Slovakia is classified as being of high
nature conservation value. Grassland habitats
are among the most threatened in the
country as a result of abandonment.
Currently 74 % of grasslands are managed,
13 % are not managed and there are no data
about the management of the remaining
13 %. Grassland specialists agree that a
number of rare biotopes that are listed in the
habitat directive (fen meadows, dry Bromus
rasslands) are seriously threatened by
abandonment in Slovakia (©effer et al., 2002).
Intensification
Agricultural intensification before 1990 had
significant negative impacts on biodiversity
throughout central and eastern Europe but
was concentrated in the lowlands in most
CEE-10 countries. At higher elevations there
was less collectivisation, more traditional
management and a greater concentration of
protected areas (see Box 3.4). The
agricultural crisis accompanying the
transition during the 1990s eased negative
impacts from intensive agriculture due to the
general decline in the use of agricultural
inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides.
However, privatisation has emerged as a new
factor that contributes to the conflict
between intensive agriculture and
biodiversity.
%abandoned
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Impacts on the environment 31
Livestock farming in Turkey has also led to
regional overgrazing. As a result legislation
was introduced in 1998 to restrict the
stocking levels on state-owned grasslands.
Despite the low overall input use in the CEE-
10 countries, some areas have experienced
intensification, higher fertiliser and pesticide
use, even grassland conversion to arable as
new owners have pursued higher profits from
cash-crop production. Such areas are
suffering losses of biodiversity, especially
where semi-natural grasslands have been
converted to arable lands. In Hungary a
return to private ownership and market
pressures have provided an incentive to
convert extensive semi-natural grassland
('puszta') areas to the production of cash
crops, such as maize and sunflowers. A
comparison of maps and satellite images for
the area between the Danube and Tisza rivers
(about one sixth of the country) showed that
44 000 ha of such grasslands were lost
between the mid 1980s and 1998 (Molnár
and Vajda, 2000). The conversion to arable is
a continuing threat to the high ecological
value of semi-natural grasslands in the
country, which still harbours the Great
Bustard (Otis tarda) and Imperial Eagle
(Aquila heliacea), among many other species.
It is impossible to provide figures on the area
affected by intensification as no direct
monitoring is conducted. Based on
qualitative evaluation and indications from
national experts, intensification is considered
to be the most widespread in Slovakia,
Hungary, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and
Latvia. Data from the Czech Republic show a
strong decline of both partridge and hare
populations since 1970 (see Figure 3.9),
generally linked to intensification of
agriculture. Interestingly, these data do not
show an increase of these species since 1990,
just a stabilisation of populations at low level.
However, agricultural support and
production intensity continued to be
relatively high in the Czech Republic during
the 1990s compared to other CEE-10
countries.
Source: Prazan, 2002.Figure 3.9 Development of numbers of partridges and hares in the Czech Republic
Data from the Czech Republic show a strong
decline of both partridge and hare
populations since 1970 (see Figure 3.9),
generally linked to intensification of
agriculture. Interestingly, these data do not
show an increase of these species since 1990,
just a stabilisation of populations at low level.
However, agricultural support and
production intensity continued to be
relatively high in the Czech Republic during
the 1990s compared to other CEE-10
countries.
0
200 000
400 000
600 000
800 000
1 000 000
1 200 000
1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998
Partridges Hares
Numbers

32 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Box 3.4: Biodiversity decline due to intensive farming in Slovakia
The development of agriculture since the 1940s has caused substantial damage to habitats and environmental
resources in Slovakia. Traditional private land use was almost eliminated and replaced by co-operatives and
state farms. During the socialist period, a high number of subsidies for ploughing and 'intensification' of
grasslands destroyed species rich meadows throughout Slovakia's mountain and lowland areas. The use of
hybrid seed mixtures, heavy application of fertilisers and pesticides, drainage of wetlands and intensive
grazing resulted in habitat degradation and destruction. As a result, some vegetation types have almost
disappeared and many plant and animal species have become rare or endangered. According to recent
research only 300 000 ha out of 845 600 ha of grasslands are now considered to be of conservation value.
The decline in biological diversity was strongest in lowland and hilly areas, whereas some valuable biotopes
and landscape structures have been preserved in mountainous and sub-mountainous areas. This appears to
be due to the maintenance of traditional farming systems and the protected areas network that is particularly
dense in the Slovakian upland areas. Protected areas including buffer zones extend to approximately
1 200 000 ha and cover more than 22.8 % of Slovakia, but only 250 000 ha of this total are used for agriculture.
Source: Cierna, 2002.
3.5. Landscape
The characteristics of landscape change are
particularly difficult to measure. This is
acerbated by the general lack of monitoring
data on landscape parameters. Nevertheless,
considerable landscape changes and threats
to landscape diversity are reported from
Slovenia, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, the
Czech Republic, Poland and Malta (IEEP,
2002). These include:
· removal of (linear) landscape elements due
to field enlargement;
· overgrowing by shrubs, weeds and forests
following land abandonment;
· simplification of cropping patterns,
specialisation of farming, monocultures;
· drainage of wetlands, ploughing-up of
grassland;
· dumping of domestic and agricultural
waste on farmland;
· lack of maintenance of certain man-made
landscape elements such as stone walls.
Collectivisation of agriculture and the
industrialisation of society in most former
socialist countries since 1950 have led to
significant land use changes. In Latvia, a
considerable part of the agricultural land was
abandoned and/or reafforested
(Figure 3.10). Many of the remaining
agricultural areas were re-designed for large-
scale mechanised farming. The combined
effect was a loss of landscape diversity
(Redman, 2002).
Source: Redman, 2002. Figure 3.10 Dynamics of land use in Latvia, 1935­1998
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1935 1949 1960 1970 1980 1992 1998
Other land uses Forest Agricultural land
%
16,1
18,0
18,8
15,9
17,8
16,8
17,2
57,3
52,2
44,1
44,4
40,0
39,8
38,7
29,8
37,1
39,7
42,2
43,4
44,1
26,6

Impacts on the environment 33
In the past, spatial planning in several CEE-
10 countries resulted in the deliberate
exploitation of marshlands and flood plain
areas for agriculture. Such large-scale
development in rural areas is less common in
recent years, but new infrastructure,
urbanisation and tourism development
continue to exert pressure on the remaining
diverse agricultural landscapes (IEEP, 2002).
It is important that present and future
landscape change is monitored adequately to
be able to assess its environmental
implications more thoroughly than is
possible now.
3.6. Review
Topsoil erosion by wind and water continues
to be a problem in many countries.
Investment in appropriate landscape
planning, including windbreaks and other
erosion mitigation features, is essential in
combating this major agri-environmental
issue in the accession countries.
Water pollution by agriculture, both of
ground- and surface water, is a major
environmental issue in many countries.
Problems of water quality are exacerbated by
water availability, and in some countries
pollution and irrigation problems are closely
linked. In Cyprus, growing demand for water
has led farmers to use tainted water from
disused mines for irrigation purposes,
thereby causing boron contamination of the
groundwater. In CEE-10, the use of irrigation
(and the environmental problems associated
with it) decreased markedly during the
1990s, but irrigation infrastructure is
currently being restored in some areas. The
challenge now is to ensure these irrigation
systems are restored with adequate attention
to environmental management. By contrast,
in the MED-3 irrigation still increases with
the associated environment impacts.
Emissions from agriculture to air in the form
of ammonia (causing eutrophication and
acidification) and the greenhouse gases
nitrous oxide and methane have decreased
significantly in most CEE countries between
1990 and 2000. This is due to lowered
livestock levels and decreased inputs of
nitrogenous fertilisers.
The impacts of agriculture on biodiversity
vary greatly between regions. While land
abandonment hardly occurs in important
bird areas (IBAs) in Turkey, it is a dominant
issue in Slovakian and Estonian IBAs. The
effects of abandonment are not
straightforward. In Latvia, some bird species
appear to benefit from abandonment, while a
number of grassland plant species are
dwindling due to the cessation of grazing.
Intensification is a more dominant problem
in IBAs in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and
Poland.
Land abandonment and agricultural
intensification have a combined negative
effect on local landscape diversity. Data from
the Baltic States show the increasing
dominance of forested areas instead of the
previous mosaic-like mix of farmland and
wooded areas.
With accession to the EU more resources for
agri-environment and rural development
measures will become available, coupled with
a demand to meet common environmental
standards, for example regarding nitrate in
water. Existing problems, particularly those
of local and regional nature, need to be
identified properly. In this respect there is
still a considerable lack of consistent and
comparable data sets across the countries
concerned. Environmental monitoring and
reporting systems will have to be improved to
enable appropriate action within the new
policy context (see Chapter 4).

