Procedure : 2013/2096(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0029/2014

Texts tabled :

A7-0029/2014

Debates :

PV 03/02/2014 - 21
CRE 03/02/2014 - 21

Votes :

PV 04/02/2014 - 8.5

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2014)0066

REPORT     
PDF 213kWORD 173k
15 January 2014
PE 514.769v02-00 A7-0029/2014

on the future of small agricultural holdings

(2013/2096(INI))

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Rapporteur: Czesław Adam Siekierski

AMENDMENTS
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the future of small agricultural holdings

(2013/2096(INI))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the objectives of the common agricultural policy as laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the objectives of increasing ‘agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour’, and ensuring ‘a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture’,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009(1), and in particular Articles 32 and 61 thereof on redistributive payments and the small farmers scheme respectively,

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005(2), and in particular Articles 7 and 19 thereof on thematic sub-programmes and farm and business development respectively,

   having regard to the Commission communication of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ (COM(2011)0244),

–   having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2010 on ‘fair revenues for farmers: a better functioning food supply chain in Europe’(3),

–   having regard to the 2013 study entitled ‘Semi-subsistence farming: value and directions for development’ by Parliament’s Policy Department B (Structural and Cohesion Policies),

–   having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0029/2014),

A. whereas small agricultural holdings in Europe are subject to sustained demographic, commercial and technological pressure, which is leading to the gradual de-agrarianisation and depopulation of villages in areas in which such holdings predominate, with small livestock holdings being abandoned en masse and specific local crops no longer being grown;

B.  whereas these smallholdings represent a model of social agriculture which is still predominant in the EU and which can and must coexist with other, more large-scale and market-oriented models of agriculture;

C. whereas the roles played by small agricultural holdings are not just production-related, in that such holdings also play key roles in the delivery of public goods; whereas these include roles relating to nature and the countryside (helping maintain both the characteristic features of Europe’s countryside and biodiversity in rural areas), social roles (providing a livelihood for millions of people in Europe, preventing poverty and constituting a workforce reserve for industry and other sectors of the economy, such as tourism), and cultural roles (preserving fine traditions, customs and other non-material heritage and manufacturing regional and traditional products);

D. whereas small agricultural holdings create favourable conditions for carrying out agricultural activities that are environmentally friendly and good for animal welfare;

E.  whereas depopulation and the rural exodus are highly detrimental to living conditions in rural communities – and therefore to the quality of life and working conditions of farmers – and are frequently a determining factor in decisions to retain or abandon small agricultural holdings; whereas the creation of sustainable prospects, in particular for young people, in rural areas is of vital importance to the future of small agricultural holdings;

F.  whereas in some areas the presence and survival of small agricultural holdings guarantees a source of income and limits depopulation;

G. whereas market price volatility is often made worse by intermediate buyers dictating prices, taking advantage of producer vulnerability;

H. whereas small agricultural holdings tend to be more flexible and adapt more easily to market crises;

I.   whereas many small agricultural holdings are specialised and come together to form producer organisations, thereby allowing them a rightful claim to produce for the food market on an equal footing as larger holdings;

J.   whereas a broader approach is needed to address the problems of small agricultural holdings; whereas support for possible alternative incomes and the prospect of diversification, as well as the creation of non-agricultural jobs and the provision of public services in rural areas are vital for the future of small agricultural holdings and rural communities;

K. whereas small agricultural holdings are not given sufficient consideration under the common agricultural policy (CAP), and whereas the reasons for this include the fact that the structure of CAP support is principally based on surface area and past production levels, and is therefore unable to respond suitably to the situation and function of small agricultural holdings, the fact that some Member States place minimum funding thresholds in the second pillar and the Member States’ failure to bring in implementing measures that meet the needs of this type of holding;

L.  whereas it is difficult for smallholders to secure financial support given that they may, for example, have problems in accessing EU programme funding due to their inability to meet the capital and/or capacity requirements for eligibility, or the fact that they have a low or non-existent level of creditworthiness;

M. whereas smallholdings in the outermost regions should also receive particular attention given the dual constraints under which they operate;

N. whereas supplementary and ancillary earnings are of great importance for many small agricultural holdings;

O. whereas some types of smallholdings, such as subsistence farms, are acting as a buffer against absolute deprivation, providing at least meagre levels of food and income;

P.  whereas in certain cases smallholders do not receive enough administrative support or good quality advice; whereas Member States often create unnecessary red tape’ and certain smallholders not having the necessary resources and experience to follow the relevant administrative processes effectively;

