Questionnaire Survey of Rural Development Plan Funding for ...



[pic]

[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic]

Rural Development Programme Funding for Farm Animal Genetic Resources:

A Questionnaire Survey

Richard Small1 and Julian Hosking2

1 Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF

E-mail: r.w.small@ljmu.ac.uk

2 Natural England, Riverside Chambers, Castle Street, Taunton, Somerset TA1 4AP

E-mail: Julian.Hosking@.uk

Introduction

Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 enabled EU Member States to support rural development using funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Amongst other measures, Article 39 of the regulation allowed payments to farmers who entered voluntary agri-environment schemes (Appendix 1). Paragraph 5 of Article 39 specified: ‘Support may be provided for the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture for operations not covered by the provisions under paragraphs 1 to 4.’ The Annex to the Regulation set the rate of payment for support of ‘Local breeds in danger of being lost to farming’ at €200 per livestock unit, although a footnote stated that ‘These amounts may be increased in exceptional cases taking account of specific circumstances to be justified in the rural development programmes’ (Appendix 1).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 set out the detailed provisions for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. In relation to conservation of farm animal genetic resources, Article 27 stated that support may relate to the rearing of farm animals of ‘local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming’ (Appendix 2). Paragraph 3 of Article 28 set out the measures that could be supported; in summary, these included both in situ and ex situ actions for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture (details in Appendix 2).

Annex II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 indicated that a list of local breeds in danger of being lost to farming and the number of breeding females concerned must be certified by a duly recognised technical body or breeder’s organisation/association (Appendix 2). Annex IV set the numerical thresholds for breeds to be considered as in danger of being lost to farming and Annex V set the conversion rates for animals to livestock units (Appendix 2).

Support for the conservation of farm animal genetic resources varies between the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but generally the support has been linked to the delivery of biodiversity (i.e. habitat and landscape management) objectives of the agri-environment scheme operating in that country. In the U.K. conservation of farm animal genetic resources through EAFRD is thus indirect, with breeders or owners of breeds at risk not receiving support unless they are using their stock to contribute to habitat or landscape management. The study reported here sought to determine how farm animal genetic resources are supported in both EU member and non-member states, and in particular whether EAFRD funding is used for this purpose.

Methods

A covering letter (Appendix 3) and questionnaire (Appendix 4) were circulated to national co-ordinators of European countries (all EU and some non-EU) of the European Regional Focal Point for Animal Genetic Resources to seek information on the support given for farm animal genetic resources (FAnGR) through Rural Development Programme funding. The questionnaire asked whether any such scheme existed and, if so, what breeds were supported, how these were identified as in need of support measures, the rates of payments and how these were paid e.g. one-off grants or annual supplements and whether payments were made on a per head, per Livestock Unit or per hectare basis.

Results

Responses were obtained from 18 EU member states (counting the four countries of the U.K. separately), 1 candidate EU member state and 6 non-member states (Table 1). EU member states that have not yet responded are: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia.

Of the responding countries, 7 do not have RDP measures for the support of FAnGR (Table 1), although Wales does propose a measure under its planned Axis 2 agri-environment scheme Glastir.

Table 1. Countries responding to the Questionnaire; countries in italics do not support FAnGR through RDP measures.

|EU Member States |Candidate EU Member State |Non-EU Member States |

|Austria |Netherlands |Croatia |Iceland |

|Czech Republic |Poland | |Israel |

|Finland |Slovenia | |Montenegro |

|France |Spain | |Norway |

|Germany |Sweden | |Serbia |

|Greece |U.K. (England) | |Switzerland |

|Hungary |U.K. (Scotland) | | |

|Ireland |U.K. (Wales) | | |

|Latvia |U.K. (N. Ireland) | | |

Non-RDP funded support programmes

Norway pays a production supplement on cattle ‘worthy of preservation’ and there are regional supplements that can be paid on cattle and sheep, although these are not well used. Croatia has a national scheme for the support of 26 native breeds (including bees) with payments ranging up to 5000kn head-1 (£1=8kn) for a cow that has calved and 5500kn head-1 for selected males; there are almost 2500 agreements in Croatia, supporting >25,000 head. The Netherlands government provides funding for operation of a national gene-bank and provides project funding for the national rare breed society.