34 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
4. Enlargement and its
consequences for the agri-
environment
Previous chapters have reviewed the
characteristics of farming in the accession
countries, the big impact of political changes
on input use and production levels in the
CEE-10, as well as the environmental
pressures and benefits linked to farming in
the AC-13. This chapter connects these facts
to the agricultural enlargement framework
decided at the Copenhagen summit in
December 2002 and the 2003 CAP reform
decisions. However, one has to recognise that
agriculture policy is only one of the factors
that influence farming decisions. It must be
seen alongside many others, including
technical change, consumer demand and
market opportunities, the security of land
tenure, the availability of credit on
reasonable terms, the extent of alternative
employment options and social attitudes
towards farming lifestyles. The national
implementation of the evolving CAP policy
framework will nevertheless have a strong
influence on agriculture and the
environment in the ten acceding countries6
.
4.1. Analytical approach
This chapter reviews the potential
environmental implications of the 2002
enlargement decisions at the Copenhagen
summit as well as the CAP mid-term reform
decisions on 26 June 2003. The analysis
focuses on the relationship between core
CAP policy instruments and the key
environmental issues described in Chapter 3
(soil erosion, water pollution, air emissions
and loss of biodiversity).
The EU common agricultural policy (CAP) is
divided into two main policy lines. The so-
called first pillar combines traditional
support instruments that are linked to
agricultural production and currently takes
up about 90 % of the total CAP budget. Since
the Agenda 2000 CAP reform in 1999, most
of the support under the first pillar is
provided in the form of direct payments to
farmers that are not directly linked to
production quantity but to the areas sown
with certain crops or numbers of livestock
kept. The 2003 CAP reform decisions have
further de-coupled such income payments
from production and widened the number of
agricultural crops included.
The 'second pillar' of the CAP was
introduced with Agenda 2000 in the form of
the Rural Development Regulation (1257/
1999). This contains 22 different policy
measures that the EU Member States need to
combine in national rural development plans
according to their specific needs. The EU
Member States need to present their rural
development plans for approval to the
European Commission. In contrast to pillar 1
measures that are 100 % funded from the
CAP budget, rural development spending is
currently co-financed to 50 % from the EU
budget (75 % in Objective 1 regions). Recent
changes to pillar 2 policies are described in
section 4.2.
Due to lack of data and the complex
interactions between policy, farm
management and the environment any
assessment of the environmental impact of
individual policy measures must currently
remain qualitative. However, knowledge of
current farming trends and model forecasts
of agricultural production under different
policy scenarios allow an assessment of the
likely direction of environmental impacts
from agriculture.
The assumptions concerning agricultural
production that are used in this study derive
principally from recent studies by DG
Agriculture as they provide the most detailed
analysis available regarding the accession
countries. The most relevant study in this
regard is an impact analysis of the mid-term
(6) Agriculture policy also covers issues such as food safety and hygiene standards, farm animal welfare and
transport rules, as well as detailed quality specifications for some products. All these aspects of the CAP can
be expected to affect the development of agriculture and ancillary economic activities in the accession
countries over the next decade. Thus, the costs involved in meeting EU food hygiene standards could
adversely affect the viability of small-scale local production, such as cheese making. For reasons of focus and
lack of data this study does not attempt to include these issues into our analysis.

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 35
CAP reform proposals by the Commission
(CEC, 2003). This study works with up-to-
date market figures and takes account of the
Copenhagen enlargement decisions. It
compares two policy scenarios: continuation
of the Agenda 2000 decisions, or adoption of
the Commission mid-term reform proposals
from January 2003. The study itself only
provides aggregated figures for the enlarged
EU of 25 Member States. However, DG
Agriculture has made available underlying
data for the acceding countries. For
complementary information or comparison
we also used two further studies: 'Analysis of
the Impact on Agricultural Markets and
Incomes of EU Enlargement to the CEECs'
(CEC, 2002a), and 'Prospects for Agricultural
Markets in the Candidate Countries of
Central and Eastern Europe' (CEC, 2002b).
As the focus of these studies is on the CEE
accession countries our analysis is limited to
central and eastern Europe.
The conclusions in this report are based on
the following four analytical steps:
· For which sectors or crops is a production
change expected?
· Is any projected production increase due to
expansion of area / animal numbers or due
to intensification?
· Will different production regions or
individual types of farms (large/small,
mixed/specialised) be affected differently?
· What are the potential mitigating factors
(e.g. agri-environmental policy measures,
technological changes, environmental
regulation, training of farmers)?
4.2. Enlargement process and CAP
reform
Copenhagen summit decisions
The European Council took the political
decisions governing EU enlargement at the
Copenhagen summit in December 2002,
after intensive negotiations with all candidate
countries. Ten countries of central and
eastern Europe and the Mediterranean will
join the European Union in May 20047
, while
the accession of Bulgaria and Romania is
scheduled for 2007. Turkey still has to be
given a date to begin negotiations for EU
accession but has made progress in that
direction.
In the area of agriculture the accession
agreement largely follows original proposals
by the European Commission (CEC, 2002d).
In addition to adjustments to Structural Fund
support, the Commission proposal was
amended to give the candidate countries the
possibility to convert rural development
budget into direct aid payments to farmers,
increase these with additional funds from the
national budget, and to provide for some
increases to the originally proposed milk and
livestock production quotas.
The total agriculture budget available from
EU funds to the ten acceding countries
(ACC-10) between 2004 and 2006 (the
current EU budgetary period) is structured
as follows (in million euro):
Source: Agra Europe
2002a, b.
Table 4. 1 CAP budget for the ten acceding countries up to 2006 (in million euro)
The overall level of agricultural support per
hectare is considerably lower than in the
present EU countries. However, the share of
foreseen rural development spending is far
higher than under the general CAP budget
(~ 50 % in the ten acceding countries against
10 % in the EU). The new Member States are
initially eligible for a three-year rural
development plan (RDP) for the period
2004­2006. A similar set of measures will
apply as in the existing EU Rural
Development Regulation but with the
important addition of an entirely new
scheme for semi-subsistence farms. In
addition, the ceiling for CAP contributions is
higher than usual (80 %). Table 4.2 shows
the differences in CAP expenditure between
the current EU Member States and the
acceding countries (assuming no national
transfer of funds from pillar 2 to pillar 1
pillar).
(7) Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.
2004 2005 2006
Commodity linked payments (pillar 1) 327 2 032 2 322
Rural development funding (pillar 2) 1 570 1 715 1 825
Total CAP spending in ACC-10 1 897 3 747 4 147

36 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Table 4. 2 Agriculture budget in the ACC-10 and the EU-15 countries
* Average figures 2004­2006
** Average figures 2000­2002
The CAP budget for the ten new Member
States gives scope for considerably higher
relative spending on agri-environmental
measures and agricultural diversification
than in the EU-15. However, it also increases
the administrative complexity of agricultural
policy. Given complicated EU procedures
there is a risk that the new Member States
would thus not be able to spend the total
allocated EU budget. This reason and the
desire of the accession countries to ensure a
similar level of direct aid payments for their
farmers under the first pillar of the CAP as
provided to EU farmers led to a compromise
on the use of rural development funds.
Under certain constraints the new Member
States can divert up to 20 % of their rural
development allocation to increase direct
payments under the first pillar. The effect of
these arrangements on direct aid payments
to farmers in the acceding countries is shown
in Table 4.3.
Table 4. 3 Phasing-in schedule for direct aid payments in new Member States
* to be financed from national budget and up to 20 % of EU rural development funds
CAP mid-term reform in 2003
Following the enlargement decisions, the
CAP mid-term reform in 2003 changed the
Agenda 2000 CAP framework substantially8
.
The full range of the mid-term reform
decisions cannot be reviewed here but a
number of important changes that appear
particularly relevant from the perspective of
the acceding countries are described below
(refer to Appendix A for more detailed
information).
During the period 2005­2007 Member States
will introduce a single farm payment (SFP)
that combines previous arable aid payments
(cereals, oilseed and protein crops, set-aside,
dried fodder, rice, durum wheat etc) and
current beef, sheep and goat premia. Under
a 'national envelope' Member States may use
up to 10 % of all single farm payments for
encouraging specific types of farming that
are beneficial for the environment. With
regard to SFP's Member States can also opt
for 'regionalised implementation', for
example to support economically marginal
grassland systems.
The mid-term reform has made cross-
compliance obligatory for Member States.
Direct payments are to be cut or withheld if
farmers do not comply with a total of 18 legal
requirements in the areas of environment,
animal welfare, animal diseases and public
Utilised
agricultural area
(UAA)
(million ha)
First pillar
spending
(million euro)
Rural
development
(RD) spending
(million euro)
First pillar
spending per ha
UAA (euro)
RD spending per
ha UAA (euro)
ACC10* 38.3 1 560.3 1 703.3 40.7 44.5
EU-15** 128.7 38 712.6 6 855.1 300.8 53.3
Year EU aid
(% of full EU rate)
National top-up*
(% of full EU rate)
Overall max. payment
(% of full EU rate)
2004 25 30 55
2005 30 30 60
2006 35 30 65
2007 40 30 70
2008 50 30 80
2009 60 30 90
2010 70 30 100
2011 80 20 100
2012 90 10 100
2013 100 -- 100
(8) Regulation 1782/2003 and Regulation 1783/2003, OJ L270, 21.10.2003.
Source: Own calculations
based on Agra Europe,
2002a, b and EEA, 2002a
Note: The rural
development figures for
the ACC-10 do not include
EAGGF guidance funds
for Objective 1 regions.
Source: Agra Europe,
2002b.

