Swd 2018 301 F1 En-Books Pdf

SWD 2018 301 F1 EN
19 Apr 2020 | 17 views | 0 downloads | 181 Pages | 4.33 MB

Share Pdf : Swd 2018 301 F1 En

Download and Preview : Swd 2018 301 F1 En


Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Swd 2018 301 F1 En



Transcription

Table of contents, ANNEX 5 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE AND MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS 4. 1 INTRODUCTION 8, 2 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 9. 2 1 Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory 9. 2 2 Increasing the environmental and climatic benefits of the CAP 27. 3 MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS 40, 3 1 Introduction 40, 3 2 Effectiveness of policy options 40. 3 3 Efficiency of the policy options simplification 62. 3 4 Promoting knowledge and innovation in agriculture and rural areas Modernisation 64. 3 5 Policy coherence 66, 3 6 Cross cutting Improving sustainable development for farming food and rural areas 69. ANNEX 5 1 POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE IA 78, 1 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL OPTIONS 78.
1 1 Budgetary framework 78, 1 2 Delivery model and planning 78. 1 3 Knowledge innovation and technology 78, 1 4 Market related measures 79. 1 5 Conditionality and green architecture of the CAP 79. 2 OPTIONS DESCRIPTION 80, 2 1 Option 1 Updated baseline 81. 2 2 Option 3 Incentives for environment climate action and health 81. 2 3 Option 4 Jointly address environmental and economic sustainability 82. 2 4 Option 5 Focus on small farms and the environment 83. ANNEX 5 2 METHODS AND TOOLS 87, 1 INTRODUCTION 87, 2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN MODELS AND TOOLS USED IN THE IA 87. 2 1 MAGNET 87, 2 2 Aglink Cosimo 88, 2 3 CAPRI 88, 2 4 IFM CAP 88.
2 5 AIDSK 89, 2 6 RUSLE 2015 89, 2 7 Century model 90. 2 8 Standard Cost Model 90, 2 9 Workshops with experts 91. 2 10 Intervention logic based on expert judgement 91. 2 11 Multi criteria analysis 91, 3 DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS USED IN THE DIFFERENT PHASES 92. 3 1 Evaluation of baseline 92, 3 2 Assessing the impact of options 94. 3 3 Addressing uncertainties 94, 3 4 Comparing the baseline and the options 95.
ANNEX 5 3 OBJECTIVES USED IN THE MCA 99, ANNEX 5 4 NON PRODUCTIVE ELEMENTS IN THE EU 101. ANNEX 5 5 CAPPING 102, ANNEX 5 6 SHARE OF DIRECT PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY BIGGEST BENEFICIARIES. AND BIGGEST FARMS 103, ANNEX 5 7 INCOME VARIABILITY 104. ANNEX 6 PROMOTING MODERNISATION 105, 1 ENHANCING AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS AKIS AND. STRENGTHENING LINKS WITH RESEARCH 105, 2 STRENGTHENING OF FARM ADVISORY SERVICES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND.
INNOVATION SYSTEMS 108, 3 ENHANCING INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 110. 4 SUPPORTING DIGITAL TRANSITION IN AGRICULTURE 113. ANNEX 7 SIMPLIFYING THE CAP 120, 1 ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN UNDER THE CAP 121. 2 CAP SIMPLIFICATION AND MODERNISATION CHANGES CONSIDERED FOR POST 2020 125. 2 1 The new delivery model 125, 2 2 Changes under the Common Market Organisation 126. 3 A CAP ORIENTED TOWARDS PERFORMANCE 129, 4 SCOPE FOR REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN 129. 4 1 Simplification under the new delivery model 129. 4 2 Strategic design and delivery for administrative burden reduction 132. 4 3 Assessing administrative burden reduction 135, 5 TOWARDS EFFICIENT CAP DESIGN AND DELIVERY 140.
ANNEX 8 BEHAVIOURAL EVIDENCE FROM FOCUS GROUPS WITH EUROPEAN. FARMERS ON APPROACHES TO ENCOURAGE MORE ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY. PRACTICES 141, ANNEX 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 148, ANNEX 10 GLOSSARY 163. Annex 5 Results of quantitative and Multi Criteria Analysis. Acknowledgments, DG AGRI would like to thank colleagues in JRC for the support and close collaboration. on the modelling of the impacts JRC Seville and the environmental aspects JRC Ispra. Also for the qualitative assessment on environmental aspects JRC Ispra was involved. Term or acronym Meaning or definition, AECH Agro Environment Climate and Health measures. AKIS Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. AMR Antimicrobial Resistance, ANC Areas facing Natural Constraints. AWU Annual Work Unit, BAS Baseline, BP Basic Payment.
BPS Basic Payment Scheme, CAP Common Agricultural Policy. CATS Clearance Audit Trail System, CO2 Carbon dioxide. COP Cereal Oilseed and Protein crops, DG Directorate General. DP Direct Payments, EBA Everything but arms, ECO Economic Challenges Working Group. EEA European Environment Agency, EIP European Innovation Partnership.