RDP funded support programmes

Of the 15 EU member states and 3 non-EU member states that had RDP funded schemes for the support of FAnGR all but two paid on a headage (11 schemes) or Livestock Unit (5 schemes) basis; Scotland and England were exceptional in linking the payment to agri-environment schemes and paying on a per hectare basis.

The number of breeds supported varied from 1 (N. Ireland: Irish Moiled, Iceland: Icelandic Goat) to 117 in Spain (Table 2).

The criteria for supported breeds varied markedly, but generally included some evaluation of endangerment and a requirement for the breeds to be native. Levels of endangerment and definitions of native varied. Two countries stated the use of estimates of effective population size, four referred to EU Regulation, one to FAO guidelines but 13 used other or unspecified means to identify breeds deserving support. Most countries had a national list of breeds, but Spain allowed each autonomous region to specify its own list, and breeds supported by devolved administrations in the U.K. also varied (Table 2).

Only a few countries appeared to include capital payments (England, Montenegro and Serbia) although this question was not clearly understood by several respondents. Payment criteria varied widely; some countries required membership of an approved breed society and/or an approved breeding plan.

Payment rates also varied markedly; some countries varied the rate depending on the breed and/or the level of endangerment, others had a standard rate e.g. Austria paid a fixed rate for all its most endangered breeds (€280 per cow, €55 per ewe or female goat, €150 for a sow; males attracted almost double the rate for females). However, less endangered Austrian breeds attracted a lower rate. Of the countries with more than a few breeds, Greece had perhaps the most simple, and relatively generous, scheme: payments (€ per LU) were cattle 335, sheep 221, pigs 219, goats 194, and horses 350. In Spain rates varied between autonomous regions. In Finland, payments for poultry varied with flock size.

Table 2. Number of breeds supported in European countries responding to the questionnaire.1

|Country |Number of Breeds |

| |Cattle |Sheep |Goats |Equines |Pigs |Poultry |Other |

|EU-Members | | | | | | | |

|Austria |9 |8 |7 |5 |2 |0 |0 |

|Finland |3 |3 |1 |1 |0 |1 |0 |

|France |18 |27 |5 |21 |6 |0 |0 |

|Germany |13 |18 |2 |10 |5 |3 |0 |

|Greece |2 |12 |1 |5 |1 |0 |1 (buffalo) |

|Hungary |2 |4 |1 |8 |3 |11 |1 (buffalo) |

|Ireland |3 |1 |0 |3 |0 |0 |0 |

|Latvia |2 |1 |1 |1 |1 |0 |0 |

|Poland |4 |13 |0 |7 |3 |0 |0 |

|Slovenia |1 |5 |3 |5 |3 |4 |0 |

|Spain |35 |32 |15 |21 |9 |5 |0 |

|Sweden |5 |11 |4 |0 |1 |0 |0 |

|U.K. England |26 |42 |2 |13 |0 |0 |0 |

|U.K. Scotland |8 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|U.K. N. Ireland |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

| | | | | | | | |

|EU-Candidate | | | | | | | |

|Croatia |3 |9 |2 |7 |2 |2 |1 (bees) |

| | | | | | | | |

|Non-EU | | | | | | | |

|Iceland |0 |0 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|Montenegro |1 |3 |1 |1 |0 |0 |0 |

|Serbia |2 |7 |1 |3 |3 |3 |1 (buffalo) |

1 Switzerland supports cattle, sheep, goats, equines and bees but breeds were not specified.

Ireland and Slovenia had national schemes operating under the de minimis regulations. For example, in Ireland a grant of €76.12 for each Kerry calf registered in the herd book is paid to breeders; to qualify breeders must have >5 breeding Kerry cows bred pure, and payments for the previous two years are taken into account to avoid breaking the de minimis rules.