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 37
health from 2005­2007 onwards. Farmers are
furthermore required to keep their land in
good agricultural and environmental
condition, for example by maintaining
minimum livestock densities and landscape
features. This is particularly relevant for
maintenance of extensive grasslands, but the
impact of this measure will depend on the
precise implementation by the Members
States and the national management
standards to be set. The introduction of
cross-compliance is likely to remain voluntary
for the acceding countries until their CAP
payment system has been aligned with that of
the EU-15 countries (Marangoni, 2003).
As for market regimes, rye intervention will
be abolished and energy crop payments will
be introduced. Both measures are expected
to have considerable impact in the accession
countries. Rye is likely to be partially
substituted by wheat and other cereals,
especially in Poland and the Baltic States,
where it is an important crop. It is not yet
clear how large the entitlement area for
energy crop payments will be in the ACC-10,
but uptake is potentially high, since several
countries have a substantial biofuel
processing industry and economic yields of
traditional crops are low compared to EU-15.
Finally, the 2003 mid-term reform has also
introduced several changes to the rural
development measures under the CAP. Most
important from an environmental
perspective is the introduction of a farm
advisory system, voluntary for Member States
until 2006, obligatory thereafter. This system
will help farmers to comply with
environment, food safety and animal welfare
standards. Public farm advisory services in
many ACC-10 countries have been strongly
reduced during the last 10 years, despite the
need of farmers for professional advice,
particularly on environmental issues. This
new incentive is therefore of great potential
value.
Socio-economic changes
The exchange rate of the national currency
influences agricultural income and
production in the accession countries. Nearly
without exception national currencies in the
central and eastern European countries have
appreciated continuously during the last
years. This trend is expected to continue
until acceding countries are eligible to join
the eurozone -- several years after accession.
Stronger national currencies make internal
production factors (land and labour) more
expensive and imported production factors
(chemical inputs and machinery) cheaper.
This trend will thus favour intensification as
farmers try to substitute labour with other
inputs.
The CAP reform impact analysis by DG
Agriculture (CEC, 2003) predicts a rise in
real agricultural income in the acceding
countries of up to 45 % by 2009, due to larger
market returns, slowly rising direct payments
and rural development support. Production
capacity and intensity in the ACC-10 will to a
considerable degree be determined by the
question of how much of this additional
income will be invested into modernisation
and expansion of agricultural production.
Many experts currently predict that on
smaller farms most, or at least a large part, of
this income will go into private consumption
as agricultural income is currently very low
(often at subsistence levels) and the
agricultural workforce large compared to
total production capacity (W. Münch, pers.
comm., 2003). However, on farms with a
commercial orientation (i.e. mainly those
above 30 ha in the case of Poland) additional
agricultural income is likely to be mainly
used for farm modernisation and
intensification (CEAS, 2003).
Semi-subsistence farming is particularly
important in the dairy sector, with large
numbers of small producers keeping between
one and five cows, producing little for the
commercial market. The future of these
small farmers is frequently debated. Many
observers expect them to become less
competitive and to withdraw from farming in
sizeable numbers. Such a trend could be
accelerated by the application of EU health
and hygiene standards and will also be
influenced by the availability of alternative
income opportunities.
4.3. Commodity linked payments --
the 'first pillar'
Expected production trends
One tool for limiting agricultural
expenditure and production in the EU are
the so-called maximum base areas and
headage numbers for which Member States
can claim support payments. Thus, important
constraints on agricultural output in the
acceding countries are cereal base areas,
livestock headage payment limits and milk

38 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
production quotas that were agreed in
Copenhagen. Practically all are lower than
had been requested by the accession
countries. Table 4. 4 compares current
production levels in eight central and eastern
European countries with base area, headage
payment and milk quota allocations
according to the Copenhagen agreement.
Table 4. 4 Arable base area and livestock production levels allocated to the acceding CEE countries in
comparison to recent production levels
* Average figures 2000­2002 in 1 000 t
The DG Agriculture impact study from
March 2003 provides production forecasts for
individual agricultural commodities by 2010
(see Table 4.5). The impact of the 2003 mid-
term CAP reform decisions is likely be close
to the projection made under Agenda 2000
scenario for most commodities (W. Münch,
pers. comm., July 2003). Within this policy
framework substantial increases are
predicted for poultry production. Milk and
beef production are expected to remain
stable, with a small increase possible for beef.
The total area of cereals is predicted to
remain stable or increase slightly with
differential trends between individual cereal
types. Soft wheat will strongly increase its
share among cereals, while barley and rye
areas should decline significantly. In the light
of the mid-term CAP reform decisions the
area of oilseeds is likely to expand
considerably, driven among other things by a
new subsidy to energy crops9
.
DG Agriculture (CEC, 2002a) predicts an
increase of about 3.7 to 3.9 million hectare of
overall arable area by 2012 on the basis of
CAP enlargement scenarios that are close to
the present framework. Although this would
be a significant increase (~ 8 % of total
utilised agricultural area of the ACC-10) it is
less than the 'land reserve' previously devoted
to these crops but shifted to fodder
production, pasture or fallow over the last
decade or so. This 'reserve' is estimated as
between 6.5 and 7.5 million hectares,
unevenly distributed between
Czech
Republic
Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovakia Slovenia
Current arable
area (1 000 ha)
1 990 335 3 398 444 991 9 258 997 103
Base area:
Arable land
(1 000 ha)
2 254 363 3 488 444 1 147 9 455 1 004 125
Difference (%) + 13.2 + 8.3 + 2.6 0 + 15.7 + 2.1 + 0.7 + 21.2
Current milk
production
(1 000 t)*
2 794 613 2 104 849 1 677 11 565 1 119 661
Milk quota
(1 000 t)
2 738 646 1 990 727 1 705 9 380 1 041 577
Difference (%) - 2.0 + 5.5 - 5.4 - 14.2 + 1.7 - 18.9 - 7.0 - 12.8
Current cattle
headage
(Head of cattle
going to
slaughter x
1 000)
559 83 279 116 327 1 786 232 251
Allocated
headage no.:
Beef + suckler
cow overall
(1 000 head)
574 121 259 144 415 2 141 232 248
Difference (%) + 2.7 + 46.9 - 7.4 + 24 + 26.8 + 19.9 + 0.2 - 1.3
(9) The energy crop payment is likely to apply in the new Member States at the same rate as direct payments
(starting at 25 % in 2004). The EU recently approved a new directive on the use of biofuels in transport
(Directive 2003/30/EEC) that sets an indicative target of 5.75 % of all transport fuel to be derived from
bioenergy by 2010. To reach this target without imports on the basis of agricultural biomass would mean that
between 4 and 13 % of farmland in the EU-25 would have to be planted with biofuel crops (depending on
the choice of crops and technological development) (Jensen, 2003). This is likely to have substantial
consequences for overall land use intensity, minimising the area that is set-aside or currently abandoned and
encouraging higher production intensity elsewhere.
Source: CEC, 2002b.
Notes: Head of cattle
going to slaughter' is
calculated by using the
official beef and veal
production figures (in
1 000 kg) divided by
210 kg (per carcass) to
compute the recent total
for beef animals. The
categories used are not
fully comparable but seem
the best approximation
possible.

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 39
Table 4. 5 Expected impacts of enlargement on production (area planted for crops) in the ACC-10,
period 2002­2010
* Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.
** Trend predicted in previous CAP enlargement impact analysis (CEC, 2000a) and confirmed by CEAS study.
Sector ACC-10* Comments
Beef Strong link to dairy cow herd; suckler cow no's to increase, intensive beef production
may increase in some areas.
Milk Quotas prevent production increase, but yield per cow to rise strongly.
Pigs Strong consumer demand; increase facilitated by outside investment.
Poultry Strong increase largely through outside investment.
Cereals Gains on feed potatoes and fodder crops, loss to oilseeds and set-aside (from 2007).
Wheat Most productive cereal, best price in the market.
Barley Small decrease as feed use declines, low yield per ha.
Maize Some increase due to high market prices.
Rye Strong decline due to abolition of rye intervention.
Oilseeds Increase due to good market price and energy crop payment.
Fallow ** Better areas go into cereal and energy crops; poor land likely to be afforested.
 3 % change or stable
> 3 < 10 % increase > 3 < 10 % decrease
> 10 % increase > 10 % decrease
> 20 % increase
Source: DG Agriculture,
2003; CEAS, 2003; W.
Münch, pers. comm., July
2003; P. Weingarten, pers.
comm., September 2003.
Note: The policy
framework is based on the
2002 Copenhagen
enlargement decisions and
the 2003 CAP reform
agreement.

