SUB CAPÍTULO I: LA MANIFESTACIÓN DE VOLUNTAD

Agricultural land covers a considerable part of Croatia's territory and agriculture is by far the biggest single influence on Croatian nature and the countryside. Agricultural activities affect both the quantity and quality of nature and the environment. Agriculture has a substantial impact on soil, water, and air, as well as on species, habitats and landscape diversity.

3.6.1 Perceptions on environmental impact of agriculture

For decades, Croatian policy makers and scientists have believed and declared that the state of the Croatian environment is quite good and certainly much better than in most other, notably EU, countries (DUZPO 1999; Grgić, Franić et al. 1999; UN-ECE 1999; VRH 2000; Grgić and Mesić 2001; MZOPU 2002; UN 2002). A similar attitude was held relating to agriculture and the environment. A widespread and dominant belief was that agriculture is not a significant source of environmental pollution and nature degradation, especially when compared with other countries (RH 1998; UN-ECE 1999; VRH 2000; RH 2002; UN 2002). The 1998 "Report on the state of environment" (RH 1998) does not at all list agriculture among the sources of environmental pollution, while the latest review on the state of the Croatian environment (MZOPU 2003), states: “Because of the low intensity of production and extensive management, in comparison with other countries, Croatian agriculture is

not considered to be a significant source of environmental pollution”.

Further examples of similar opinions:

• “Although there was no adequate attention paid to the problem of environment protection up until a decade ago, the soil, water and air in Croatia are among the best most preserved in Europe” (Grgić, Franić et al. 1999)

• Agriculture “has a significantly small role as a polluter” (Grgić, Franić

et al. 1999)

• “The soil of the Croatian mountainous region is among the cleanest in Europe” (UN-ECE 1999).

• “Compared with other countries, Croatia’s agriculture is not a serious source of pollution” (UN-ECE 1999).

• “…agricultural impact on biological and landscape diversity in Croatia is comparatively better” than in Europe, where this problem is “particularly serious” (DUZPO 1999).

• “Agricultural activities have not caused serious soil or environmental pollution” (UN-ECE 1999)

• Croatian soils are “one of the best preserved in Europe” (VRH 2000) • “Croatia has the most preserved soils in Europe” (Grgić and Mesić

2001)

• “In agriculture there is, however, a relatively low level of production intensity which has little significance in soil pollution (Grgić and Mesić 2001). Environmental impact Negligible environmental impact?

• “Because of its low intensity of production and extensive management, in comparison with other countries, Croatian agriculture is not considered to be a significant source of environmental pollution” (MZOPU 2002).

• “Today, agriculture is not a serious source of pollution in Croatia” (MZOPU 2002).

• “Agriculture does not cause any significant pollution of soil or environment” (RH 2002).

• “Although nowadays agriculture is mentioned as a potential source of pollution of surface and ground water, due to low consumption of mineral fertilizers and chemicals, in particular on private farms, surface and ground water in Croatia is not seriously burdened from this source” (UN 2002). An identical text appears also in the report made by the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID 2001).

• “Due to low consumption of pesticides and fertilisers, surface and ground water in Croatia is not polluted by the substances deriving from these agents” (UN 2002).

• “The level of pollution from agricultural production is moderate” (UN 2002)

• “The consumption of fertilisers in Croatia is relatively low” (MPŠ 2003).

In the recent accession document submitted to the EC the Croatian government declares that Croatia has no special measures for the reduction of fertiliser and pesticide use, since “the use of these products in the Republic of Croatia is below the European average” (VRH 2003). The same opinion is shared by the key pesticide industry leaders. Čović

for instance (2004) states that Croatia «uses slightly more pesticides than Albania». Mesarić stresses that Croatian farmers use 50% less fertilisers than those in EU (Mesarić 2004) and that Croatia should be using at least 1.2 million tonnes of fertilisers (Mesarić 2003; Mesarić

2004), which is more than double is uses today. Key agricultural media also stresses that due to the low use of agri-chemicals, Croatia is one of the most ecologically preserved countries in (Grgurić 2004).

The above-mentioned statements require further analysis. In all of these documents, statements appear without any reference to the corresponding studies and data. These conclusions are more assumptions (and wishful thinking), rather than statements drawn from sound research and analysis. Several important policy reports recognise the lack of data and reliable (scientific) monitoring regarding the state of soil and environmental impact of agriculture in general (UN-ECE 1999) GRC, 2000).

