Comparison of „Agriculture
Advisors‘ Competencies“
Austria
Wolfgang Etzl
Nitra
Seite 1
01.06.2006
28.07.2017
Introduction
General
• Far-reaching parallels in some areas and significant differences
in others
• Major difference
– Austrian advisory structure has continuously further developed
– Changes in the political system around 1990
 Impact on agriculture  Impact on extension services
Part I
General advisory structures
Part II
Farm Advisory System - FAS (EU Regulation 1782/2003)
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 2
Political framework
- joining the EU
Political guidelines
• cost reduction
• privatisation
The part of the extension service, when joining the EU
• Similar challenges for all countries
• Tasks of advisors  support farmers in coping with the new
circumstances
• In Austria the advisors assumed a central role in adjusting the
system of agricultural subsidies to the EU‘s stipulations
• Growing importance of the Chamber of Agriculture
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 3
Public or private
Austria:
• Semi-public
– financed:
» Federal Government
» Provincial Government
» Compulsory membership fees of the farmers
Other AAC partner countries
• Public
 Privatisation
• Semi-public
 Reorganisation
 Further development
• private
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 4
Financial support by the state
The financial support of the state takes a key role
Advantages:
• Easier access for smaller agricultural enterprises
• The more financial support, the broader the advisory areas that
covered
• Greater emphasis on advisory areas that would hardly be given
any attention under a purely economically-oriented regime
(environment,…)
In many cases the state reduces his support more and more
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 5
The number of advisors
•
•
•
•
The definitions of the tasks of agriculture advisors vary widely
 hardly to compare
How many advisory contacts?
How much support a farmer may expect form the advisory
service?
In Austria:
• Approximately 600 official agriculture advisors
• About 190.000 agricultural enterprises
•  one advisor for 316 enterprises
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 6
The education and further education
In the partner countries there are mostly government-supportet institutes of
education and further education
• The education in many cases determine the quality of advice offered
Different forms of education:
• several-year technical training
• Actively integrated in advisory organisations from the beginning with
several education and training sections (greater emphasis on practical
work)
• Only the advisory organisation is recognised and no specific training for
the advisors is necessary
Austria:
• The education as agriculture advisor is combined with the agricultural
teacher training
The closer the advisory organisation is to the official or government-funded
area, the more attention is given to standardised education, training and
further education.
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 7
Farm Advisory System (FAS)
EU Regulation 1782/2003
Has to be offered as of 2007
Austria:
• The Farm Advisory System is provided by the Chambers of
Agriculture
• In the advice contract the Chambers of Agriculture were obliged
to provide farmers with FAS free of charge.
• FAS is financed only form national funds – no financing via the
Rural Development Programme 2007 to 20013
• Focus on Cross Compliance, no other advisory matters
• Mainly individual advice and group advice at the advisory
institutions
• only few advices directly at the agricultural enterprises
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 9
Farm Advisory System (FAS)
EU Regulation 1782/2003
•
•
•
•
Since 2005, Austrian farmers have been intensively informed
about Cross Compliance issues.
On the basis of financing through Article 9 within the Rural
Development Program 2000-2006
The aim is to prevent violations of legal provisions of Cross
Compliance through intensive consulting, thus being able to
provide a maximum level of direct payments
More than 80.000 farmers has been at the training courses
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 10
Implementation of FAS - Comparison
•
The guidelines form the EU for the implementation of FAS are
sparsely
• In Austria the rules of FAS were carried out by the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Chambers of Agriculture
• With regard to financing, there are significant differences
between the countries
• Basically, there are three varieties.
– National financing, Rural Development, Parts nationally and
parts via Rural Development
– In Austria the Rural Development Programme 2007 – 2013
leaves no additional room for financing FAS, so the Chambers
of Agriculture have to offer FAS within the existing advice
contract
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 11
The accreditation of Advisory Organisations
•
•
•
Many countries go back to existing advisory organisations
In some cases, only one advisory institution is commissioned to
provide FAS, other commission several parallel advisory
organisations either public or private
In Austria the Chamber of Agriculture is the only accredited
advisory organisation, therefore this organisation has to
guarantee, that all advisory areas relating to Cross Compliance
are covered.
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 12
Contents and methods of FAS
Contents:
• Austria only focuses on the contents of Cross Compliance
• Other issues continue to be covered within the framework of
general advisory services an will not be part of FAS
• Some countries have a wider approach
Methods:
• The choice of an advisory method will determine the costs per
farmer to be informed about Cross Compliance
• It will also influence the effectiveness and efficiency of the advice
• Austria will inform the farmers via:
»
»
»
»
Internet
Brochures and Cross Compliance file with check-lists guiding the farmers
through the complex matter
Group advice – thematically
Individual consulting at the farm
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 13
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
Approaches to agricultural advisory systems vary widely among
the countries investigated
Differing agricultural structures and different historical
developments demand specific advisory solutions for each case.
A comparison brings examples that have turned out to be
successful in one country and may be an asset for the other
countries.
The individual state may benefit from intensive exchange of
experience among the countries, in particular in terms of future
advisory projects such as the Farm Advisory System
BMLFUW, Abt. II/2, Etzl
Seite 14