As noted above The Netherlands provided project funding for its rare breed conservation organisation. Sweden made funds available to breed societies, which allowed some support for equines and poultry which were not directly eligible for support under the Swedish system. Switzerland funded individual, approved breed societies provided the society had an agreed breed support programme; breed societies paid individual breeders for each animal participating in the breed support programme. The total funding made available was 1 million Swiss francs (>£500,000) p.a. The Czech Republic’s national (non-EU funded) scheme could be used to support breeders’ clubs and associations, educational and awareness-raising activities (e.g. city farms) and genebank operation.

Conclusions

Many European countries use the national allocation from the EU Rural Development Programme to support conservation of FAnGR within their jurisdiction. Of the responding EU-member states, only three (including Wales) do not have any RDP scheme for FAnGR. Conversely, three non-EU member states do have RDP funded schemes under reciprocal arrangements with the EU. However, 12 EU-member states have not yet responded. Some member states, e.g. Italy, have individual Rural Development Plans for their regions which makes completion of the questionnaire more complex.

The U.K. is unique in linking support for FAnGR conservation to agri-environment schemes. Other countries pay breeders of breeds at risk, but the breeders may have to fulfil criteria such as being a member of the relevant breed society and/or participating in approved breeding programmes. Some countries fund breed societies or rare breed conservation organisations, again linked to approved breeding programmes.

The range of criteria used to determine eligible breeds defies summary beyond a general requirement for the breed to be native and possibly endangered, but as definitions of both criteria varied markedly this is not very helpful. Equally difficult to summarise are the payment criteria and payment rates.

A longer report, which will attempt to distil the detail of breed support criteria, payment criteria and payment rates, will be prepared. However, its value would be enhanced by obtaining responses from at least the outstanding 12 EU-member states.

Appendix 1: Article 39 and Annex of Article 39(4) Council Regulation 1698/2005

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1698/2005

of 20 September 2005

on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

Article 39

Agri-environment payments

1. Member States shall make available support provided for in Article 36(a)(iv) throughout their territories, in accordance with their specific needs.

2. Agri-environment payments shall be granted to farmers who make on a voluntary basis agri-environmental commitments. Where duly justified to achieve environmental objectives, agri-environment payments may be granted to other land managers.

3. Agri-environment payments cover only those commitments going beyond the relevant mandatory standards established pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of and Annexes III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as well as minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use and other relevant mandatory requirements established by national legislation and identified in the programme.

These commitments shall be undertaken as a general rule for a period between five and seven years. Where necessary and justified, a longer period shall be determined according to the procedure referred to in Article 90(2) for particular types of commitments.

4. The payments shall be granted annually and shall cover additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitment made. Where necessary, they may cover also transaction cost. Where appropriate, the beneficiaries may be selected on the basis of calls for tender, applying criteria of economic and environmental efficiency.

Support shall be limited to the maximum amount laid down in the Annex.

5. Support may be provided for the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture for operations not covered by the provisions under paragraphs 1 to 4.

Extract of Annex: Amounts and rates of support

|Article |Subject |Amount in EUR or rate | |

| |Annual Crops |600 (****) |Per hectare |

| |Specialised Perennial Crops |900 (****) |Per hectare |

|39(4) |Other land uses |450 (****) |Per hectare |

| |Local breeds in danger of being lost to farming |200 (****) |Per livestock unit |

(****) These amounts may be increased in exceptional cases taking account of specific circumstances to be justified in the rural development programmes.

Appendix 2: Articles 27 and 28 and Annexes II, IV and V of Commission Regulation 1974/2006

Article 27

1. For the purpose of Article 39(1) to (4) and Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, paragraphs 2 to 13 of this Article shall apply as relevant.