The Environmental Performance Review (UN-ECE 1999) for instance states that Croatian agriculture is not a serious source of pollution and praises the environmental state of the Croatian soils. However, the same document states that due to the "absence of a soil inventory and of regular soil monitoring..." "...the true condition of the soil is practically unknown". The Report for the Food Summit prepared by the Croatian government (UN 2002) also states that the Croatian soils are “one of the best preserved in Europe”. However, the same document, just two “Superiority” is

not well backed- up

sentences further, concludes that “analysis shows that in spite of relatively low contamination levels, damage in the pedosphere has reached a level which requires investigation and measures for the protection and preservation of soil quality”. It is interesting to notice that almost identical text has already appeared in (Grgić, Franić et al. 1999), several years earlier. This indicates that some of the text appearing in official documents has been “recycling.

Even if agriculture was recognised as a source of (potential) environmental pollution and nature degradation, it was believed that the problem does not lie with the family farms, which occupy majority of agricultural land, but rather with the agricultural companies (mostly former co-operatives) (DUZPO 1999; Grgić, Franić et al. 1999). According to Grgićet al. (Grgić, Franić et al. 1999) these operations “use more of the potentially harmful inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, fossil/solid fuels) and have larger livestock farms (harmful gases and waste). However, since “agricultural development in Croatia is not based on large-scale farms that could possibly be greater polluters of the environment“ (Grgić, Franić et al. 1999)- consequently the total (possible) polluting effect of agriculture is thought to be negligible.

However, things have been slowly changing. A deeper analysis raises doubts as to whether Croatian agriculture is as environmentally friendly as it was thought to be. Some recent studies question the environmental “friendliness” of Croatian agriculture (Znaor 2002; Moller 2003), while a recent FAO document on rural development in Croatia concluded that the situation concerning the environmental impact of Croatian agriculture “is far away from being satisfactory” (FAO 2004). A recent agri- environment programme for Croatia (Znaor and Karoglan Todorović

2004) has highlighted heavy use of pesticides and fertilisers in Croatia. However, the data presented in this report were heavily criticised by the fertiliser industry and academics linked to it (Hrvatsko tloznanstveno društvo 2004; Maceljski 2004; Petrokemija 2004; Petrokemija 2004; Petrokemija/AF 2004). Moreover, the MPŠVG was requested not to accept presented calculations (although just few months later, MPŠVG issued its annual report (MPŠVG 2004) in which it recognised the basis of the calculations provided by Znaor and Karoglan Todorović (Znaor and Karoglan Todorović 2004)).

However, several recent developments indicate that Croatian policy makers have been taking an approach to the subject that is somewhat more critical. A good example is a recent President’s speech on agri- environment programme for Croatia (Mesić 2004). Awareness of the causal link between agriculture and the environment/nature (regarding both small and large farms) is slowly taking root in Croatia, too. Several recent policy initiatives are quite encouraging. These include work on several regulations, introduction of some new economic instruments (e.g. subsidies for local breeds and organic farming) and important institutional changes (e.g. within MPŠVG and the extension service). Besides, the government has initiated several interesting international projects dealing with protection of the environment/nature and agriculture (DZZP 2004; FAO/MPŠVG 2004). A positive change can be noticed among the scientific and NGO communities, too. Whereas earlier, environmentally oriented scientists and NGOs have perceived Environmental degradation is caused only by big farms? Changing attitude Promising recent developments

agriculture, farmers and agronomists as “enemies”, now there is a slow shift in their attitude. The opposite is true, too. For many farmers and agronomists, environmentalists are no longer just dreamers wishing to abolish agriculture, but a concerned group whose remarks are relevant for the future of agricultural sustainability.

The above-mentioned clearly indicates a positive evolution in attitudes regarding agriculture and the environment. This development is quite encouraging and creates a favourable momentum for the introduction of concepts like organic farming.

