TITLE: How (inter)national regulations negatively affect hamster-friendly management

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "TITLE: How (inter)national regulations negatively affect hamster-friendly management"

Olivia Lamb
6 years ago
Views:

1 TITLE: How (inter)national regulations negatively affect hamster-friendly management Author(s):G. Müskens 1 and M. La Haye 1,2,* Introduction The hamster (Cricetus cricetus) is in Europe a heavily threatened species and protected under the EU habitat directive: appendix IV, under the convention of Bern and in the Netherlands under the Flora and Fauna Act (Kuiters et al., 2010). The main factor for this strong decline since ca is loss of habitat due to changes in agricultural use, particular a very strong decrease of farmland with cereals and changes in the cultivation of cereals. These changes resulted in less cover through the use of herbicides and earlier and more efficient harvest techniques (Out et al., 2011). To keep the hamster as a wild species in the Netherland, two national conservation plans hamster were made (Beschermingsplan Hamster and Beschermingsplan Hamster ). The main goals were to protect the remaining hamsters, starting a breeding-, reintroduction- and research program, establishing 500 ha of hamster-friendly management and create a better habitat-quality for nature on arable land. During the period of 2002 till 2010 it became clear that 500 ha was not enough and should be increased to 1000 ha. At the moment (autumn 2012) more than 300 ha of farmland is under contract by farmers and 100 ha by nature conservation organizations. From 2002 onwards to 2010 the hamster-friendly management was implemented as an experiment to find out how to organize and execute it, with the flexibility to change rules and prescriptions after each season. An approach which was impossible under existing conservation-programs (because of national and international regulations) (kuiters et al., 2010). Since 2011 the hamster-friendly management is part of the Support system for Nature and Landscape (SNL). All forms of agricultural nature management (all Agri-Environment Schemes) in the Netherlands are part of this national settlement which is partly subsidized by the EU. The administration of SNL is a new system which is completely digital and is connected with other digital national systems which are (must be) used by all Dutch farmers. Method At the start of the pilot in 2002 it was very difficult to find farmers who would participate in the project. There were very strong misconceptions about the hamster due to presumed severe legislation. However, the Dutch government wanted to stop the decline of the hamster population anyway. As a result high costs were made to establish strict farmland reserves and to convince farmers to sign contracts for hamster-friendly management In the years from 2002 till 2010 the support and the number of participating farmers increased rapidly due to a good cooperation based on trust and open discussion between farmers, researchers and the government (coordinated by the Dutch Hamster Committee). Almost all the farmers who participated in the pilot-project continued there contribution in the new SNL project in 2011 against much lower but more realistic compensation payments. However, because this financial compensation is also partly subsidized by EU money there were new strong demands. The administrative execution of payments for hamster-friendly management is in the hands of a special department of the Ministry: the Directorate Regulations (DR) and the field control is done by the new Food and Goods Authority (nvwa). The conditions are: good agricultural practice, conform the prescribed hamster management rules, conform EU rules, conform the national SNL-contract and paying of the compensation in the first quarter the year afterwards. Submitting an application for hamster-friendly management and paying out the money for compensation was 40 1 Wageningen UR, ALTERRA, PO Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2 Radboud University Nijmegen / Bargerveen Society, Department of Animal Ecology and Ecophysiology, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Toernooiveld 1, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands, * Currently working at the Dutch Mammal Society, Toernooiveld 1, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 arranged in a completely automatic digital system. That means in practice: all actions as submitting a request for hamster-friendly management, software checks on permitted crops and software checks on exact surface and borders of the plots are done via a digital system, without assistance or a check by someone of DR. Results In the first year that the new SNL regulation was running there were no problems with the executing of the hamster-friendly management in the field (outside management was okay). However there were lots of problems as a result of the new digital request and payment system (lot of administration problems). Most of the farmers had more or less troubles with the digital system (table 1). Table 1. Occurrence of problems with the digital request and paying system for hamster-friendly management by participating farmers in 2011 (n = 27 farmers). Occurrence percentage mistakes by submitting the application 55% only partly paid 37% not paid at all 26% no problems 11% In all the cases the farmers received automatically produced letters in official jargon which is difficult to understand. To complain they had 6 weeks to write an objection. Some of the farmers had to write even more then one. In the end, almost all problems could be repaired but it took the whole year of It was not possible for the Ministry to repair the problems and mistakes by themselves due to juridical rules. The observed problems could be addressed on the one hand to wrong choices (by farmers) in the digital application and on the other hand to wrong checks on allowed crops (by DR), wrong data in the system regarding exact surfaces of farmland-plots (provided by DR) and allowed bandwidth or on a combination of these (table 2). Table 2. Observed cases resulting in payment problems application individual or collective individual not allowed application bandwidth forgotten or unclear checks crops radish was not recognized as an allowed crop checks surface unclear borders checks bandwidth below minimum results in no payment EU check cross compliance discount on all agricultural subsidies (not only HFM For a better understanding of problems, three examples will be given. Example 1: On plots with hamster-friendly management three crops were allowed: Lucerne, all kind of cereals (except maize) and radish (fig.1). The digital check unfortunately did not recognize radish as an allowed crop. So the area of this crop within the hamster-friendly management-agreement was deducted to the total area of hamster-friendly management and was not compensated. In the case that the area of hamster-friendly management became under the minimum bandwidth, the farmer received a (automatically received) letter that he would not be paid at all and that he had to pay back all the compensation from previous years. After complaints, the Department of Regulations added radish as allowed into the system. However, all farmers with radish still had to complain and ask for an official revision of their payments. 41

Figure 1. Hamster-friendly field with lucerne on the left and radish on the right Example 2: Inaccurate demarcation lines caused also several times problems.