ELS Entry Level Scheme, ENV Environmental and Climate Challenges Working Group. ES Economic Size, FADN Farm Accountancy Data Network. FAS Farm Advisory System, A full fledged glossary including definitions on the CAP on European Commission 2015 Glossary of the. Common Agricultural Policy DG AGRI website, FNVA Farm net value added. GAEC Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions. GGE Greenhouse Gas Emission, GHG Greenhouse Gas, GI Geographical Indication.
GNB Gross Nitrogen Balance, H2020 Horizon 2020, ha hectare. IA Impact Assessment, IPM Integrated Pest Management. IST Income Stabilisation Tool, JRC Joint Research Centre. kg kilogramme, km kilometre, LDC Least Developed Countries. LFA Less Favoured Areas, MCA Multi Criteria Analysis.
MO Main Policy Objective, MS Member States, N Nitrogen. NMP Nutrient Management Plans Tools, NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. Mt Million tonnes, OO Operational Objective, PCD Policy Coherence for Development. PO Producer Organisation, pp percentage point, RD Rural Development. RM Risk Management, SAPS Single Area Payment Scheme.
SDG Sustainable Development Goals, SME Small and medium sized enterprise. SO Specific Objective, SOC Socio economic Challenges Working Group. SPS Single Payment Scheme, TAMS Total Aggregate Measurement of Support. UAA Utilised agricultural area, VA Value Added, VCS Voluntary Coupled Support. YF Young Farmer, 1 INTRODUCTION, This annex first summarizes the quantitative results of the option comparison The.
second part merges these results with qualitative results from a group expert judgement. in a Multi Criteria Analysis MCA In annex a detailed description of the options annex. 5 1 the analytical tools and methods used annex 5 2 and the objectives annex 5 3 can. be found Annex 5 2 also details how the MCA was organized and which experts. participated in the process The qualitative assessment was organized to complement the. modelling exercise as the applied models are not capable of capturing all effects of the. tested instruments Especially on the social and to a lesser extend the environmental. dimension of the policy expert judgement offers an important contribution to the. analysis The qualitative assessment also allows unveiling the reasons behind differences. in option scores, On some occasions the modelling and expert judgement diverge which can be linked on. the one hand to the fact that the models cannot capture all intended policy effects and on. the other hand the under or over estimation of some effects by the experts For these. reasons it is fruitful to combine both approaches Where appropriate these differences. are highlighted and discussed, The following two tables highlight the assumptions for key CAP interventions. Note Baseline with the post Brexit budget cut is referred to as Option 1 in Annex 5. Table 1 1 Income support and redistribution in the options. Option 1 Option 3a Option3b Option 4 Option 5, Decoupled High Very small Medium Strong Medium. payments MS flat rate flat rate by land degressive with. Voluntary coupled High 0 High Small Potentially high. support targeted to EU targeted to targeted to EU, goals and extensive livestock goals. competitiveness, Areas with natural Lower further to Maintained Maintained in Maintained in Increased.
constraints Brexit in pillar II pillar II higher pillar II higher top up in pillar I. national funds national funds, Payment Top up to first ha in 0 To small medium To farmers with To small medium. redistribution 8 MS farms via a top up lower income farms. Degressivity in 14 to first 30 ha via an increase in via the modulation. MS from 150 000, EUR cut vary by, support to of support by size. MS from 5 to 50 permanent, Capping per farm Limited 100 000 EUR 100 000 EUR 100 000 EUR 60 000 EUR. with salaries in 8 MS, correction threshold from, 150 000 to 500 000. Capping per ha 1 000 EUR, Minimum Threshold in EUR or 2 ha 2 ha 2 of ag income Status quo.
requirements ha varies from 0 5 to varies by MS, 4 ha and from 100 to from 100 to 1 000. includes the basic payment scheme the single area payment scheme and greening. e g amounts above 150 000 EUR per farm with salaries correction are cut by 5 in BG and by 50 in IT. options 4a and 4b are similar in terms of direct payments implementation. Table 1 2 The green architecture in the options, Option 1 Option 3a Option3b Option 4a Option 4b Option 5. Conditionality, Other Support redistribution to Targeted. interventions permanent grassland and coupled support. targeted coupled support to to extensive, extensive livestock livestock. Eco scheme, 2 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS, The findings are presented according to the corresponding objectives.