2. Any commitment to extensify livestock farming or manage livestock farming differently shall comply with at least the following conditions:

a) grassland management shall continue;

b) the whole of the grazed area per livestock unit shall be maintained, avoiding both over-grazing and under-utilisation;

c) livestock density shall be defined taking into account all grazing livestock kept on the farm or, in the case of a commitment to limit nutrient leaching, all animals kept on the farm which are relevant to the commitment in question.

3. Commitments to limit the use of fertilisers, plant protection products or other inputs shall be accepted only if such limitations can be assessed in a way that provides reasonable assurance about compliance with those commitments.

4. Support may relate to the following commitments:

a) to rear farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming;

b) to preserve plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion.

The eligible species of farm animals and the criteria for determining the threshold of loss to farming of local breeds are defined in Annex IV.

5. Agri-environment and/or animal welfare support for the same production shall not be precluded by environmental measures implemented under common market organisations or direct support schemes listed in Annex I, animal and plant health measures or rural development measures other than agrienvironment and animal welfare support, provided that such support is additional and consistent with the measures concerned.

Various agri-environment and/or animal welfare commitments may be combined provided that they are complementary and compatible.

Where measures or commitments referred to in the first and second subparagraph are combined, the level of support shall take account of the specific income foregone and additional costs resulting from the combination.

6. Agri-environment measures on land set aside under Article 54 or Article 107 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 shall qualify for support only if the agri-environment

commitments go beyond the main requirements laid down in Article 3(1) of that Regulation.

In the case of support for mountain areas, areas with other handicaps, Natura 2000 agricultural areas and agricultural areas included in river basin management plans pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (13), agri-environment commitments shall, as appropriate, take account of the conditions laid down for support in the areas concerned.

7. Any animal welfare commitment as referred to in Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 shall provide upgraded standards in at least one of the following areas:

a) water and feed closer to their natural needs;

b) housing conditions, such as space allowances, bedding, natural light;

c) outdoor access;

d) absence of systematic mutilations, isolation or permanent tethering;

e) prevention of pathologies mainly determined by farming practices or/and keeping conditions.

8. The reference level for calculating income foregone and additional costs resulting from the commitments given shall be the relevant standards and requirements referred to in Article 39(3) and Article 40(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

9. Where commitments are normally expressed in units other than those used in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Member States may calculate payments on the basis of those other units. In such cases, the Member States shall ensure that the maximum amounts per year eligible for Community support set out in that Annex are complied with. To this end the Member State may:

a) set a limit on the number of units per hectare of the farm to which the agri-environment commitments applies, or

b) determine the overall maximum amount for each participating farm and ensure that the payments for each farm are compatible with that limit.

10. Member States shall determine the need to provide compensation for transaction cost as provided for in Article 39(4) and Article 40(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on the basis of objective criteria.

For the purpose of Article 39(4) and Article 40(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, ‘transaction cost’ shall mean cost related to letting the transaction take place and not directly attributable to the implementation cost of the commitment it relates to.

The transaction cost element shall be calculated over the length of the commitment period and shall not exceed 20 % of the income foregone and additional costs due to the commitment given.

11. Member States may authorise one commitment to be converted into another during the period of its operation, provided that all the following conditions are fulfilled:

a) any such conversion is of significant benefit to the environment or to animal welfare or to both;

b) the existing commitment is substantially reinforced;

c) the approved rural development programme includes the commitments concerned.

An agri-environment commitment may be converted into a commitment for first afforestation of agricultural land under Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 subject to the conditions set out in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph. The agri-environment commitment shall cease without reimbursement being required.

12. Member States may allow agri-environment or animal welfare commitments to be adjusted during the period for which they apply, provided that the approved rural development programme includes scope for such adjustment and that the adjustment is duly justified having regard to the objectives of the commitment.

Such adjustments may also take the form of an extension of the duration of the commitment.

13. The conversion rates of animals to livestock units (LU) are set out in Annex V. Member States may differentiate those rates within the limits set in that Annex for the relevant categories, according to objective criteria.