21 ha with hamster-friendly management. Only 3.

3 Figure 1. Hamster-friendly field with lucerne on the left and radish on the right Example 2: Inaccurate demarcation lines caused also several times problems. Because the system is totally digital, failures in allowed land use resulted in automatically generated fines for some farmers. For instance a farmer had a plot of 3.21 ha with hamster-friendly management. Only 3.03 ha could be selected for hamster-friendly management because a demarcation line from the provincial government was not plot exactly on the border of his hamster-friendly managed plot (fig.2). The farmer requested for paying out 3.21 ha (which was correct). The 3.03 ha was paid by the department without any problem but for the missing 0.17 ha he became a fine of 634,- the double of the compensation money he had the right to. This farmer received an automatic written letter four months after the final payment of his HFM. An objection is written and the expectation is that it will be declared valid. Figure 2. A field from which a part that could not be marked for hamster-friendly management 42 Example 3. Cross Compliance rule. Every year 1% of the Dutch farmers are selected for the European Cross Compliance control. In 2011 one of the farmers with hamster-friendly management was in this random chosen group. Unfortunately this farmer who participated with all his 16 ha property in hamster-friendly management and other nature friendly management, had ploughed a plot of 1.5 ha without reporting which

was obligatory after January 1, 2011. The action of ploughing itself was permitted. Because of his mistake of not reporting, this farmer got a discount of 3% on all his money related to EU subsidies.

4 was obligatory after January 1, The action of ploughing itself was permitted. Because of his mistake of not reporting, this farmer got a discount of 3% on all his money related to EU subsidies. In his case 251 for the normal agricultural bonus but also on the compensation for income loose on the hamster-friendly management fields, an orchard and a hedge being 976. He would not have had this last fine in the case of a normal agricultural product. This measure was felt as very unfair in the case of compensation for income. The case is under the judge at the moment. Figure 3. Plough is in principle not allowed anymore because of the erosion regulation in hilly area Conclusion In the years between 2002 till 2010 during a pilot with experimental hamster-friendly management a lot of support for and trust in hamster-friendly management was built up with farmers. In 2012 after the hamster-friendly management was categorized under new ministerial rules in accordance with European rules there was a strong loss of support due to delayed payment, payments just after objections, extraordinary financial sanctions and cross compliance rules. At the end of 2012 almost all the problems from the year 2011 were solved but with lots of annoyance, unnecessary extra costs and much extra time from advisors, the hamster-area coordinator and employees of the Ministry. Problems were not due to people but to the flaws of a totally digital system and juridical obstacles. The Ministry and the province were warned beforehand, but were too afraid to miss EU-subsidies or were not capable of tackling the predicted problems. The problems as mentioned above (will) have a strong negative effect on future hamster-friendly management contracts and on uptake of HFM by new farmers. It is of utmost importance that Governments (or other responsible bodies) recognize problems as mentioned above as early as possible and prevent that farmers will be confronted with automatically generated fines and wrong decisions. We signalize an urgent need for a better balance between rules and agricultural practice for green services. 43

5 Abstract Since January 1, 2011 hamster-friendly management (HFM) in the Netherlands has been placed in the Support system for Nature and Landscape (SNL). All forms of agricultural nature management in the Netherlands are part of this national settlement. The exploitation costs for this management are taken by the ministry of Economic Affairs. The ministry receives a European subsidy for this Program. The requirements of the EU to obtain this subsidy are very strict and hinders uptake of hamster-friendly management. In 2011 the HFM to which the farmers were familiar with, was done conform the rules of the preceding years. However, the administrative handling by the Dutch government led to serious problems. In almost all cases the origin of these problems were not addressed to farmers but to the administrative governmental bodies: fear for EU-sanctions led initially to less or even no payment for involved farmers. In various cases fines have been imposed because the application for HFM was not made conform the rules. In all cases, farmers had too proof that the government had made the mistakes, which led to much incomprehension. Last but not least it turned out that one of the farmers with HFM-project had been selected for a Cross Compliance Control. Because he had not reported the plough of a small field, for which he normally had been given a warning, he got a deduction of 3% on all bonuses and subsidies (not only HFM, but also all other subsidies), which applied also to the compensation-payment for losses in income due to HFM. Farmers were not amused because of all problems and the support for uptake of HFM was severely shattered. It took almost ten years to convince farmers to implement HFM on their farms and only one year to break down their support. This shows once more how fragile and sensitive nature conservation on farmland still is. At the end of 2012 almost all the problems were solved, but only with the dedication of provincial employees, advisors and the regional hamster-area coordinator. Literature Anonymous. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Visserij, Beschermingsplan hamster Rapport nr. 41, Directie Kennis, Ministerie van LNV, Ede. 60 p. Kuiters L, La Haye M, Müskens G, Van Kats R (2010) Perspectieven voor een duurzame bescherming van de hamster in Nederland. Boek/Rapport 2022 Alterra, Wageningen. La Haye, M. en H. Jansman, Beschermingsplan hamster (not published). Out ME, van Kats RJM, Kuiters L, Müskens GJDM & La Haye MJJ (2011) Hard to stay under cover: seven years of crop management aiming to preserve the Common Hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in the Netherlands. Säugetierkundliche Informationen Band 8, Heft 42, pp Proceedings of the 16t and 17th Meeting of the International Hamster Workgroup; Ranis, Germany (2009), Gödollo, Hungary (2010). 44

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/91875