Less favoured area measure in the Netherlands: a welcome or negligible addition?
The Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) Directive (75/268) which was introduced in 1975, was the first common European instrument of regional agricultural structural policy. LFAs are areas where agriculture is hampered by permanent natural handicaps. The major objectives were to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level and preserving scenic landscapes and environmentally valuable habitats. In the Netherlands, the LFA measure is used as an additional payment, to compensate farmers for negative economic effects due to the conservation of these natural handicaps. It was not implemented as a stand alone policy, but is linked to measures aiming at active nature and landscape conservation management. In this paper, the effects will be examined of the regulations aiming at the conservation of natural handicaps on farm businesses within LFAs, when comparing them to farm businesses outside LFAs, where these regulations and handicaps do not exist. The main data source that was used is the Farm Accountancy Data Network. Reference groups of farms were compiled with the use of the simple and multiple imputation approach in Stars (Statistics for Regional Studies). Both analyses were tested with the use of a parametric and a nonparametric test. When comparing the results of both analyses, it can be concluded that there is no evidence that there is a statistical difference in family farm income corrected for and not corrected for LFA payment between the LFA farm businesses and the reference groups. Based on these findings it can be concluded that the size of the compensatory allowances is small and there is no evidence that it has a significant effect on the family farm income of LFA farm businesses. The main purpose of the Dutch LFA policy is to compensate farm businesses for negative economic effects due to the conservation of natural handicaps. Although this may be true for some individual farms, based on the methods used in this paper, it appears not to be the case for the collectivity of LFA premium beneficiaries as a whole.
Volume (Year): 3 (2009)
Issue (Month): ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.apstract.net/|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:apstra:49223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.