3.6.2 Biodiversity

Farmland, especially grassland and meadow orchards are very biodiversity rich habitats, hosting numerous valuable species. Agriculture also shapes the landscape and influences its quality and character. The changes in farming practice that have taken place during the last decades are mainly a result of intensification of farming. These comprise the specialization of production, a decrease in traditional farming, the use of high quantities of industrial fertilisers and plant protection preparations, narrow crop rotations, changes in the types of crops grown, loss of field boundaries, etc. Intensive farming increases environmental pressures including soil erosion, loss of organic content, water pollution and a decreased number of wildlife species. The scheme will be applied on arable land and therefore will target Croatian areas with the most intensive farming practices (Slavonija, Baranja, Međimurje, etc.). These areas have lost a considerable part of their landscape characteristics and consequently a number of wildlife habitats. In addition, these are the areas with the highest mineral fertilizer and pesticide use.

Ironically, in Croatia both intensive and extensive agriculture have an adverse impact on landscape, habitat, species and genetic diversity. Intensive use of agri-chemicals, as well as reduction of the genetic pool caused by narrow crop rotations, lack of mixed-cropping and the use of limited number of breeds and varieties have had a significant negative impact on biodiversity (MZOPU 2002). Drainage of wetlands (among most important in Europe) and their conversion to arable land, as well as removal of hedges and trees from agricultural land has had a negative biodiversity impact, too (DUZPO 1999). Although Croatia has numerous local breeds and crop varieties, these have been replaced by modern stock that is likely to better suit the demands of the modern market. (MZOPU, 2002). Some less favoured areas and less-productive breeds, and crop varieties have been neglected or left out from production all together. All this has resulted in monotonous landscapes, and a decrease in genetic, species and habitat biodiversity.

The narrow crop rotation that is practised by most Croatian farmers and co-operatives is considered to have a negative impact on soil fertility and biodiversity (DUZPO 1999), although small farms with fragmented plots provide a good starting position for nature protection. In the period 1945- 1990, huge grassland and wetland areas were reclaimed and converted to arable land. During this operation a thousand kilometres of hedgerows, stonewalls and farm woodlands have been removed, that Loss of

biodiversity

Other losses of biodiversity

used to be part of the traditional Croatian landscape. Unfortunately, many private farmers have also lost touch with nature and have eradicated valuable habitats and landscape elements from their farms, too. Besides, some less favoured areas (e.g. terraces and steep slopes), less-productive breeds, and crop varieties have been neglected or left out from production all together. All this has resulted in monotonous landscapes of some regions, and a decrease in genetic, species, habitat and landscape biodiversity.

The Ministry of environment claims that due to the small size, extensive management and numerous small plots “with rich hedges” and “vast pastures”, family farms (particularly those in the western, mountainous and karst regions) do not pose any treat to biodiversity (DUZPO 1999). According to the same source, the remaining structures of the ex- cooperatives, mostly situated in the eastern part of Croatia and practising intensive agriculture are associated with poor biodiversity. These operate on large fields that were converted into monoculture arable land and are “without hedges and groves that would at least slightly mitigate the effects of a disastrous reduction of the biological and landscape diversity” and “the consequence of such management, combined with the excessive use of chemicals, is the considerable degradation of land” (DUZPO 1999).

Due to the lack of livestock both organic soil matter and grassland biodiversity is in decline in Croatia. The stocking density is particularly low in areas of high natural value (Znaor and Karoglan Todorović 2004). This results in reforestation and the loss of species-rich grasslands and the open landscape important for migratory birds and many other species. The under-grazing also prevents the beneficial influence of animals on biodiversity, such as species selective grazing, seed dissemination, re-rooting of pasture flora, maintenance of soil organic matter, pest and disease control, etc. According to some estimates, in the period 1992-2002, bush re-encroachment has taken place on approximately 300,000 hectares (Moller 2003). However, this figure seems to be severely underestimated, as in the same period more than 400,000 hectares of arable land alone remained uncultivated and exposed to invasion by bushes. Most animals in Croatia (with the exception of sheep) are kept in stables all year round (DUZPO 1999). This practice together with decline in the number of animals does not allow for efficient utilisation of grassland. This has impoverished biological and landscape diversity, threatening the existence of numerous plant and animal species associated with grassland ecosystems and/or management practices (DUZPO 1999). This problem is particularly pronounced in the biodiversity-rich karst and mountainous regions (DUZPO 1999).

3.7. Agricultural outputs and employment