2 1 Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory. 2 1 1 Provide income support in a targeted way, Negative impact of policy changes on average EU income level. Farm income is negatively affected in all options compared to baseline and option 1 for. three main reasons, 1 The budget cut and redistribution of support notably to small and medium size. 2 The reduction in direct payments because of re allocation of funds to risk. management options 3 and 4 this leads to a decrease of the EU average income. level in normal2 years assessed here3 In years of strong yield or price drops risk. management tools can help farmers to mitigate negative impacts on income. 3 The changes in farm practises to increase the environmental and climatic. performance of the CAP the land re allocation to fulfil crop rotation restriction the. costs to comply with the other green requirements and the obligation to dedicate. more land to non productive elements lead to a significant decline in cereal area in. favour of set aside and fallow land and thus a decline in market revenue. Note of caution farm income decline is overestimated as the model used does not. account for structural change price feedback4 and longer term benefits due to changes in. production systems Nonetheless the analysis gives an accurate indication of the relative. performance of the various options in the short term as well as of the expected impact. on different farm types and sectors, normal in terms of climatic sanitary and market conditions. The risk management tools offered to farmers in options 3 and 4 to hedge yield or price drops and thus. mitigate negative impacts on income is not taken into account in this quantitative analysis. Risk of land abandonment and market effects are assessed with another model CAPRI price effects are. relatively small in comparison In addition IFM CAP does not fully capture the structural adaptation which. will accompany potential changes in policy and the reduction in the number of farmers to be expected. because of demographic developments Other caveats are worth mentioning the extent of landscape. elements is not well known and land re allocation might be smaller as arable crop farmers might already. have field margins or hedges not all the green requirements could be modelled some activities in IFM CAP. are aggregated leading to potential overestimation of rotation impacts costs of certain requirements were. assumed at the same level for all farmers for cover in between trees e g the potential effects of crop. rotation on yields are not accounted for In addition no change in agri environment climate payments were. modelled because of the difficulty to target the farmers change the costs and the practise the old. delimitation of less favoured areas was used instead of the new definition of areas with natural constraints. This modelling exercise does not account for structural change i e it assumes the same. number and size of farms in all simulations However large income decreases such as. those expected for certain sectors options might push less efficient farmers out of. The largest income5 drop is in option 3a 10 relative to option 1 where the switch of. priority to risk management is the strongest and then in option 4a 8 the two options. with the highest environmental ambition The income decline is smaller and of a similar. range in option 3b 4b and 5 around 5 compared to option 1 A linear cut option 1. would drive a smaller drop on average 2 but without addressing the challenges ahead. and certain sectors and MS would be more strongly hit. In option 3 the uptake of the voluntary eco scheme is simulated at EU level at 98. varying from less than 90 in Portugal to 100 in MS with large areas of permanent. grassland It means that in view of the eco scheme adoption costs and the unit payment. level simulated here only a small number of farmers chose to opt out from the eco. scheme It shows that the unit payment level which was set assuming a 100 uptake is. a significant incentive for farmers to adopt the changes in practises all the more because. of the importance of support in farmers income It highlights also the difficulty that MS. will face in maximising environmental climatic health benefits and budget allocation at. the same time on an annual basis Said differently it highlights the difficulty to predict in. advance the level of uptake and the most appropriate aid level in view of the. IST Income Stabilisation Tool JRC Joint Research Centre kg kilogramme km kilometre LDC Least Developed Countries LFA Less Favoured Areas MCA Multi Criteria Analysis MO Main Policy Objective MS Member States N Nitrogen NMP Nutrient Management Plans Tools NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics Mt Million tonnes OO Operational Objective PCD Policy Coherence for Development PO