40 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
countries (CEC, 2002a). Poland and the
Baltic States have a larger arable land
'reserve' than Hungary and Slovenia, for
example.
Sheep (and goats) are particularly important
livestock for the management of extensive,
high-nature-value grazing systems in
mountain, steppe or coastal areas. Numbers
of both have fallen spectacularly from the
pre-transition period. A sizeable gap existed
between the Commission proposals (CEC,
2002d) and candidate country demands for
the number of sheep eligible for annual
premium. The candidate countries were
requesting a level for sheep and goats of
about 1.4 million more than the Commission
was offering (Baldock & Tar, 2002). As the
Copenhagen agreement is largely based on
the original Commission proposals the
numbers of sheep (and goats) must be
expected to remain at their current low
levels, or to decline even further.
Production intensity
Arable production intensity is likely to go up,
leading to higher yields per hectare and
increased use of fertilisers and pesticides.
The figures presented in the DG Agriculture
impact study (CEC, 2003) lead to a
productivity increase of about 1.6 % per year,
which is about 0.6 % more than the EU
average (W. Münch, pers. comm., July 2003).
This trend is the response to a more stable
agro-economic environment, the availability
of slowly increasing direct payments and
investment support, and the gradual
introduction of modern technology and
machinery. Nevertheless, intensification
starts from a low level and in most regions it
seems unlikely to reach the levels found in
the EU. This is due to lower land and labour
prices, limited availability of credit and
farmer attitudes shaped in a very unstable
agro-economic framework during the 1990s.
Average cereal production per ha in the EU
presently stands at about 6 tons/ha whereas
productivity in the ACC-10 is expected to
reach only 3.8 tons/ha by 2009. However, this
does not preclude strong increases in
production intensity in the more fertile areas
where the economic gain from outside inputs
and high-yielding varieties is greatest.
Most pigs and poultry in the ACC-10 are
currently still raised in ex-collective farm
buildings (except on Cyprus and Malta),
using somewhat outdated feed mixtures and
approaches. Competition and modernisation
of the sector in the enlarged EU should lead
to considerable productivity increases in this
sector (as is already evident for poultry). The
practice of fattening pigs on feed potatoes,
which is still common in central and eastern
Europe, will decline over time due to its high
labour costs and changing consumer
preferences. Some productivity increases
should also occur in the beef sector although
more difficult to predict as a large part of the
beef cattle population is located on small to
very small farms. Considerable yield increases
are likely in the dairy sector where average
milk production per cow is predicted to
increase from currently about 4 200 litre/
year to 4 950 litre/year by 2009 under a
continuation of national policies (CEC,
2002b). A similar productivity increase can
be expected under EU enlargement
conditions.
Farm specialisation
In regions suitable for intensive cereal
production further specialisation is expected,
as larger holdings shed excess labour and
unprofitable farm operations, such as
livestock production in many cases
(Pouliquin, 2001). Thus, specialised arable
farms could become more dominant in
certain areas. Conversely, mixed cropping
and cereal output on farms that are small or
lie in marginal areas may be maintained due
to the area payments available under the
CAP. Rye production, now found very
commonly on small farms in Poland and
adjacent countries, is expected to decline
strongly when rye intervention is stopped as
decided in the 2003 CAP reform agreement.
Pig and poultry production in the ACC-10
are already dominated by specialised
producers in most countries. Modernisation
and concentration are not expected to
change this picture substantially (except for
countries such as Poland where smaller farms
still have a considerable share of total pig
production). Milk quota allocation to
countries is based on the assumption that the
importance of (semi-) subsistence producers
will decrease over time (about 11 % by 2010
according to DG Agriculture -- CEC, 2003).
This part of milk production should migrate
to larger and more specialised dairy farms.
Mitigating factors
Several policy measures have been
introduced into the CAP during the last ten

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 41
years that can help to minimise the negative
environmental impacts of agriculture. They
include various instruments that fall under
rural development policy, such as
environmental investment, less favoured area
measures or agri-environment schemes. The
Agenda 2000 CAP framework requires
Member States to take appropriate
environmental measures for agricultural
production that is supported under pillar 1
of the CAP10
. Three different policy
instruments are available in this context: agri-
environment schemes, codes of Good
Farming Practice and environmental cross-
compliance. This has been complemented by
new measures under the 2003 mid-term
reform.
National standards of good farming
practice have to be developed by all EU
Member States according to Regulation
1257/1999. Adherence to good farming
practice (GFP) is a precondition for
participation of farmers in agri-environment
and less favoured area (LFA) schemes. GFP
has to include verifiable legal standards in
the countries concerned. As most acceding
countries have a very comprehensive
environmental legislation with regard to
agriculture (Bennett, 2003) there seems to
be a good legal basis for ensuring observance
of environmental farm management
principles after EU accession. However, the
key to the success of the above legal
standards is their enforcement through
monitoring and control mechanisms. For
LFA and agri-environment schemes a
minimum control of five percent of all
participating farms is demanded by EU rules.
For standards contained in environmental
legislation countries are likely to continue
current enforcement practices that are
strongly hampered by lack of resources.
The 2003 CAP reform has introduced
mandatory cross-compliance linked to
existing EU environmental, animal welfare
and other legislation, to be implemented in
stages from 2005 onwards by all Member
States. The latter have to define verifiable
standards arising from this legislation and
from the requirement for farmers to
maintain their land in good agricultural and
environmental condition. The cross-
compliance rules of the 2003 reform will be
optional for the acceding countries for
several years (Marangoni, 2003). When
introduced they should in principle
strengthen the implementation of GFP and
related environmental standards in the
acceding countries as most of these standards
are linked and the cross-compliance measure
introduces obligatory control and
enforcement measures.
Another element of first pillar policies that
provides potential environmental benefit is
voluntary and obligatory set-aside, which can
create more habitat diversity in intensive
arable regions. Obligatory set-aside at a rate
of ten percent arable area on medium to
large farms remains a feature of the CAP
after the mid-term reform. However, due to a
special subsidy disbursement regime
designed for the acceding countries (the
'simplified scheme') set-aside is likely not to
be obligatory for farmers in these countries
until 2007­2009. Even when it is introduced
large number of farmers would be too small
to be affected by set aside, potentially over
50 % in Poland, Hungary and Slovenia.
Nevertheless, it could still become significant
in several regions, particularly in the Czech
and Slovak Republics and those parts of
Hungary and Poland with larger-scale, more
specialised farming. On implementation of
the 2003 CAP reform voluntary set-aside is
expected to grow considerably in the EU-15
(CEC, 2003). A similar effect could occur in
the acceding countries that might affect
particularly less productive arable regions,
such as in the Baltic States.
4.4. Rural development -- the
'second pillar'
Challenges and options
Rural development measures under the CAP
are largely directed at the agricultural
population in rural areas. They are meant to
help farmers diversify their holdings, exploit
new income sources, better market their
products etc. They provide some direct
support to farmers in 'less favoured areas',
contain measures for professional and
environmental training, and include social
elements, such as support for 'basic rural
services' or setting-up of farm relief services.
They also contain important measures of
environmental relevance, such as training,
afforestation and agri-environment schemes.
The latter are the only obligatory measure
and take up about 50 % of rural development
spending in EU Member States.
(10) Article 3 of Regulation 1259/1999.

42 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
All these measures are very relevant to rural
development in the CEE-10 countries too,
although central and eastern Europe faces
far deeper socio-economic problems than
most regions in the EU. It is estimated that
'hidden' agricultural unemployment in the
CEE-10 is very widespread, affecting at least
half of those in agricultural employment --
about 5 million people. With high levels of
agricultural employment in many countries,
particularly in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria,
Latvia and Lithuania, the alleviation of rural
unemployment and hidden agricultural
unemployment is a central challenge for
rural development policy. Given the scale of
the problems, it may be difficult to absorb
more than a small fraction of this 'excess
labour' through new jobs linked to the farm
sector. There are, nevertheless, opportunities
in diversification into new farm products or
rural tourism, or increased demand for
environmental services of farmers rewarded
via agri-environment schemes.
The acceding countries have already
developed draft national rural development
plans under the pillar 2 of the CAP, covering
a relatively short programming period of
three years (2004­2006). Many countries can
thus be expected to try to build on the
experience gained implementing SAPARD
(the pre-accession fund for rural
development). The very short programming
period will be a challenge and could reduce
the scope for an ambitious build up of
measures, in particular for agri-environment
schemes because of the time required to
establish and implement schemes that
involve contracts with individual farmers. In
spite of recent progress under SAPARD this
programme has shown the considerable
resources that are required to implement
agri-environment schemes, in particular,
under EU rules. Thus, there is still clearly a
need for more support and national effort to
build relevant administrative capacity in rural
development.
The rural development pillar of the CAP is a
key tool for achieving the integration of
environmental objectives into agriculture
policy. Several EU Member States provide
examples for how EU rural development
policy can be used to the benefit of the
environment (Dwyer et al., 2002). In the
context of central and eastern Europe such
an approach should include the following
measures:
· targeted application of agri-environmental
schemes on the basis of clear
environmental objectives;
· increased use of aid for Less Favoured
Areas (LFAs), with appropriate minimum
environmental standards/requirements;
· considered application of the semi-
subsistence farm scheme with suitable
conditions;
· use of raising standards and farm advisory
schemes;
· complementary application of certain rural
development measures (structural
adjustments, processing and marketing,
training, etc.) to promote more
environmentally sensitive sustainable
agricultural and rural development.
The potential for some of these measures is
explored below.
Agri-environment
It is widely accepted that agri-environment
measures are instruments of central
importance in integrating environmental
and sustainable development objectives into
the CAP. They are the only obligatory
measure for all Member States under the
rural development regulation and cover
about 20 % of agricultural area in the EU-15.
First phase or pilot agri-environment
schemes have been proposed in all central
and eastern European accession countries,
either nationally or in the SAPARD
framework. Three schemes are already in
operation in Slovenia, Estonia and Hungary.
Table 4.6 shows the state of development of
agri-environment schemes in the CEE-10
countries.