Q. whereas because they are dispersed geographically, the bargaining power of agricultural holdings in the food chain is far weaker than that of other participants in the market, and whereas this is particularly acute in the case of small agricultural holdings;

R.  whereas small agricultural holdings play a special role in maintaining the vitality of certain areas, such as mountain areas, less-favoured areas and outlying regions, not to mention those in which, owing to geographical and morphological constraints, farming is one of the few – if not the only – economically sustainable activities;

S.  whereas the level of income and the living standards of families who make their living by working on small agricultural holdings are much lower than those of commercial farmers or farmers employed in other sectors of the economy;

T.  whereas many smaller agricultural holdings cannot survive on farming alone, with alternative sources of income being necessary to keep them afloat; whereas, at the same time, these smallholders should focus increasingly on the profitability and productivity of their operations;

U. whereas small agricultural holdings provide, in many regions, a livelihood to families who do not have the opportunity to find other sources of income;

V. whereas there are not enough reliable data available on the situation with regard to small agricultural holdings and the impact of CAP instruments on the sector, and the definition of small farms varies substantially from one Member State to another;

W. whereas certain smaller agricultural producers, such as beekeepers, do not possess or make use of land and are thus excluded from the small farmers scheme;

X. whereas the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2014 the International Year of Family Farming;

1.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to take appropriate action under the new common agricultural policy and draw up guidelines for the period beyond 2020 in which greater attention is paid to the specific needs of small family holdings, which are an important element of the European agricultural model and which are central to the multi-functional development of rural areas and to sustainable regional development in general;

2.  Calls for a policy of supporting the consolidation of agricultural land and of granting payments to farmers participating in the small farmers scheme who have definitively transferred their land to another farmer, to be continued as an effective means of improving the production structure of agriculture;

3.  Takes the view that simply reducing the number of small agricultural holdings should not be the main objective of restructuring, as this will not boost the competitiveness of larger holdings; calls, in this connection, on the Member States to come up with appropriate solutions and development models for smallholdings, taking account of the specific characteristics of farming in the country that are concerned and of regional variations, to boost the competitiveness, viability and profitability of smallholdings, to foster entrepreneurship, to create jobs and to curb rural depopulation;

4.  Takes the view that the process of rural exodus and depopulation must be countered without delay in order to ensure suitable conditions and sustainable prospects for smallholdings in their current locations; calls on the Member States, to deploy efficiently available EU funding to promote infrastructure, educational, medical and nursing facilities, childcare, access to high-speed internet and the establishment and development of rural small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), so as to ensure equivalent living conditions in urban and rural areas; recommends that efforts be focused on the creation of sustainable future prospects for young people, the well educated and women;

5.  Calls for an increase in direct sales – such as sales of traditional products – on local and regional markets, and for the development on smallholdings of a sustainable, responsible form of processing and an essential and proportionate monitoring system; encourages the Commission and Member States to review the existing provisions on food safety with a view to reducing burdens and eliminating the obstacles that they may cause for the development of food processing and sales by small agricultural holdings; encourages the Commission and the Member States to establish a platform for the exchange of best practices on how to regulate and monitor the processing carried out by small agricultural holdings; calls, furthermore, on regional authorities to be more active with regard to the development of infrastructure for direct sales, including rural and urban marketplaces, making it easier for consumers to acquire cheap, healthy, high-quality farm produce;

6.  Takes the view that in the process of solving the problems of small agricultural holdings, other EU policies, including the cohesion policy, must be brought in alongside the CAP to help improve technical infrastructure and access to public services in rural areas, whilst resources from the European Social Fund should be used to finance community and social action involving social inclusion, education, training and the transfer of knowledge; takes the view, furthermore, that since these smallholdings do not have a significant impact on the market, permission could be given for additional support to be provided from national resources in line with rules agreed upon with the Commission and without hindering competition;

7.  Draws attention to the upward pressure on farmland prices resulting from the forthcoming property market deregulation in the new Member States; points out that small-scale farmers will be the hardest hit by rising land prices;

8.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that their education systems include appropriate infrastructure for vocational education and training in agriculture;

9.  Draws attention to the upward pressure on farmland prices resulting from urban expansion;

10. Is very pleased that the support scheme for small-scale farmers has been established under the first pillar of the CAP, but takes the view, nevertheless, that it is only the form of transfer which has been simplified, whilst the low direct-payment rates allow no room for development, and that these measures are still insufficient to improve the situation of smallholdings in the EU; believes that a mechanism should be established which would enable small agricultural holdings to submit multiannual applications for direct payments, with such applications being updated only in the event where changes to the holding in question occur;