Article 28

1. Support under Article 39(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 may cover operations carried out by other beneficiaries than those referred to in Article 39(2) of that Regulation.

2. Activities entering in agri-environmental commitments referred to in Article 27(4) of this Regulation shall not be eligible for support under Article 39(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

No support shall be granted under Article 39(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 for activities eligible under the framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities.

3. The operations for the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture eligible for support under Article 39(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 shall include the following:

a) targeted actions: actions promoting the ex situ and in situ conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, including web-based inventories of genetic resources currently conserved in situ, including in situ/on-farm conservation, and of ex situ collections (gene banks) and databases;

b) concerted actions: actions promoting the exchange of information for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in Community agriculture, among competent organisations in the Member States;

c) accompanying actions: information, dissemination and advisory actions involving non-governmental organisations and other relevant stakeholders, training courses and the preparation of technical reports.

4. For the purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply:

a) ‘in situ conservation’ means the conservation of genetic material in ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable population of species or feral breeds in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated animal breeds or cultivated plant species, in the farmed environment where they have developed their distinctive properties;

b) ‘in situ/on-farm conservation’ means in situ conservation and development at farm level;

c) ‘ex situ conservation’ means the conservation of genetic material for agriculture outside their natural habitat;

d) ‘ex situ collection’ means a collection of genetic material for agriculture maintained outside their natural habitat.

Extract of Annex II: A. CONTENT OF A RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (ARTICLE 5)

5.3.2. Axis 2: Improving the environment and the countryside

5.3.2.1 Measures targeting the sustainable use of agricultural land

5.3.2.1.4 Agri-environment payments

— description and justification of the different types of commitments, based on their expected environmental impact in relation to environmental needs and priorities,

— the description of the methodology and of the agronomic assumptions and parameters (including the description of the baseline requirements as stated in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 which are relevant for each particular type of commitment) used as reference point for the calculations justifying: (a) additional costs, (b) income foregone resulting from the commitment made and (c) level of the transaction costs; where relevant, this methodology shall take into account aid granted under Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003; where appropriate, the conversion method used for other units in accordance with Article 27(9) of this Regulation,

— amounts of support,

— the measures, objectives and criteria applied in case of the selection of beneficiaries by calls for tender in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005,

— the list of local breeds in danger of being lost to farming and the number of breeding females concerned. That number must be certified by a duly recognised technical body — or breeder’s organisation/association — which must register and keep up-to-date the herd or flock book for the breed. Evidence that the body concerned possesses the necessary skills and knowledge to identify animals of the breeds in danger,

— for plant genetic resources under threat of genetic erosion, evidence of genetic erosion based upon scientific results and indicators for the occurrence of landraces/ primitive (local) varieties, their population diversity and the prevailing agricultural practices at local level,

— for conservation of genetic resources in agriculture (Article 39(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005): types of beneficiaries, of operations and details on eligible costs.

Annex IV: THRESHOLDS FOR ENDANGERED BREEDS (REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 27(4))

|Eligible farm animal species |Thresholds under which a local breed is considered as being in danger of being lost to farming |

| |(number of breeding females (*)) |

|Cattle |7 500 |

|Sheep |10 000 |

|Goat |10 000 |

|Equidae |5 000 |

|Pigs |15 000 |

|Avian |25 000 |

(*) Number, calculated for all Member States, of breeding females of the same breed available for pure-bred reproduction registered in a herd book kept by an approved breeding organisation recognised by the Member State in accordance with Community zootechnical legislation.