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 43
Table 4. 6 State of agri-environment scheme development in CEE-10 on 30 April 2003
* =No draft received by the Commission, or to be financed from national funds.
* * =Draft received.
* * * =Adopted in EU STAR Committee.
Although they require substantial
administrative resources to be successful,
agri-environment schemes have considerable
potential to address the issues identified
earlier in this paper. This includes increased
pressures from intensification, the
management of marginal and abandoned
land and the maintenance of high nature
value farming systems. A large number of
different measures already have been
identified as relevant to conditions in
acceding countries, as demonstrated by the
ambitious scheme now operational in
Slovenia (see Box 4.1).
Box 4.1: Agri-environment scheme of Slovenia
The implementation of the Slovene Agri-Environmental Programme (SAEP) began in 2001 following its
adoption as part of the Programme of Agricultural Policy Reform. The policy reform programme embraces
several other measures concerned with food production labelling and marketing, focussing on quality,
geographical origin, traditional reputation, organic and integrated production etc. The SAEP comprises 22
measures, of which 10 were implemented in 2001 on a pilot basis, and an additional twelve added in 2002. In
2001 11 400 farms accounting for 90 000 ha received subsidies. The budget currently available for agri-
environmental measures in 2002 is 10.4 million EUR and the programme runs to 2004. The SAEP measures
are summarised below:
Group I: Reducing negative impacts of agriculture on the environment
This includes reductions in livestock density, preventing soil erosion in orchards and vineyards, crop rotation
measures, green cover on arable land, organic farming and integrated production of fruit, vegetables and
vines.
Group II: Preservation of nature, biodiversity, soil fertility and traditional cultural landscapes
This includes the grazing of mountain pastures, mowing of steep slopes and hill meadows, protecting
orchards and rare breeds and plant varieties and maintenance of extensive grassland.
Group III: Maintenance of protected areas
This covers the maintenance of cultural landscapes, measures regarding large carnivores and the habitats of
protected birds and the establishment of green cover, for example in groundwater protection zones.
Group IV: Education and promotion
This includes training programmes and promotion of the scheme.
Agri-environment measures are recognised as the first priority of rural development in Slovenia for the period
2004­2006 and are included in the draft rural development plan that is being discussed with the European
Commission.
Source: Cierna, 2002.
Some of the most important opportunities
linked to the implementation of agri-
environment schemes in the acceding
countries include:
· safeguarding valuable habitats under
agricultural management, such as the
estimated 7 million hectares of semi-natural
grassland in ten countries referred to in
Chapter 2;
· maintaining traditional systems noted for
their contribution to cultural landscapes,
such as orchards and small scale dairy
farming;
· bringing land that is partly or wholly
abandoned into appropriate management;
· building up a thriving organic and low
impact farming sector to take advantage of
the scope for improved environmental
management, market opportunities and
SAPARD-funded scheme % total SAPARD funding
(indicative)
National scheme
(2002 data)
Bulgaria * * * 2
Czech Republic * * * 3
Estonia * * 1 70 000 ha
Hungary * * 4 47 000 ha
Latvia * * * 5
Lithuania * * 1
Poland * * 2
Romania * 3
Slovakia * * 4
Slovenia * 0 90 000 ha
Source: pers. comm.
SAPARD Unit,
DG Agriculture, Ministries
of Agriculture in Estonia,
Hungary and Slovenia.

44 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
the current low level of fertiliser and agro-
chemical use;
· establishing integrated management
systems and good soil management, not
least in areas subject to intensification and
under risk of soil erosion.
The list above shows some similarities to agri-
environment schemes and policy models in
current EU countries, but also highlights
distinctive agri-environment features in
central and eastern Europe. The issue of land
abandonment and under-grazing because of
the decline of former pastoral systems is far
more significant in the CEE-10 than in the
EU. Agri-environment schemes need to have
a stronger emphasis on the re-introduction of
livestock and positive management than is
usual in the EU. Because farming is scarcely
financially viable in many areas of nature
conservation value, incentives for reviving
traditional management methods are
required. An ambitious approach of this kind
would also justify a flow of payments at a
sufficient level to attract farmers to
participate. If agri-environment schemes
offer only low levels of compensation,
reflecting minor management changes in
relatively low income farming systems,
payment levels will be too small to be of
interest to most farmers.
A new strategic vision is required to deploy
agri-environment as a central tool of
environmental management and rural
development in ACC-10. Despite the scale of
opportunity, there is a clear danger that the
projected budget for agri-environment
schemes will be rather limited, endangering
ambitious policy plans for some of the
acceding countries. As the different rural
development measures will 'compete' for the
limited funding, there is a risk that agri-
environment measures will receive a smaller
percentage of the total than required, in
particular if governments give priority to
other potentially expensive measures, such as
LFA payments or semi-subsistence aid.
Box 4.2 reviews budgetary options for the
implementation of agri-environment
schemes in the acceding countries.
Box 4.2 Scenarios for agri-environment schemes in the acceding countries (ACC-10)
Section 4.2 shows that the total rural development budget for the ACC-10 will be about 1.3 billion euro per
year (excluding 20 % that can be transferred to the pillar 1 policies). Some general assumptions lead to two
scenarios for future agri-environment scheme coverage.
Scenario 1 assumes that 10 % of the total rural development budget in the acceding countries would be spent
on agri-environment schemes (about three times as much as foreseen under SAPARD). This sum would be
130 million euro per year, equivalent to 1.3 million ha, about 3 % of utilised agricultural area (UAA).
Scenario 2 foresees a similar share of agri-environment scheme spending under the rural development budget
in the acceding countries as in the present EU-15 (ca 50 % of the total). Agri-environment scheme spending
would then be 650 million euro per year, covering about 6.5 million ha or approx. 16 % of total UAA in the
acceding countries.
The financial analysis above shows that the considerable share of rural development funding in the CAP
budgets allocated to the new Member States would permit a substantial expansion of agri-environment
programmes. However, further factors need to be considered in this context. Firstly, the administrative
resources and costs that the countries need to bear themselves for a large-scale implementation of agri-
environment schemes are likely to be considerable in comparison to current administrative spending. A
proper analysis of this question is important in assessing the potential for agri-environment schemes in these
countries. Secondly, agricultural policy makers and society in many ACC-10 countries do not currently show a
particular interest in agri-environment issues. This coincides with the low awareness among the farming
community of the nature and possibility of agri-environment schemes. Lastly, the importance of further
administrative capacity building and training to ensure successful implementation of this policy measure
should also not be underestimated. Thus, several obstacles need to be tackled for agri-environment schemes
become important and well-endowed policy instruments in most acceding countries. It should be
remembered, however, that agri-environment schemes in the EU also grew from a slow start to a now very
significant policy instrument in most countries.
Source: Petersen and Feehan, 2003.
Less favoured areas
Several acceding countries already have some
support measures for farms in 'Less Favoured
Areas' (LFAs), including hilly and
mountainous land. All will be able to apply
EU LFA payments following implementation
of the 'second pillar' of the CAP. This will
require identification of the relevant areas
and their agreement by the European
Commission, followed by the introduction of
a support scheme, payable on an area basis.
Negotiations over extent, location and
categories of LFAs are very advanced. In
Hungary, for example, originally more than 2
million ha of farmland were proposed as
LFAs, including about 140 000 ha semi-
natural habitats (see Figure 4.1 for an
indication of the likely future LFA area).
Studies in the EU have shown that a high
proportion of all high nature value farmland
is found within LFAs. Consequently, there is a

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 45
potentially positive role for supporting such
farming systems via LFA schemes, provided
that this does not lead to inappropriate
intensification. At this stage it seems quite
likely that about 25­60 % of the agricultural
area of CEE-10 countries could fall in the
LFA category. Since LFA payments are
relatively simple for farmers to apply for, and
for public agencies to administer, they can be
an effective mechanism for supporting
extensive farming systems and thereby
maintaining cultural landscapes and
biodiversity.
There is also scope for continuing to shift the
focus of the LFA support system such that it
takes on the characteristics of basic agri-
environment support schemes, with a
reduced emphasis on compensation for
disadvantageous agronomic conditions.
Within this framework new Member States
could vary payment levels depending on the
geographical conditions and require
compliance with appropriate stocking
densities. The area basis for payments to
livestock producers forms a more
appropriate foundation for the attachment
of relatively simple environmental conditions
than the previous headage based system.
However, there would remain a distinctive
role for agri-environment schemes providing
additional assistance for more tailored and
demanding management agreements.
Source: Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural
Development, Hungary.
Figure 4.1 Less favoured areas in Hungary
Semi-subsistence farm scheme
In its January issues paper (SEC (2002) 95
final), the Commission proposed an
additional measure under rural development
to help ease rural transition problems with a
so-called 'semi-subsistence farm scheme'. The
scheme allows the new Member States to
provide a 1 000 euro flat rate aid for small,
semi-subsistence farms, conditional on
submitting a business plan demonstrating the
future economic viability of the enterprise.
Although the aid proposed is very limited, it
could have a significant environmental
impact. The quest for improved viability
could lead to the adoption of more
commercial, modern practices, such as
switching from multipurpose to specialist
dairy cattle. This could lead to a loss of
environmental diversity on small farms and
accelerated merging of holdings with the
same consequences. On the other hand, it
could also allow more of the smaller holdings
to survive a period of restructuring than
otherwise would be possible, thus preserving
a smaller scale habitat mosaic and landscape
elements.
Some environmental conditions would be
appropriate in a scheme designed to trigger
modernisation and structural change, but no
details have been announced by the
Commission. Whether this scheme will
absorb a sizeable share of the 'second pillar'
budget, as appears possible given the large