11. Draws attention, once again, to the major disparities between farm subsidies in the various Member States, which are to the disadvantage of the new Member States;

12. Emphasises that, given the voluntary nature of the small farmers scheme within the first pillar of the CAP, it is essential that all possible opportunities to support small producers within the second pillar be reviewed and utilised;

13. Considers it essential, further to such measures, to find an effective means of supporting those small agricultural producers whose activity and output do not entail the ownership and/or use of agricultural land;

14. Calls on the Member States to establish appropriate financial instruments, for example in the shape of microcredit, subsidised interest rates on loans, financial leasing, first instalment repayments or credit guarantees; takes the view, furthermore, that regional and local authorities should be involved in the process of providing such support;

15. Stresses that even smallholdings are bound by the dictates of good agricultural practice and by European and national production and consumer protection requirements in particular, making it necessary for smallholders to possess minimum qualifications; calls, in this connection, on the Commission and the Member States to consider ways of ensuring that such qualifications can be generally acquired and adapted to the needs of smallholdings;

16. Calls for free advice to be better tailored to the needs of smallholdings, for procedures relating to information, training, risk assessment and health surveillance to be simplified, for information campaigns to be mounted, for the sharing of best practices where the short food supply chain is concerned and for technical assistance to be provided to help those applying for EU funding, as well as for advice that helps smallholdings to adapt the profile of their production activity to their production and environmental potential;

17. Emphasises the need for smallholdings to come together to form organisations, producers’ groups or cooperatives and mount joint marketing campaigns; takes the view that all types of smallholder association in the form of cooperatives, producer organisations or the pooling of resources, including machinery, should receive special support under EU and national mechanisms;

18. Takes the view that smallholdings in mountain areas, less-favoured areas and outlying regions should be able to benefit from coupled support, such as for livestock farming, where they also fulfil specific environmental functions;

19. Considers agricultural activities to be of unprecedented strategic importance, a fact that should be taken into account accordingly by all Member States in seeking ways of enabling small farmers to continue their activities, so as to strike a balance between agricultural prices and production costs;

20. Calls for the Member States to include, in their pillar I and II programmes, sub-programmes and measures geared towards smallholdings; indicates that smallholdings in particular need to engage in supplementary and ancillary activities, such as in the tourism sector, in order to secure a sufficient income; stresses, in this connection, the importance of ensuring that the second pillar of the CAP has ample resources and that rural development programmes are properly geared towards the needs of smallholdings;

21. Recommends that the scope of the Farm Accountancy Data Network be extended in order to look into the situation of smallholdings and the impact that the CAP has on them, and to plan their development;

22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1)

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 608.

(2)

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487.

(3)

OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 22.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Small agricultural holdings form an integral part of Europe’s countryside, providing many public goods, by helping to preserve the diversity of the landscape, providing a livelihood for millions of people, mainly in the so-called new Member States, and nurturing various centuries-old folk traditions and customs in the countryside. Many families are involved in running such small farms, often over many generations. Despite this, the CAP continues to favour large farms that meet market conditions and secure advantages solely by virtue of their size.

Small agricultural holdings are characterised by lower efficiency, a larger number of employees and diversity of production. Their owners are mostly older people who are less educated than agro-industrial farmers and have trouble in finding successors to take over their farms. Often the future of small farms is decided when the new generation takes over. It is therefore necessary to support these farms so that their owners can work there until the end of their productive lives.

The technological development and market orientation of agriculture are leading to a reduction in consumption on the farm, while the growing scale of production is binding farms ever more closely to the market.

A small agricultural holding sector exists both at EU-12 and at EU-15 level. Within the EU-15 countries, a further distinction must be made as regards southern countries, i.e. Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, where the small scale of farms is a product of historical conditions and the nature of production. Even more significantly, this diversity is also found in the new Member States. In EU-12, particularly in the countries of the former socialist bloc, the small size of farms is also the result of historical and political processes. In the past (1945-48), large farms were divided by confiscating land from large landlords and assigning it to small property owners. Later, a process of forced collectivisation took place (1948-55) and during the transition process away from communism in the 90s, land was again redistributed among smallholders. Currently, a process of concentration is under way in the group of larger farms.