Annex V: TABLE OF CONVERSION OF ANIMALS TO LIVESTOCK UNITS (REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 27(13))

|Bulls, cows and other bovine animals over two years, |1,0 LU |

|equine animals over six months | |

|Bovine animals from six months to two years |0,6 LU |

|Bovine animals below six months |0,4 LU |

|Sheep |0,15 LU |

|Goats |0,15 LU |

|Breeding sows > 50 Kg |0,5 LU |

|Other pigs |0,3 LU |

|Laying hens |0,014 LU |

|Other poultry |0,003 LU |

Appendix 3: Covering Letter to Survey Questionnaire

[pic]

Area 5A, 9 Millbank

c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square

LONDON SW1P 3JR

Telephone 020 7238 6487 Extn 6487

Website .uk

Email caithriona.porter@defra..uk

23rd June 2009

Dear National Coordinator

The UK National Standing Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources is conducting a survey on conservation measures being undertaken by Member States and their Devolved Administrations. This survey aims to find out which Farm Animal Genetic Resources conservation measures are being used under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

I would be most grateful if you would fill out the attached questionnaire and return to caithriona.porter@defra..uk by Friday 17th of July.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries.

Yours sincerely

Caithriona Porter

Secretariat

UK National Standing Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources

Appendix 4: Survey Questionnaire

SUPPORT FOR FARM ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES (FAnGR)

A SURVEY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES BEING UNDERTAKEN BY MEMBER STATES AND DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATIONS

The aim of this survey is to ascertain which FAnGR conservation measures are being used under EU Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, especially Article 39 of that Regulation, and further referring to Article 27 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1974/2006

1. Are any such measures present, or proposed to be included, in the European Commission (EC)-approved Rural Development Plan (RDP) for the Member State/Devolved Administration?

YES or NO (‘NO’ includes ‘none proposed’). If YES, please go to Question 2 below.

| |

| |

Yes No

2. Are the FAnGR conservation measures present and/or proposed in the current RDP or during the RDP period to 2013

(a) Present only; OR

(b) Proposed only; OR

(c) Some measures present and some proposed?

|Please insert (a) or (b) or (c) |

| |

| |

| |

| |

3(i). Which farm animal livestock species, and which named breeds within each species of livestock, are:

(a) Eligible for support; and

(b) Actually being supported; and

|Please insert or attach a list of eligible species and relevant breeds. |

|Please underline or mark in some other way those named breeds that are actually being supported |

| |

| |

| |

3(ii). What list of breeds is used for this purpose? Please can you explain its origin, and what criteria were used in compiling the list, in the box below.

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

4(a) Do the present measures include:

(i) Annual support payments only; OR

(ii) Annual support payments and capital works investment aid; OR

(iii) Capital works investment aid only?

|Please insert (i) or (ii) or (iii) |

| |

| |

4(b) Are the proposed measures likely to include:

(i). Annual support payments only; OR

(ii). Annual support payments and capital works investment aid; OR

(iii). Capital works investment aid only?

|Please insert (i) or (ii) or (iii) |

| |

| |

5. Annual support payments:

a) Are these paid per head, per Livestock Unit*, or per hectare, or some combination of these units? Please specify type of annual support payment mechanism(s) approved in the RDP.

[* Livestock Units should be as defined in EU Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006; For example, in Article 27 and Annex V of this Regulation.]

|Please explain how payments are made or attach a list |

| |

| |

| |

(b) What are the rates of EC-approved annual payment (please specify £ or € or other Member State currency)? Please specify the monetary sums and units upon which it is paid (For example, per head, per Livestock Unit*, per hectare, etc.).

[* Livestock Units should be as defined in EU Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006; For example, in Article 27 and Annex V of this Regulation.]

|Please provide information on rates of payment if not specified above or provide a list |

| |

| |

| |

| |

6. Capital works investment aid: Please provide the EC-approved rates (please specify £ or € or other Member State currency) paid per relevant (to the conservation of FAnGR) capital works investment aid item.

|Please explain information or attach a list |

| |

| |

| |

| |

7. What other measures are being deployed in support of the conservation of FAnGR? (E.g. under EU Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1535/2007 in respect of agricultural production de minimis aid).

|Please explain information or attach a list |

| |

| |

JBH

190609

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download