46 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
number of such farms in some countries,
remains to be seen. If this occurs, it could
affect the support available for agri-
environment and other measures.
Raising standards measure and farm
advisory services
The accession agreements provide for a
support measure in the new Member States
that helps farmers to adapt to EU standards
in the fields of environment, public, animal
and plant health, animal welfare and
occupational safety. To receive this support
farmers have to submit a plan with relevant
measures and demonstrate the economic
viability of their holding. Support can be paid
for a period of up to five years, up to 200
euro per ha in the first year, declining in
equal steps to zero during the following
years. A similar measure has also been
introduced for the EU-15 under the mid-
term reform of the CAP. Such support for
environmental investment can be very
important for raising farm management
standards, in particular among farmers in the
ACC-10 who generally suffer from a lack of
capital. This positive impact could be limited
to medium to large-scale farms, however,
given the support conditions for the
measure.
The introduction of farm advisory systems
will be obligatory for Member States from
2007 onwards. This system will provide farm
audits to help farmers ensure that their
holding is complying with environment, food
safety and animal welfare standards.
Participation for farmers is voluntary but
encouraged through co-financing of the
audit costs as well as necessary investments
via the 'raising standards' and other
measures. This new rural development
measure could help to reverse the decline
farm advisory services that many ACC-10
countries have experienced in the last ten
years. Given its voluntary nature, however,
the positive impact of this scheme may be
limited to the more active and larger farmers.
Other important rural development
measures
There is further scope in other rural
development measures to enhance the
positive environmental impacts of the CAP
after accession (e.g. Baldock et al., 2001). In
particular, these include:
· increased use of farm investment aids to
promote restructuring of enterprises
towards more sustainable systems;
· use of training aids to provide farmers and
foresters with environmental management
knowledge and practical skills;
· use of aids under Article 33 (concerned
with rural development) to promote
investment in protection of the
environment as well as sustainable water
management and environmentally sensitive
re-parcelling (which could create
opportunities for habitat creation and the
restoration of landscape features);
· use of Article 33 aids or processing and
marketing aids as well as use of labelling
specifically to promote and increase the
viability of high quality regional products
produced to specified environmental
standards;
· employ Article 33f to promote integrated
rural development strategies in pilot
territories via the creation of local action
groups, similar to the LEADER approach.
In conclusion, the 'second pillar' measures
offer a means of addressing many of the key
environmental concerns identified in
Chapter 3. They will be particularly
important given the potential scale of change
likely to be triggered by implementation of
pillar 1 measures. It is essential that adequate
funding is available for these measures and
that priority is given to supporting acceding
countries who wish to take them forward but
may be inhibited by the administrative
complexity and resource requirements of
implementing EU rural development policy.
4.5. Consequences for the
environment
General observations
Model and expert forecasts show that the
implementation of the CAP in the acceding
countries will lead to a moderate increase in
agricultural production. This will become
manifest in an expansion of individual
sectors (in particular poultry, oilseeds and
possibly cereals), and coincide with a
modernisation and intensification of farm
management practices. The expanding
combined cereal and oilseed area will
probably displace some current crops, such
as feed potatoes for pig production. It may,
however, also absorb part of the presently
abandoned arable land as well as areas of
fertile soil that have been converted into

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 47
grass in response to low arable prices. It
could even lead to the ploughing up of some
permanent grasslands of high nature
conservation value, as has already occurred
in Hungary. Low input livestock systems,
responsible for creating and maintaining
these species-rich grassland habitats, will not
benefit sufficiently from the first pillar
proposals to expand from their present low
production levels.
The negative effects of these production
trends on the environment will only be
compensated to a certain degree by the
measures under the second pillar.
Nevertheless, implementation of the
reformed CAP will not lead back to the
production levels and intensity seen in the
CEE-10 countries at the end of the 1980s.
Thus, some environmentally beneficial
changes that occurred in CEE-10 agriculture
during the last ten years will be maintained.
In most areas extensive cattle and sheep
grazing systems will not recover, however, to
the detriment of valuable semi-natural
grassland habitats.
It should be born in mind that apart from the
environmental measures under the CAP the
EU relies on specific policy instruments for
ensuring environmental protection and
biodiversity conservation. Most relevant for
the agri-environment aspects are the nitrate
directive, the water framework directive as
well as the birds and habitats directives.
These cannot be dealt with in this report, but
provide additional legal safeguards for
maintaining environmental quality, inter alia
as legal baseline for cross-compliance
measures and agri-environment schemes.
Soil erosion
Section 3.1 has shown that there are
considerable soil erosion problems in central
and eastern Europe. The extent of soil
erosion on farmland depends partly on
natural factors, such as soil type and
character of the terrain, and partly on
agricultural management of the land. The
signalled conversion of grassland, multi-
annual fodder crops or long-term fallow to
arable cultivation will increase soil erosion
risk, in particular if this would occur on
erosion prone soils, such as on slopes. Arable
crops could expand to take up about 50 % of
the current land reserve. Most of this
increase will be on areas that are best suited
to crop production, i.e. not on steep slopes
or light sandy land. It is not possible to
predict how much erosion prone land may
be taken into cultivation again as baseline
data on the location of this land is not
available and the management decisions of
farmers at field or village level cannot be
derived from present models. The
anticipated rise in the area of maize and
oilseeds (sunflowers) could lead to increased
soil erosion depending on the precise
location of fields and the farm practices
employed.
As no increase in the numbers of grazing
livestock is expected, soil erosion due to
trampling on steep slopes or overgrazing
should be of local importance only.
Potential mitigating factors to prevent soil
erosion include the introduction of relevant
standards of good farming practice,
reinforced by use of cross-compliance as well
as appropriate farmer training and advice.
Agri-environment schemes can also help to
counter soil erosion, for example by
encouraging planting of shelter belts and
wind breaks. However, soil erosion on arable
land is likely to remain an environmental
concern that needs to be adequately
monitored and minimised via appropriate
farm management.
Water pollution
As shown in Chapter 3, water pollution from
agriculture is most strongly driven by
livestock densities and manure management.
Following the foreseen increase of
production levels in parts of the livestock
sector environmental pressure could rise
again. Since most additional production
capacity in the pig and poultry sectors is
likely to be established on new or
modernised production facilities manure
management is likely to be better than in the
past. Current manure management practices
on small and medium sized farms are often
also inadequate. The raising standards'
measure will have an important role to play
in improving manure management on these
and other farms. Relevant environmental
training and advice for farmers, enforcement
of cross-compliance and good farming
practice is necessary to minimise potential
concerns.
Some increase of water pollution problems as
a result of the predicted arable
intensification is to be expected, given the
low input levels prevalent in nearly all
accession countries. Pesticide drift into

48 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
watercourses due to inappropriate
application may occur, as well as nutrient and
sediment inflow to water bodies due to soil
erosion. Both problems can be reduced by
encouragement and enforcement of correct
farm management practices (see above).
Air pollution
As indicated in Chapter 3 air pollution
arising from agriculture in Europe has
diminished during the 1990s. In CEE-10 the
relatively low emission levels are the result of
the drop in agricultural intensity after the
political reforms. Particularly beneficial is the
fact that ammonia emissions have almost
halved, reducing eutrophication and
acidification considerably. Apart from
poultry and probably pigs the forecasts do
not predict an increase in livestock numbers.
In addition, targeted measures under the
second pillar to improve housing, manure
storage and application techniques can help
to reduce ammonia emissions. Overall, this
source of pollution will remain relatively
stable and may even decline if appropriate
management techniques are adopted. The
ammonia emission target for 2010 under the
CLRTAP Gothenburg protocol is therefore
likely to be reached.
Agriculture accounts for roughly 10 % of
greenhouse gas emissions. The big drop in
methane emissions in the 1990s is not likely
to be reversed. Cattle herds (combining the
beef and dairy sector) are not expected to
increase overall. Nitrous oxide emissions,
however, are likely to go up as arable
production intensifies and returns to higher
nitrogen fertiliser inputs. However, total
productivity will not reach pre-1990 levels
and will remain well below EU-15 level.
Overall, the long-term trend in greenhouse
gas emissions from agriculture does not give
cause for concern. Under the UN Kyoto
protocol, the EU has accepted an overall
reduction target of 8 % for greenhouse gases
in the period 1990­2012. The targets for
accession countries vary from 6 % (Hungary
and Poland) to 8 % (Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). Agriculture
will be able to make a significant
contribution to the necessary reductions, in
particular for methane.
Biodiversity
In productive regions agricultural
intensification is likely to take place,
associated with biodiversity decline as
previously seen in the EU. The less
productive regions are often characterised by
extensive farming systems that struggle for
survival. The persistence of low-density
grazing in these areas is very important for
the management of semi-natural grasslands
and pastoral systems. The strong decline of
both cattle and sheep numbers since 1990
has already led to widespread abandonment
of valuable grasslands throughout the region
(see Chapter 3). The CAP regime will allow
some increase in the livestock sector but will
not result in a significant recovery of low-
input grazing systems (particularly
concerning goats and sheep). CAP support
payments will at best help to maintain these
extensive systems at the present sub-optimal
level. Box 4.3 illustrates these issues in the
case of Estonia.
In addition to CAP measures, the birds and
habitats directives will be important for
safeguarding the agricultural areas of highest
biodiversity value.
Box 4.3: Livestock payments and grassland management in Estonia
Estonia still possesses considerable areas of biodiversity-rich semi-natural grasslands (Mägi and Lutsar, 2001).
Only 40 % of these are under management, the rest are losing their ecological quality due to land
abandonment. The same phenomenon affects 56 % of all permanent grassland in Estonia which gives an
abandoned area equivalent to 156 000 ha. The Copenhagen accession agreement provided Estonia with extra
milk quota and cattle headage payments for about 47 000 heads of cattle beyond current production levels.
If one makes the favourable assumption that these extra cattle would be spread over the country at a rate of
0.5 animals per hectare then about 94 000 ha of abandoned grassland can be taken under management again.
However, farmers would begin cattle grazing on the more productive fields, not on the low-yielding semi-
natural grasslands. Thus, grassland abandonment will remain a nature conservation problem in Estonia for the
foreseeable future in spite of a limited production increase and potential tools under the CAP, such as agri-
environment schemes. This has considerable implications for nature conservation strategy. Under CAP (and
also world market) conditions a return to grassland management on the basis of extensive cattle farming is
unlikely. Instead the most valuable grassland systems might have to be managed on the basis of large
herbivore communities (consisting of deer, free-ranging cattle and horses), as is already happening in the
Netherlands and elsewhere. The use of biomass for bio-energy generation could also become an alternative
option for the use of such grasslands.
Source: M. Mikk, pers. comm., November 2002.

