Needs on input use Guido Castellano, DG AGRI L2, Economic Analysis of EU Agriculture FSS working party meeting February 2010, Luxembourg

2 Background  The collection of information on the use of input at farm level represents a long lasting request from DG AGRI, dating back to time of the adoption of Regulation 1166/2008…  Since then, DG AGRI needs in this respect have been detailed at several occasions, in the context of different working parties (CPSA, specific working groups…)  DG AGRI current position takes into account the outcomes of recent meetings (WG on AEI Statistics – November 2009 – CPSA partnership group – February 2010) and contacts between different services, and  Intends to prepare the ground for the CPSA meetings of next May and November

3 Policy relevance  Analyses are carried out in DG AGRI for a number of key policy purposes: Assessment of CAP contribution to overarching Community priorities and integration with other policy Monitoring and evaluation of specific instruments Impact assessment of new policies/instruments Anticipation of future policy requirements and setting-up of new instruments arising from Council conclusions (e.g. provision of public goods, climate change); Follow-up of Council conclusion of December 2006 concerning agri-environmental indicators

4 Data on input use for analytical purposes  More in-depth information on input use could better support a number of policy-oriented analyses: Analysis of agricultural and farming practices per main types of farms Analysis of the relationship between farming practices and environmental conditions Analysis of the effects of rural development measures on different farming practices Development and improvement of agri-environmental indicators

5 Farming practices vs type of farms To assess the level of use of fertilizers according to: Size of farm: small/big- level of training Type of farming: specialised/mixed- organic farming production Age of the farm: young/old Data on input use at farm level linked Structural information at farm level (FSS): crops, labour force, machinery and equipment. Use of fertilizers per holding Agricultural methods at farm level (SAPM): soil conservation, tillage method, irrigation and water use, manure. To adapt and to design ad hoc and targeted policy instruments for type of farms

6 “Geo-referenced” data on input use at farm level Other agricultural methods Different scale of aggregation and comparability between farming practises and environmental conditions linked Natura 2000 designation, Nitrate vulnerable zones, water quality, less favoured areas, HNV, etc Farming practices vs environmental conditions How the use of inputs and fertilizers varies in different areas: LFA vs non-LFA; Mountain areas vs Areas with environmental restrictions; Area with extensive arable crops vs area with “intensive” arable crops; etc Driving forces (type of farms) and possible pressures in different areas

7 Rural development vs farming practices “Geo-referenced” data on input use at farm level Other agricultural method and farming practises (SAPM) To assess difference between agricultural practices according to the participation to RD measures and other schemes linked FSS: Beneficiaries of advisory services/level of training, payments in Natura 2000 area or linked to WFD, AE payments. Effectiveness of Rural development measures How use of inputs (fertilizers) changes according to AEP vs non AEP holdings, etc

8 AEI: HNV  AEI 23 - High nature value farmland: share of estimated HNFV area/total UAA  Current estimation: “land cover approach” mapping of the distribution of HNV farmland areas, drawing on CORINE land cover, trend in birds and butterfly populations, Natura 2000 data and some national data, including grassland survey  Improvement: Development of a “farming system approach”: HNV farmland identification based on the characteristics of HNV farming systems associated with biodiversity (e.g. low intensity use of land, chemical inputs, etc..); The availability of data on inputs use at farm level and on farm practice surveys could improve the model based on the “farming system approach”.

9 AEI: intensification/extensification  AEI 12 – Intensification/extensification: share UAA managed by low/medium/high intensity farms  Current estimation: estimation of "inputs volume“ from the fertilizers expenditures” and the “fertilizers price index” (FADN data).  Improvement: The collection of fertilizers use would allow the classification of farms directly from the amount of N, P, K used. To overcome the strong limitation of FADN data: no physical quantity, small sample and small farms are not covered: in 2006 FADN farms represented 43 % of the farm population in the Farm Structure Survey (EUROSTAT).

10 DG AGRI proposal  Mineral fertilisers: Use of mineral fertilisers (NPK) (Kg of net nutritients) per crop year, shared per main land use (Ha) (arable crops, permanent crops, grassland)  Manure application: DG AGRI supports ESTAT request on the use of manure (tonnes/m 3 ) shared per type of manure (solid manure, liquid manure, slurry), place of origin (produced on the holding, imported, exported) and main land use (arable crops, permanent crops, grassland)  To be integrated as additional characteristics in the FSS 2013

11 Future perspectives Two main issues for discussion… strictly interlinked: The level of details (number contents…) of the new characteristics to be surveyed, Related feasibility/complexity and additional costs DG AGRI position: Limiting the additional characteristics to minimum requirements (e.g. quantity of fertilisers per holding and per crop year) should not significantly increase the administrative burden/costs of the survey Additional budget may be needed in case of a higher level of detail (e.g. breakdown per main land use) The concrete possibilities of further increasing the global financial envelope of Regulation 1166/2008 (through co-decision) are currently under discussion Negative preliminary feedback from budgetary services; no definitive conclusions can be drawn at this stage