There is no doubt that a small agricultural holding in one of the southern countries, with a fixed market position and income, differs from a typical smallholding in Poland, which often has its own traditions and practises traditional forms of farming unchanged for decades and passed on from generation to generation; but it is also different from a farm that originated in the assignment of a specific plot of land after the dissolution of a state or cooperative farm after the change of system in Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, etc.).

The accession of the new Member States in 2004 and later significantly changed the structure both of agriculture in general, and of the smallholdings sector in the EU in particular. There is no doubt that smallholdings in the old EU are more stable than in the new EU. After accession to the EU, the profitability of smallholdings in EU-12 fell, but where they received support under the CAP, their incomes rose. Smallholdings face problems where farming is run-down and the soil is of poor quality.

We are witnessing a fall in the number of agro-industrial farm holdings in Europe. The average size of farms has increased in all countries, although there are regional differences. In 2010, the average size of farms in EU-27 was 14.2 ha, broken down as follows: 50.1 ha in the North West, 12.0 ha in the South and only 7.1 ha in the new Member States. Despite this trend towards a fall in the number of small agricultural holdings, it should be emphasised that in times of crisis or during industrial restructuring, the number of employees in smallholdings increases, since, as a result of layoffs, more persons return to the countryside to farming families or agriculture. It is also fair to say that in times of economic growth and lower unemployment, the labour force is ‘sucked’ out of agriculture , thereby accelerating the introduction of technologies that allow a reduction in demand for labour, as well as structural changes in agriculture. However, in times of economic recession, such as the southern EU Member States are still experiencing today, the workforce is again absorbed into agriculture, which acts as a buffer for unemployment. From an economic point of view, this is a positive phenomenon, but where migration from the countryside and agriculture takes place on a large scale and is durable due to the substitution of labour by capital, this can aggravate demographic decline and hence lead to the disappearance of villages and settlements in rural areas.

Hitherto, the sector of smallholdings and semi-subsistence farms has received little attention. However, in recent years, this has begun to change, as evidenced for instance by the conference held in Sibiu, Romania, in 2010, and the three international conferences held in Kraków, Poland, between 2011 and 2013.

One of the challenges addressed by your rapporteur is how to define a small agricultural holding at European level. After a thorough analysis, your rapporteur has come to the conclusion that it is not possible to provide a universal definition. While many attempts have been made to provide a more or less accurate definition of a small agricultural holding or semi-subsistence farm, the major differences between Member States or sectors of agricultural production make it impossible to deploy any of these definitions in a European context. Furthermore, the definitions vary depending on the needs for which they were designed; in addition, no uniform criteria exist.

We therefore have definitions based on the economic size of the holding - the so-called ESU (European Size Unit), and on the number of persons who work in the holding, which forms the basis of the so-called AWU (Annual Working Units), and for some time a new category has been gaining in popularity - the standard output (SO), which is expressed in euros. According to the FADN’s new typology, very small agricultural holdings are those with an SO under EUR 8 000 and small agricultural holdings are those with an SO of between EUR 8 000 and EUR 25 000.

The most popular and at the same time most incomplete definition is based only on the area criterion, i.e. the Utilised Agricultural Area in hectares (UAA).It is thus generally assumed that small agricultural holdings are those of less than 2 or 5 ha UAA . If the criterion of 2 ha is adopted, this group includes almost half of all farms in the EU. As much as two thirds of farms in the Union meet the criterion of less than 5 ha. This method is flawed, mainly because of the enormous differences between Member States and the agricultural production areas. Thus, in Romania, for example, over 90 % of farms are smaller than 5 ha, while in Denmark, Sweden, the Benelux countries and the Czech Republic they account for only a tiny proportion of the total number of farms.

Moreover, a 4 ha holding, for instance, engaged in the intensive production of vegetables and employing several people, cannot be compared to a typical smallholding involved in many different areas of production. Likewise, a family holding of 10 ha, located on poor agricultural land and involved in breeding animals may encounter problems which are more characteristic of agriculture practised on a small area of land.

There is also the definition of the so-called semi - subsistence farm, according to which this is a holding that markets less than 50 % of its production and uses the rest for internal consumption. It is assumed that 5.8 million holdings in the EU, i.e. almost half of the total, can be characterised as semi-subsistence farms.

Small agricultural holdings are in principle faced with four options:

- they can develop by increasing their surface area and increasing production in order to participate fully in the market;

- they can pursue their work, while introducing changes by diversifying their sources of income, i.e. through production in additional areas that provide a new source of income, or a part- employment outside the farm ;

- the owners can dissolve the farm, transferring the land to development -oriented farms, and either retiring or taking up some other form of employment;

- they can continue in their existing form, and are then taken over by the next generation who lack other employment opportunities and other sources of income.