Enlargement and its consequences for the agri-environment 49
4.6. Review
In summary, the CAP appears likely to have
differential impacts according to the sector
concerned, as well as the individual country.
The DG Agriculture predictions cast doubt
on the common assumption that there will be
an explosive increase in output in the
acceding countries following enlargement.
Some intensification will occur, particularly
in the most favoured production areas,
leading to growing environmental pressures
of the kind familiar in the EU. Overall,
however, agricultural intensity is likely to
remain considerably below the levels
experienced in the EU.
The current arable area will expand and
could increase by up to three million
hectares of cropland. However, some land is
very likely to remain abandoned, both in
arable areas and on formerly grazed land.
Livestock numbers will remain well below
levels of the late 1980s, resulting in under-
grazing in several areas but also reduced
pressure in some former hot spots such as
large-scale dairy farms. As in the EU, the
future of more traditional practices and
systems is open to question, as a result of
social and economic changes and the
expected decline of semi-subsistence
production.
The agriculture policy support envisaged
under the accession agreement and the CAP
2003 reform will be one of the factors that
speed up agricultural intensification after
enlargement. On the other hand, the same
de-coupled payments in support of farm
incomes are likely to slow down structural
change and maintain extensive farming
systems in more marginal agricultural areas.
Measures under both pillars one and two of
the CAP are potentially significant drivers of
land management in the new Member States.
The two pillars can be considered separately
but do interact to influence farm decision-
making. Their combined effect is important
from an environmental perspective. This
effect will be different depending on the
characteristics of the regions and farming
systems concerned.
Environmental instruments under both pillar
1 and pillar 2 of the CAP need to be used in
the right combination for ensuring an
appropriate environmental management of
agricultural land. However, the national
implementation of rural development
measures in particular will determine
whether agri-environmental instruments
under the CAP are employed successfully in
preserving the environmental values of
farmland in the new Member States. This
needs adequate administrative capacity for
using available CAP options for the benefit of
the environment in the future.

50 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
5. References
Agra Europe (2002a). Copenhagen summit
reaches historic deal on enlargement. Agra
Europe weekly, 20 December 2002.
Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Agra Europe (2002b). Special budget deal wins
Polish agreement. Agra Europe weekly, 20
December 2002. Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Aunins, A. & Priednieks, J. (in press, 2001).
Bird population changes in Latvian farmland
1995­2000: responses to different scenarios of
rural development. Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference of the EBCC,
Nyíregyhaza, Hungary.
Baldock, D., Dwyer, J., Lowe, P., Petersen, J-E.
& Ward, N. (2001). The Nature of Rural
Development: Towards a Sustainable Integrated
Rural Policy in Europe. Synthesis report. IEEP,
London. http://www.ieep.org.uk
Baldock, D & Tar, F. (2002). Potential
consequences of EU enlargement on agriculture
and environment in the accession countries.
Discussion paper. IEEP, London.
http://www.ieep.org.uk
Baris, Y. (1991). Conservation problems of steppic
avifauna in Turkey. In P.D. Goriup et al. The
conservation of lowland dry grassland birds
in Europe 91­96, Proceedings of an
international seminar, 20­22 March 1991.
Reading, UK.
Bennett, H. (2003). Good Farming Practice in
Central and Eastern European Countries.
Seminar report. IEEP, London.
http://www.ieep.org.uk
BirdLife International (2002). Important Bird
Areas in Europe. Birdlife International.
Brouwer, F., Baldock, D. & la Chapelle, C.
(2001). Agriculture and nature conservation in
the candidate countries: perspectives in interaction.
High-level Conference on Enlargement,
Wassenaar, 22­24 January, 2001.
Byfield, A. (1998). The important Plant Areas of
Turkey: A Progress Report. In: Synge, H. &
Akeroyd, J. (eds). Planta Europa,
Proceedings of the Second European
Conference on the Conservation of Wild
Plants, 9­14 June 1998, Uppsala, pp 66­71.
CEAS (2003). Unpublished report for the RSPB.
BirdLife UK. Sandy, UK.
CEC (1998). Agricultural situation and prospects
in the Central and Eastern European Countries.
Ten volumes. Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels.
CEC (2000). The environmental impacts of
irrigation in the European Union. A report to
the Environment Directorate of the
European Commission by the Institute for
European Environmental Policy, London in
association with the Polytechnical University
of Madrid and the University of Athens.
Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels.
CEC (2002a). Analysis of the Impact on
Agricultural Markets and Incomes of EU
Enlargement to the CEECs. Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/
publi/reports/ceecimpact/index_en.htm
CEC (2002b). Prospects for agricultural markets
in the Candidate Countries from Central and
Eastern Europe. In: 'Prospects for agricultural
markets 2002­2009'. Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels. http://
europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/
caprep/prospects2002/ch2.pdf
CEC (2002c). Agricultural situation in the
Candidate Countries.Country reports.
Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels. http://europa.eu.int/comm/
agriculture/external/enlarge/publi/
index_en.htm
CEC (2002d). Enlargement and Agriculture:
Successfully integrating the new Member States into
the CAP SEC (2002) 95 final. Commission of
the European Communities, Brussels.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/
publi/newsletter/42/42_en.pdf
CEC (2003). Reform of the Common Agricultural
Policy: A long-term perspective for sustainable
agriculture. Impact analysis. March 2003.
Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels. http://europa.eu.int/comm/
agriculture/publi/reports/reformimpact/
rep_en.pdf

References 51
Cierna, M. (2002). Agriculture and
Environment in Slovakia. National report.
IEEP, London. http://www.ieep.org.uk
Dwyer, J., Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Bennett,
H., Lowe, P. & Ward, N. (2002). Europe's Rural
Futures -- The Nature of Rural Development II.
Report for the land use Policy Group, UK,
and WWF Europe. IEEP, London. http://
www.ieep.org.uk
EEA (2002a). Environmental signals 2002 --
Benchmarking the Millennium. Environmental
assessment report No. 9. EEA, Copenhagen.
http://www.eea.eu.int/
EEA (2002b). Greenhouse gas emissions trends
and projections in Europe. Environmental issue
report No. 33. EEA, Copenhagen.
http://www.eea.eu.int/
EEA (2003). Europe's environment: the third
assessment. Environmental assessment report
No. 10. EEA, Copenhagen.
http://www.eea.eu.int/
EEA / UNEP (2000). Down to earth: Soil
degradation and sustainable development in
Europe. A challenge for the 21st
century.
European Environment Agency / UNEP
Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen /
Geneva.
EEA (2004, forthcoming). Fact sheet AP3a --
EEA31 NH3 emissions. Data sheet name: AC
ap3a-2003 NH3 13-11-03.xls.
http://www.eea.eu.int/
Eurostat (2003). New Cronos Database.
Eurostat, Luxembourg.
FAOSTAT (2000). Land and Water Digital
Media Series no. 10. Biodiversity. FAO, Rome.
FAOSTAT (2002). Database of the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization. FAO, Rome.
FAOSTAT (2003). Database of the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization. FAO, Rome.
Farmer ( 2002). Agriculture and Environment in
Cyprus. National report. IEEP, London.
http://www.ieep.org.uk
Fritzsch, J., Weingarten, P. & Hockmann, H.
(2003). Entwicklung des Agrarsektors in Mittel-
und Südosteuropa. IAMO, Halle.
Heath, M.F. & Evans, M.I. (eds.) (2000).
Important Bird Areas in Europe. Birdlife
Conservation Series No. 8. Birdlife
International, Cambridge.
IEEP (2002). Agriculture and environment in the
Accession Countries. National reports. IEEP,
London. http://www.ieep.org.uk
Jensen, P. (2003). Scenario analysis of
Consequence of Renewable Energy Policies for Land
Area Requirements for Biomass productionStudy
for DG JRC/IPTS. Internal discussion
document. Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels.
Konishev, P.P. et al.(1999). Soil Cover, Land Use
and Soil Degradation in Bulgaria. In: Bulgaria's
Biological Diversity: Conservation Status and
Needs Assessment, pp 631­639. Biodiversity
Support Program, Washington DC.
Latvian Environment Data Centre (2000).
Latvian State of the Environment Report 1998.
Riga. http://www.vdc.lv/soe/soe_mllnm/
texts/nature/ntr_intr.htm
Latvian Ornithological Society (1998). Report
on the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia). Riga.
http://www.lob.lv/uk/
Marangoni, L. (2003). Towards sustainable
agriculture: the role of CAP reform. Paper at the
conference on EU accession and agriculture
-- making CAP work for people and the
environment. Krakow, Poland.
http://www.foeeurope.org/events/krakow/
home.htm
Mägi, M. & Lutsar, L. (2001). Inventory of semi-
natural grasslands in Estonia, 1999­2001.
Estonian Fund for Nature and Royal Dutch
Society for Nature Conservation, 2001.
Mikk, M. (2002). Agriculture and Environment
in Estonia. National report. IEEP, London.
http://www.ieep.org.uk
Molnár, Zs. & Vajda, Z. (2000). Actual habitat
mapping of the Duna-Tisza köze. Kecskemét-
Vácrátót. Report for the Ministry of
Environment, Budapest.
OECD (2000). Environmental Performance
Review Turkey. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD),
Research Centre of the Environmental
Protection, Paris.
OECD (2001). Environmental Indicators for
Agriculture,Volume 3, Methods and Results.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

