Unit 3.5: EU Common Agriculture Policy and Rangeland Governance

Unit 3.5: EU Common Agriculture Policy and Rangeland Governance

Instructor: Dr. Hasrat Arjjumend

Field Practitioners: Mr. Oleksandr Koval

Under this unit, we will focus on the need and prospects of improving a governance of rangelands and pastures. First, it is necessary to decode the important of mobility of pastoralists and their livestock. It is because we consider critical on priority the nomadic and semi-nomadic nobilities of the pastoral people. Accordingly, emphasizing the legislation and policy spaces for mobile pastoralists would be highlighted.

3.5.1 Provisions under Common Agricultural Policy

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the policy framework of the European Commission aimed at promoting sustainable agriculture in a global environment through various support programs and subsidy schemes. Its overarching goals are to ensure a reasonable standard of living for European farmers, provide consumers with quality food at fair prices, and maintain farming activities across all regions of the European Union (EU). The CAP represents a significant financial commitment by the EU to support and develop its rural areas (Nori and Gemini, 2011). Since the 2003 reform, the CAP has increasingly focused on environmental quality, food safety, and animal welfare (Cooper et al., 2009). A principle called ‘decoupling’ has partially separated EU funding support from production (i.e., specific crop yields or livestock numbers) and redirected it towards promoting environmentally friendly practices (Nori and Gemini, 2011). The CAP is currently organized around two complementary pillars:

• The first pillar provides direct payments to farmers and supports market measures. These payments are funded annually from the EU budget.
• The second pillar focuses on rural development measures, such as environmental protection initiatives, and is financed through co-funded programs between the EU and individual Member States. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, Member States implement these measures based on their specific needs and contexts.

A key challenge for pastoralists (livestock herders) within the CAP relates to land classification and eligibility for subsidy schemes. The Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) is responsible for land categorization and ensuring compliance with EU regulations. To receive CAP subsidies, a land area must be recognized in the IACS system. However, pastoralists’ associations and environmental organizations have raised concerns that large portions of pastoral lands — such as natural grazing areas — are excluded from the classification, rendering livestock owners ineligible for CAP support. To address these challenges, the CAP includes measures for Less-Favoured Areas (LFAs) — now called Natural Handicap Areas — which face specific natural constraints (Nori and Gemini, 2011). These areas, designated by national governments, benefit from compensatory payments aimed at supporting structural adjustments and ensuring sustainable agriculture. Farmers in such areas can receive additional income through area-based payments, helping maintain agricultural activities under challenging conditions.

One specific focus within rural development is the promotion of High Nature Value (HNV) farmland, which plays a crucial role in biodiversity conservation. HNV areas consist mainly of semi-natural grasslands, such as alpine meadows and pastures, and are managed under low-intensity farming systems. These systems typically involve low stocking densities, minimal agro-chemical inputs, and labour-intensive practices like shepherding (Nori and Gemini, 2011). HNV farmland is associated with high biodiversity, including species and habitats of European conservation importance (EC, 2006). Farmers in mountain areas, for instance, may receive up to 250 € per hectare annually, with higher payments available in exceptional cases. The CAP framework allows national governments to adapt implementation strategies, such as veterinary and extension services for pastoralists, to fit their unique regional contexts (EC, 2006). By aligning with both environmental priorities and the needs of agricultural communities, the CAP aims to promote sustainable development in rural areas while preserving traditional farming practices.

3.5.2 CAP Implementation Cases 

Rural Development Program for Natural Handicap Compensation in Mountain Areas, France

The Programme de Développement Rural Hexagone (2007–2013) (Government of France, 2007) offers targeted financial support to transhumant sheep farming systems that utilize mountain resources. These traditional practices play a vital role in preserving the rural environment but face significant challenges, such as the natural difficulties of mountainous regions and the high costs of transporting livestock for seasonal grazing. From a purely cost-benefit perspective, these practices can present economic drawbacks. To address this, the EU increases financial aid for farmers affected by natural handicaps. Shepherds who engage in transhumant movements receive an additional 10% subsidy if they reside in mountainous areas, and 30% if they live in the ‘piémont’ (foothills), where the greater distance to grazing pastures makes the task more demanding (Nori and Gemini, 2011).

Agro-Environmental Measures for Biodiversity in Semi-Natural Grazing Lands, Sweden

In Sweden, maintaining the biodiversity of mountain pasturelands within Less-Favoured Areas requires higher livestock grazing density (Government Offices of Sweden, 2008). However, these practices are labor-intensive and costly for livestock owners. Grazing animals must remain on mountain pastures throughout the entire grazing season, despite the lower fodder value of semi-natural pastures compared to cultivated farmland, which slows animal growth and reduces the farmer’s income. To compensate for these challenges, subsidies are provided to cover the additional costs. This support accounts for the lower nutritional value of semi-natural grazing land, the need for more grazing animals, and the extended grazing period. It also includes transportation and labor expenses associated with moving livestock from the main farm to the mountain pastures at the start of summer and returning them at the season’s end. Daily travel between the home farm and the mountain holding for animal supervision is another factor considered in the subsidy calculation. The financial support for mountain pastures is designed to reflect the costs of managing these lands according to biodiversity conservation goals. It ensures that farmers are compensated not only for their direct expenses but also for any income lost due to reduced animal productivity under these conditions (Nori and Gemini, 2011).

Ox Trail Transnational Cooperation Project

The Ox Trail project (http://www.oxenweg.net) is a cross-border-3 initiative aligned with pastoral traditions, focused on reviving the use and cultural significance of an ancient trail that once spanned central Europe. This historic route was actively used from the late Middle Ages through the early Modern Period to transport oxen from Hungary and Transylvania to southern Germany. Through a series of transnational efforts, the project seeks to promote cultural exchange between European regions while encouraging tourism along the trail. Funded by the EU’s LEADER programme, the initiative involves partners from Hungary, Austria, Germany, Romania, and Slovakia. By integrating pastoral heritage into regional development strategies, the Ox Trail project highlights the potential of pastoralism as a valuable asset for local economic growth and cultural connectivity (Nori and Gemini, 2011).

(Optional) Watch a Video on Conservation Grazing and CAP

References Cited:

Cooper, T., Hart, K. and Baldock, D. (2009). Provision of public goods through 

agriculture in the European Union. Report prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, London: Institute for European Environment Policy. http://www.ieep.eu/assets/457/final_pg_report.pdf.

EC (European Commission) (2006). Final report of the evaluation of the less-favoured 

area measure in the 25 Member States of the European Union. EC DG AGRI. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/lfa/index_en.htm.

Government of France (2007). Programme de Développement Rural Hexagonal, 

2007-2013. Ministère de l’Alimentation de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche. http://www.europe-en-france.gouv.fr/content/download/9385/60382/version/1/file/PDRH%2520Vdef.pdf.

Government Offices of Sweden (2008). The European Agricultural Fund for Rural 

Development: Europe investing in rural areas. The Swedish Ministry of Agriculture Rural Development Programme for Sweden, Stockholm. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/27/31/de111eed.pdf.

Nori, M. and Gemini, S. (2011). The Common Agricultural Policy vis-à-vis European 

pastoralists: Principles and Practices. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 1: 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-1-27.

Unlock the secrets of sustainable land management with our groundbreaking online course. The course is to support IYRP 2026.

Collaborating Organizations