Related Books

Control Estrat gico y Corporativo Cap tulo 09

Control Estrat gico y Corporativo Cap tulo 09

control contempor neo en complejos y r pidos cambios competitivos y en ambiente en general Omar Magui a Rivero Objetivos de Aprendizaje cont 4 Los beneficios de establecer el equilibrio adecuado entre las tres palancas de control del comportamiento cultura premios e incentivos y l mites 5 Los tres participantes clave del gobierno corporativo accionistas administraci n

T40173A Snap on

T40173A Snap on

2018 05 02 Bosch Automotive Service Solutions GmbH Am D rrenhof 1 85131 Pollenfeld Preith Germany en 2 T40173A 1 General Information Product Name Gearbox support Product Type Load holding device Product Number T40173A Weight 23 75 kg Set Maximum Load Capacity see Tab 1 Maximum load capacity on page 3 Static Test Coefficient 3 0 Intended Use For supporting vehicle assembly

5G Automotive Vision

5G Automotive Vision

5G Automotive Vision October 20 2015 Executive Summary The automotive industry is currently undergoing key technological transformations as more and more vehicles are connected to the Internet and to each other and advance toward higher automation levels In order to deal with increasingly complex road situations automated vehicles will have to rely not only on their own sensors but also

Automotive SPICE

Automotive SPICE

Automotive Special Interest Group and with the agreement of the SPICE User Group This agreement is based on a validation of the Automotive SPICE 3 0 version regarding any ISO copyright infringement and the statements given from VDA QMC to the SPICE User Group regarding the current and future development of Automotive SPICE

Automotive SPICE Process Assessment Model

Automotive SPICE Process Assessment Model

schedule and effort as a primary focus MAN 3 BP10 amp PA2 1 emphasising the use of this document in conjunction with the terminology in ISO IEC 15504 1 unit testing and significant editorial changes to the Software construction process ENG 6 test output work products to align with updated IEEE 829 2008 08 50 08 52 13 50 registered trademark notice Version 2 5 of the

Engines and Components MAN Truck amp Bus

Engines and Components MAN Truck amp Bus

L MAN Engines and Components 1 Exhaust aftertreatment system 2 Intake filter 3 Radiator 4 Oil tank 5 Engine mountings 6 Engine 7 Charge air hose 8 Expansion tank 9 r

High Pressure Key to Success Diesel injection from Bosch

High Pressure Key to Success Diesel injection from Bosch

MAN Nissan Opel Volvo 3 Diesel injection from Bosch The complete range from the leading supplier Common Rail high pressure pumps Injection pressures over 2000 bar Increased output and cleaner combustion Compact design Unit injectors The unit injector combines a high pressure pump and nozzle with a solenoid valve to form a compact unit Full eXchange program Higher performance and lower

Technology and innovation at Bosch An outline of Bosch

Technology and innovation at Bosch An outline of Bosch

automotive supplier Robert Bosch s factory manager succeeded in improving the design so that the magneto ignition device could also be used in high speed automotive engines It was the only automotive ignition device that could be relied on in everyday driving conditions and Bosch was the sole supplier But Bosch could not have known just how important magneto ignition would become for

on commercial vehicles Automated and efficient for the future

on commercial vehicles Automated and efficient for the future

demand technical solutions which increase efficiency and safety as well as making sure that drivers can work ergonomically and comfortably on long hauls As a supplier of individual components and complete steering systems for medium duty and heavy duty commercial vehicles Robert Bosch Automotive Steering stands forexcellent vehicle handling and optimum steering assistance Our comprehensive

Power DC plus 25kW Wallbox Charger Installation Manual

Power DC plus 25kW Wallbox Charger Installation Manual

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions Inc 579604 REV A 12 12 2016 Power DC plus 25kW Wallbox Charger Installation Manual iii en Table of Contents 1 Table des mati res 18 Technical Support USA 1 877 805 EVSE 3873

SEC s Records Management Practices

SEC s Records Management Practices

The Office of Records Management Services ORMS is responsible for coordinating overseeing and implementing the U S Securities and Exchange Commission s SEC or Commission records management program at its Headquarters Operations Center and 11 Regional Office locations 2 ORMS and the Office of Security Services OSS are direct reporting units to the Office of Support Operations OSO