52 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
Development (OECD), Research Centre of
the Environmental Protection, Paris.
Pain, D.J. & Pienkowski, M. (1997). Farming
and Birds in Europe: The Common Agricultural
Policy and its Implications for Bird Conservation.
Academic Press Limited, London.
Petersen, J.-E. & Feehan, J. (2003). Agri-
environmental Programmes and the Accession
countries. In: Proceedings of the international
conference 'EU: CAP and Enlargement -- An
Opportunity for Nature and Environment?'
Ecologic, Berlin.
Pienkowski, M. & Jones, L. (eds.) (1998).
Managing High Nature Value Farmland: Policies,
processes and practices. European Forum on
Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, 1999.
Pouliquen, A. (2001). Competitiveness and farm
incomes in the CEEC agri-food sector (Implications
before and after accession for EU markets and
policies). Report to DG Agriculture, Brussels.
Prazan, J. (2002). Agriculture and Environment
in the Czech Republic. National report. IEEP,
London. http://www.ieep.org.uk
Redman, M. (2002). Agriculture and
Environment in Malta, Latvia and Lithuania.
National report. IEEP, London.
http://www.ieep.org.uk
©effer, J., Lasák, R., Galvánek, D. & Stanová,
V. (2002). Grasslands of Slovakia. Final report on
National Grassland Inventory 1998­2002.
Institute of Applied Ecology, Bratislava.
Stefanova, V. (2002). Agriculture and
Environment in Bulgaria. National report.
IEEP, London. http://www.ieep.org.uk
Statistical Office of Estonia (2001). Agriculture
2000. Tallinn.
Tucker, G.M. & Evans, M.I. (eds.) (1997).
Habitats for Birds in Europe. A conservation
Strategy for the wider Environment. Birdlife
Conservation Series No. 6. Birdlife
International, Cambridge.
Veen, P.H., Molnar, Z., Pärtel, M., & Nagy; S.
(2000). Linkages between agriculture, nature and
environment. Background report for
Wassenaar Conference on EU enlargement,
agriculture and environment.
Veen, P.H. & Seffer, J. (eds.) (1999).
Proceedings of the Workshop National Grassland
Inventory. NNV/Daphne, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Appendix A 53
6. Appendix A
6.1. Policy changes arising from the
CAP mid-term reform in 2003
During summer and autumn 2003 the CAP
mid-term reform introduced substantial
changes in the Agenda 2000 CAP
framework11
. The full range of the mid-term
reform decisions cannot be reviewed here
but a number of important changes that
appear particularly relevant from the
perspective of the acceding countries are
discussed below (see also Figure 4.1).
Single farm payment (SFP)
During the period 2005­2007 Member States
will introduce a single farm payment (SFP)
that combines previous arable aid payments
(cereals, oilseed and protein crops, set-aside,
dried fodder, rice, durum wheat etc.) and
current beef, sheep and goat premia.
The key feature of the single farm payment is
that it is not linked to specific areas of
individual arable crops or to numbers of
livestock on a given farm (although Member
States can retain such links for parts of the
present support payments). The SFP leaves
the farmer free to plant any crops and keep
any livestock that appear most suitable from
an economic and farm management
perspective. To receive the SFP the farmer is
only required to keep all land on the farm in
'good agricultural and environmental
condition' and observe specified
environmental legislation ('cross-
compliance', see below).
Under the accession agreement the acceding
countries already have the possibility to pay
direct income payments that their farmers
are entitled to in one payment per farm.
Most of the ACC-10 countries are currently
expected to choose this so-called 'simplified
scheme'. Thus, the introduction of the single
farm payment may not be a big change for
the acceding countries.
Member States can choose to skim off up to
10 % of all single farm payments for use in
targeted farm support measures under a
'national envelope'. Payments from this
envelope are restricted to encouraging
specific types of farming 'which are
important for the protection or
enhancement of the environment or for
improving the quality and marketing of
agricultural products'. This measure can in
principle be used to focus agricultural
support on farming systems or regions that
have a close link to special agricultural
landscapes or species and habitats. For
example, national envelope money could be
used for specific support payments to farms
that are based on extensive grassland systems
in coastal or mountain areas.
With regard to the SFP Member States can
use a clause on 'regionalised implementation'
for making flat rate payments per hectare on
either a national or regional basis. These flat
rate payments can be differentiated between
arable fields and grassland. This approach
can be used for supporting economically
marginal grassland systems, but could also
take a different focus.
Modulation
In the existing Member States modulation of
the SFP will provide additional money for
rural development measures. Modulation is
the system of retaining a certain percentage
of support (3 % in 2005, 5 % from 2007
onwards) from all farms that receive more
than 5 000 euro direct payments per year.
However, modulation will only apply in the
acceding countries once they have reached
the same level of direct payments as their EU-
15 counterparts, i.e. in 2013. No direct
impact of modulation in the ACC-10 is
therefore expected for the foreseeable
future.
Cross-compliance
Two important environmental measures of
the mid-term reform are to make the use of
cross-compliance obligatory for Member
States and the obligation on farmers to keep
all their land in 'good agricultural and
environmental condition'. Cross-compliance
stands for the principle of cutting or
completely withholding direct payments to
farmers if they do not comply with a total of
18 legal requirements in the areas of
environment, animal welfare, animal diseases
(11) Regulation 1782/2003 and Regulation 1783/2003, OJ L270, 21.10.2003.

54 Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries
and public health from (2005 to) 2007
onwards. The strength of this measure will
largely depend on the speed and depth of its
implementation by the new and old Member
States. However, the introduction of cross-
compliance is likely to remain voluntary for
the acceding countries until their CAP
payment system has been aligned with that of
the EU-15 countries (Marangoni, 2003).
The requirement for farmers to keep their
land in good agricultural and environmental
conditionbliges farmers to follow agricultural
practices that limit soil erosion, maintain
organic matter content and ensure a good
soil structure. Good environmental condition
has to be ensured by minimum livestock
stocking rates, protection of permanent
pastures, retention of landscape features and
avoiding the encroachment of unwanted
vegetation (such as invasive species or scrub).
Member States shall define relevant
agricultural and environmental standards.
However, this clause could potentially be
important for the maintenance of under-
managed or abandoned grasslands in the
ACC-10, at least in combination with flat-rate
area payments, and if cross-compliance is
introduced on a voluntary basis.
Market intervention
Two measures among the adjustments to the
market regimes have big potential impacts on
the acceding countries -- the abolition of rye
intervention and the introduction of an
energy crop payment. Rye is a particularly
important arable crop in Poland and the
Baltic States that is used as animal feed and
for bread making. The abolition of market
support for rye is likely to lead to a partial
substitution of rye by wheat and other
cereals.
The 2003 CAP reform has introduced a
payment of 45 euro per ha for energy crops
on a total of 1.5 million ha in the EU-15
where the farmer has a contract with a
processing plant. It is not yet clear how large
the entitlement area for energy crop
payments will be in the ACC-10, although the
support rate will be equivalent to that of
direct payments (starting at 25 % of EU-15
level in 2004). However, as several ACC-10
countries have a substantial biofuel
processing industry and economic yields are
generally lower in the acceding countries
than in the EU, the energy crop payment
could have considerable uptake in the
ACC-10 when introduced.
Rural development measures
The 2003 reform has introduced several
changes to the rural development measures
under the CAP. The measure that seems most
relevant to environmental farm management
in the ACC-10 is the introduction of a farm
advisory system, voluntary for Member States
until 2006, obligatory thereafter. This system
will provide farm audits to help farmers
ensure that their holding is complying with
environment, food safety and animal welfare
standards. Participation for farmers is
voluntary but encouraged through co-
financing of the audit costs as well as
necessary investments via new rural
development measures. Public farm advisory
services in many ACC-10 countries have been
strongly reduced during the last 10 years,
despite the need of farmers for professional
advice, particularly on environmental issues.
Thus, this new measure could have a very
positive impact in the
ACC-10 if implemented in a substantive way.
The mid-term reform also raised the
co-financing rate for agri-environment
schemes to 60 % (85 % in Objective 1 areas).
Nearly all regions in the ACC-10 will gain
Objective 1 status on accession. However, the
rural development co-financing rate agreed
at the Copenhagen European Council
already lies at 80 % for the new Member
States. It remains to be seen, therefore,
whether the
5 % advantage of agri-environment schemes
compared to other rural development
measures will have a significant impact on
their attractiveness for ACC-10 governments.
Lastly, new measures that are optional for
Member States have been introduced for
raising animal welfare standards as well as for
farm quality production and assurance
schemes. Their uptake will depend on
ACC-10 governments. In any case, these
measures are not expected to be important
for the environmental impact of agriculture.