Your rapporteur takes the view that the measures in favour of small agricultural holdings under the CAP should take into account the above- mentioned development opportunities; in particular, the second pillar instruments should be applied flexibility and in stages, given that the selected measures will probably prove ineffective . Your rapporteur considers, for example, that a good solution would be to allow all payments to be made under the small agricultural producer system up to 2020 , together with a certain premium - for example for the insurance fee or other purposes, if the owner sells his farm to an agri-industrial or development -oriented farmer.

Your rapporteur believes that small agricultural holdings have been unfairly treated under the existing Common Agricultural Policy. He therefore welcomes new forms of support for them and the degree of simplification (including the exemption from the greening requirements), which were adopted as part of the CAP reform, but he nevertheless considers that they are still insufficient. The main obstacles are the character of the first pillar (it is based on the area and historical production values ​​and ignores the employment and income level), and the minimum requirements for eligibility under the second pillar.

He believes that small agricultural holdings could take up various types of production and activity like small firms in other sectors of the economy, and are not just a transitional structure, predominantly social in character, that is typical of less developed EU states undergoing change. They therefore have to find particular production niches, since a small agricultural holding cannot produce the same products as a large one and generate a decent income. On the other hand, your rapporteur is aware that this can also be a way of life for people who are not fully engaged in agriculture or who produce organic food as a ‘hobby’.

He is convinced that smallholdings are unable to achieve a satisfactory income without concentrating on special areas of production with great added value. The production of regional products and the direct sale of these products through short supply chains present another great opportunity. Your rapporteur also sees that smallholdings generally must become more active in addressing their weaknesses.

At the same time he is aware that only a proportion of smallholdings are able to adopt special areas of production. It is therefore important, in his view, to create new jobs in rural areas in non -agricultural sectors of the economy. Already a significant proportion of owners of smallholdings derives an income from non-agricultural activities or services for agriculture and the non-agricultural sector, using the farm’s infrastructure. Some owners of smallholdings will certainly take up a job outside agriculture, if presented with the opportunity, and work part-time on the farm. A significant proportion of farm owners, especially in the new Member States, would take up a job outside agriculture and dissolve the farm if the labour market so permitted.

Your rapporteur considers that in solving the problems of small holdings, a key role should be played not only by the two pillars of the CAP, but also by the EU’s cohesion policy, which should fund the necessary infrastructure for smallholdings in rural areas and, through the European Social Fund, a number of measures in the field of social integration, education and training. Local authorities should also play a greater role. Smallholdings do not have much influence over the market, so certain forms of domestic support for smallholdings should be permitted at Union level, with due respect for the principles of competition policy. What is needed is a state-funded special advisory service.

Your rapporteur also recognises the need to ensure appropriate data for analyses so that the right political decisions can be taken. He therefore calls for the FADN to be expanded in simplified form.

ANNEX I

Table I: Number of small agricultural holdings and semi-subsistence farms in EU- 27, sub-groups of Member States and individual Member States, 2010 (in thousands)

