Seite Comparison of „Agriculture Advisors‘ Competencies“ Austria Wolfgang Etzl Nitra

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 2 Introduction General Far-reaching parallels in some areas and significant differences in others Major difference –Austrian advisory structure has continuously further developed –Changes in the political system around 1990  Impact on agriculture  Impact on extension services Part I General advisory structures Part II Farm Advisory System - FAS (EU Regulation 1782/2003)

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 3 Political framework - joining the EU Political guidelines cost reduction privatisation The part of the extension service, when joining the EU Similar challenges for all countries Tasks of advisors  support farmers in coping with the new circumstances In Austria the advisors assumed a central role in adjusting the system of agricultural subsidies to the EU‘s stipulations Growing importance of the Chamber of Agriculture

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 4 Public or private Austria: Semi-public –financed: »Federal Government »Provincial Government »Compulsory membership fees of the farmers Other AAC partner countries Public Semi-public private  Privatisation  Reorganisation  Further development

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 5 Financial support by the state The financial support of the state takes a key role Advantages: Easier access for smaller agricultural enterprises The more financial support, the broader the advisory areas that covered Greater emphasis on advisory areas that would hardly be given any attention under a purely economically-oriented regime (environment,…) In many cases the state reduces his support more and more

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 6 The number of advisors The definitions of the tasks of agriculture advisors vary widely  hardly to compare How many advisory contacts? How much support a farmer may expect form the advisory service? In Austria: Approximately 600 official agriculture advisors About agricultural enterprises  one advisor for 316 enterprises

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 7 The education and further education In the partner countries there are mostly government-supportet institutes of education and further education The education in many cases determine the quality of advice offered Different forms of education: several-year technical training Actively integrated in advisory organisations from the beginning with several education and training sections (greater emphasis on practical work) Only the advisory organisation is recognised and no specific training for the advisors is necessary Austria: The education as agriculture advisor is combined with the agricultural teacher training The closer the advisory organisation is to the official or government-funded area, the more attention is given to standardised education, training and further education.

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 8 Advisory tools Tools are provided in all countries All states are noticeable more and more switching to electronic tools beginning from advisory CDs till to Internet platforms. There are materials available –to the advisors in order to facilitate their work with the farmers –to provide directly to the farmers

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 9 Farm Advisory System (FAS) EU Regulation 1782/2003 Has to be offered as of 2007 Austria: The Farm Advisory System is provided by the Chambers of Agriculture In the advice contract the Chambers of Agriculture were obliged to provide farmers with FAS free of charge. FAS is financed only form national funds – no financing via the Rural Development Programme 2007 to Focus on Cross Compliance, no other advisory matters Mainly individual advice and group advice at the advisory institutions only few advices directly at the agricultural enterprises

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 10 Farm Advisory System (FAS) EU Regulation 1782/2003 Since 2005, Austrian farmers have been intensively informed about Cross Compliance issues. On the basis of financing through Article 9 within the Rural Development Program The aim is to prevent violations of legal provisions of Cross Compliance through intensive consulting, thus being able to provide a maximum level of direct payments More than farmers has been at the training courses

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 11 Implementation of FAS - Comparison The guidelines form the EU for the implementation of FAS are sparsely In Austria the rules of FAS were carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Chambers of Agriculture With regard to financing, there are significant differences between the countries Basically, there are three varieties. –National financing, Rural Development, Parts nationally and parts via Rural Development –In Austria the Rural Development Programme 2007 – 2013 leaves no additional room for financing FAS, so the Chambers of Agriculture have to offer FAS within the existing advice contract

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 12 The accreditation of Advisory Organisations Many countries go back to existing advisory organisations In some cases, only one advisory institution is commissioned to provide FAS, other commission several parallel advisory organisations either public or private In Austria the Chamber of Agriculture is the only accredited advisory organisation, therefore this organisation has to guarantee, that all advisory areas relating to Cross Compliance are covered.

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 13 Contents and methods of FAS Contents: Austria only focuses on the contents of Cross Compliance Other issues continue to be covered within the framework of general advisory services an will not be part of FAS Some countries have a wider approach Methods: The choice of an advisory method will determine the costs per farmer to be informed about Cross Compliance It will also influence the effectiveness and efficiency of the advice Austria will inform the farmers via: »Internet »Brochures and Cross Compliance file with check-lists guiding the farmers through the complex matter »Group advice – thematically »Individual consulting at the farm

BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl Seite 14 Conclusion Approaches to agricultural advisory systems vary widely among the countries investigated Differing agricultural structures and different historical developments demand specific advisory solutions for each case. A comparison brings examples that have turned out to be successful in one country and may be an asset for the other countries. The individual state may benefit from intensive exchange of experience among the countries, in particular in terms of future advisory projects such as the Farm Advisory System