Member State

Total number of holdings and small agricultural holdings

SSF

Total

Less than 2 ha

Less than 5 ha

SO

less than EUR 2000

SO less than EUR 8000

Total

Less than 2 ha

Less than 5 ha

SO

less than EUR 2000

SO Less than EUR 8000

EU-27

12 015

5 637

8 056

5 132

8 507

5 842

4 053

5 186

3 906

5 487

EU-15

5 225

1 728

2 728

1 167

2 669

845

660

786

501

758

EU-15 NW*

1 586

119

267

109

388

20

10

17

7

16

EU-15 S*

3 639

1 609

2 461

1 058

2 281

825

649

769

494

742

NMS-12*

6 789

3 909

5 328

3 965

5 838

4 997

3 393

4 401

3 406

4 729

Austria

150

16

46

21

55

0

0

0

0

0

Belgium

43

4

9

1

6

0

0

0

0

0

Bulgaria

370

295

325

254

340

177

163

171

153

176

Cyprus

39

29

34

22

32

20

19

20

16

20

Czech Republic

23

2

3

1

8

2

0

1

0

2

Denmark

42

1

1

1

6

0

0

0

0

0

Estonia

20

2

6

5

11

6

1

3

3

5

Finland

64

1

6

3

20

0

0

0

0

0

France

516

67

129

42

116

20

10

17

7

16

Germany

299

14

26

1

34

0

0

0

0

0

Greece

723

367

551

236

511

119

117

118

113

117

Hungary

577

413

459

359

496

454

367

395

323

424

Ireland

140

2

10

18

60

0

0

0

0

0

Italy

1 621

819

1 177

495

995

645

485

592

343

568

Latvia

83

10

28

39

64

59

9

25

35

51

Lithuania

200

32

117

97

170

114

24

82

65

109

Luxembourg

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Malta

13

11

12

5

8

7

6

6

3

3

Netherlands

72

8

19

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

Poland

1 507

355

823

443

1 007

511

171

373

195

447

Portugal

305

152

230

117

237

57

44

55

36

55

Romania

3 859

2 732

3 459

2 717

3 632

3 590

2 608

3 277

2 593

3 438

Slovakia

24

9

15

8

18

13

7

11

6

13

Slovenia

75

20

45

16

51

44

17

37

15

42

Spain

990

270

503

211

538

4

4

4

1

2

Sweden

71

1

8

6

29

0

0

0

0

0

United Kingdom

187

4

13

16

54

0

0

0

0

0

*The category of EU -15 NW includes all EU -15 countries, excluding Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal; EU - 15 S includes Greece , Italy, Spain and Portugal; Category NMS -12 includes all new Member States , which joined the EU in 2004 and in 2007.

Source: ‘Semi-subsistence farming: value and directions for development’, Policy Department B (Structural and Cohesion Policies) of the European Parliament, April 2013, p. 27.

ANNEX II

Table 2: Percentage of small agricultural holdings and semi-subsistence farms in EU- 27, sub-groups of the Member States and individual Member States, 2010 (in %)

Member State

% of SSF in the total number of agricultural holdings in each Member State

% of SSF in the total number of agricultural holdings with an area smaller than 2 ha in each Member State

% of SSF in the total number of agricultural holdings with an area smaller than 5 ha in each Member State

% of SSF in the total number of agricultural holdings with an SO below EUR 2000 in each Member State

% of SSF in the total number of farms of an SO less than EUR 8000 in each Member State

EU-27

49

72

64

76

64

EU-15

16

38

29

43

28

EU-15 NW*

1

8

6

6

4

EU-15 S*

23

40

31

47

33

NMS-12*

74

87

83

86

81

Austria

0

0

0

0

0

Belgium

0

0

0

0

0

Bulgaria

48

55

53

60

52

Cyprus

51

66

59

73

63

Czech Republic

9

0

33

0

25

Denmark

0

0

0

0

0

Estonia

30

50

50

60

45

Finland

0

0

0

0

0

France

4

15

13

17

14

Germany

0

0

0

0

0

Greece

16

32

21

48

23

Hungary

79

89

86

90

85

Ireland

0

0

0

0

0

Italy

40

59

50

69

57

Latvia

71

90

89

90

80

Lithuania

57

75

70

67

64

Luxembourg

0

0

0

0

0

Malta

54

55

50

60

38

Netherlands

0

0

0

0

0

Poland

34

48

45

44

44

Portugal

19

29

24

31

23

Romania

93

95

95

95

95

Slovakia

54

78

73

75

72

Slovenia

59

85

82

94

82

Spain

0

1

1

0

0

Sweden

0

0

0

0

0

United Kingdom

0

0

0

0

0

*The category of EU -15 NW covers all countries of EU -15 excluding Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal; EU - 15 S includes Greece , Italy, Spain and Portugal; Category NMS -12 includes all new Member States , which joined the EU in 2004 and in 2007

Source: ‘Semi-subsistence farming: value and directions for development’, Policy Department B (Structural and Cohesion Policies) of the European Parliament, April 2013, p. 28.


RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted

17.12.2013

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

22

2

4

Members present for the final vote

Liam Aylward, José Bové, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Michel Dantin, Paolo De Castro, Albert Deß, Herbert Dorfmann, Mariya Gabriel, Iratxe García Pérez, Julie Girling, Béla Glattfelder, Martin Häusling, Esther Herranz García, Peter Jahr, Elisabeth Jeggle, Jarosław Kalinowski, James Nicholson, Marit Paulsen, Britta Reimers, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Alyn Smith, Ewald Stadler, Marc Tarabella, Janusz Wojciechowski

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Anthea McIntyre, Milan Zver

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Enrique Guerrero Salom

Last updated: 23 January 2014Legal notice