UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES English language and translation Iloniemi, Anna Stiina AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT TERMINOLOGY IN FINNISH AND IN ENGLISH: A GLOSSARY AND ITS COMPILATION PROCESS MA Thesis December 2016 ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Tiedekunta – Faculty Philosophical Faculty Osasto – School School of Humanities Tekijät – Author Anna Stiina Iloniemi Työn nimi – Title Agricultural Support Terminology in Finnish and in English: A Glossary and its Compilation Process Pääaine – Main subject English Language and Translation Työn laji – Level Pro gradu -tutkielma Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Päivämäärä – Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages 2 December 2016 80 pages + Appendix x Tiivistelmä – Abstract One purpose of this thesis is to present some essential terminology of the Finnish agricultural support system in Finnish and in English in the form of a terminological glossary. The glossary focuses on producer support available for Finnish farmers in 2015 and 2016. Entry terms include names of most of the different support forms and terms concerning support eligibility conditions. Some terms concerning the EU Common Agricultural Policy are also included. The glossary entries include definitions and explanatory notes in Finnish and term equivalents in English. The glossary contains a total of 100 entries, complemented by a Finnish introduction, concept diagrams, Finnish and English alphabetical indexes and a list of the source texts of term and concept information. The full glossary is presented as an appendix to this thesis. The agricultural support system is subject to contemporary legislation, which may change even unexpectedly; therefore, the validity of the glossary cannot be guaranteed even for the foreseeable future. An equally important purpose of this thesis is to shed light on the glossary compilation process. Standards for terminology work and guidelines for glossary compilation have been established and developed internationally for decades. However, each glossary project includes its individual challenges. In this thesis, details concerning the compilation of the agricultural support glossary are reflected against universal conventions of terminology work. Agricultural support as the glossary topic was originally suggested by National Resources Institute Finland’s Information Services personnel. Finding source material for the terminology work was fairly easy, since the framework for the agricultural support system is uniform throughout the EU; similar guidance material for producer support claimants is available for Finnish producers in Finnish and for British producers in English, and also EU material on the Common Agricultural Policy is available in both languages. However, English source material concerning specifically Finnish details of the Finnish support system was inevitably translated text. Compilation of the Finnish part of the glossary was mostly straightforward, following conventions of descriptive terminology work. The main challenges, after having decided what to include in the glossary, concerned presenting the rather complex producer support system in simple concept diagrams and formulating accurate but concise definitions using appropriate language. Some variation in term usage was found both in translated and original English text. This called for a compromise between the intended descriptive approach and a prescriptive one in the terminology work – all term variants could not be included as English equivalents, and choices had to be made over which ones to present. However, explicit justification for the exclusion of certain term variants is not provided. Furthermore, in a few cases, the author’s own equivalent suggestions are included. Glossary production is a complex project. Although the compilation process is described in this thesis as a sequence of steps which follow each other, in practice, the steps were frequently revisited or performed intertwined with each other. Contrary to conventions, no subject field experts were involved in the production of the glossary, which may have had some effect on both its compilation process and its outcome. Avainsanat – Keywords terminology, glossary, concept system, agricultural support, Common Agricultural Policy ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Tiedekunta – Faculty Filosofinen tiedekunta Osasto – School Humanistinen osasto Tekijät – Author Anna Stiina Iloniemi Työn nimi – Title Agricultural Support Terminology in Finnish and in English: A Glossary and its Compilation Process Pääaine – Main subject Englannin kieli ja kääntäminen Työn laji – Level Pro gradu -tutkielma Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Päivämäärä – Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages 2.12.2016 80 sivua + liite x Tiivistelmä – Abstract Tutkielman yhtenä tavoitteena on esittää Suomen maataloustukijärjestelmään liittyvää suomen- ja englanninkielistä termistöä terminologisen sanaston muodossa. Laadittu sanasto keskittyy niihin viljelijätukiin, jotka ovat olleet suomalaisten viljelijöiden haettavissa vuosina 2015 ja 2016. Sanaston hakutermeihin sisältyvät useimpien tukimuotojen nimitykset sekä erinäistä tukiehtoihin liittyvää termistöä. Euroopan unionin yhteistä maatalouspolitiikkaa koskevia termejä on myös mukana. Sanaston termitietueissa hakutermit on määritelty suomeksi, ja useisiin tietueisiin sisältyy myös lisätietoa tarjoavia huomautuksia. Kaikille hakutermeille on annettu englanninkieliset vastineet. Termitietueita on yhteensä sata. Sanastoa täydentävät suomenkielinen johdanto-osio, käsitejärjestelmäkaaviot ja lähdeluettelo sekä suomen- ja englanninkieliset aakkoselliset hakemistot. Sanasto on kokonaisuudessaan tämän tutkielman liitteenä. Maataloustukijärjestelmä perustuu voimassa olevaan lainsäädäntöön, joka muuttumista ei ole mahdollista ennakoida, eikä sanaston tietojen paikkansapitävyyttä voida näin ollen taata kovinkaan pitkälle tulevaisuuteen. Tutkielman toisena tavoitteena on kuvata sanaston laatimisprosessia. Sanastotyön menetelmiä on standardisoitu ja kehitetty ympäri maailmaa jo vuosikymmenten ajan. Jokainen sanastoprojekti on kuitenkin omanlaisensa omine haasteineen. Tutkielmassa sanaston laatimisprosessia on kuvattu rinnan terminologian periaatteiden ja sanastotyön yleisten ohjeiden kanssa kiinnittäen huomiota siihen, miten tiettyihin ratkaisuihin on päädytty ohjeiden puitteissa tai niitä soveltaen. Maataloustukien ottaminen sanaston aiheeksi oli alun perin Luonnonvarakeskuksen tietopalveluiden henkilöstön ehdotus. Lähdemateriaalin löytäminen sanastotyötä varten oli melko vaivatonta. Euroopan unionin jäsenmaana Suomi kuuluu EU:n yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan vaikutuspiiriin, mikä sanelee tukijärjestelmän perusolemuksen. Lähteistön pääosan muodostavat Suomen ja Ison-Britannian viljelijöille suunnatut tukiohjeet; myös EU-elimissä laadittuja englannin- ja suomenkielisiä tekstejä käytettiin lähteinä. Suomen tukijärjestelmän yksityiskohtia koskevina englanninkielisinä lähteinä jouduttiin käyttämään käännettyjä tekstilähteitä. Kun sanaston laajuus oli ensin päätetty, sen suomenkielisten osien laatiminen sujui pitkälti deskriptiivisen sanastotyön yleisohjeiston mukaisesti. Monimutkaisen viljelijätukijärjestelmän kuvaaminen yksinkertaisina käsitejärjestelmäkaavioina aiheutti kuitenkin pohtimista samoin kuin määritelmien muotoileminen täsmällisiksi ja tiiviiksi hyvää kieliasua unohtamatta. Englanninkielisten tekstien, niin käännettyjen kuin alkukielistenkin, termistössä esiintyi jonkin verran vaihtelua, jota kaikkea ei voitu sisällyttää sanastoon. Siksi jouduttiin tinkimään alkuperäisestä aikomuksesta laatia täysin deskriptiivinen sanasto ja turvautumaan osin preskriptiiviseen otteeseen valitsemalla vastine-ehdokkaiden joukosta ne, jotka lopulta sanastoon päätyivät. Joitakin sanaston laatijan omiakin vastine-ehdotuksia on mukana. Vaikka sanaston laatiminen kuvataan tutkielmassa toisiaan seuraavien vaiheiden ketjuna, se on käytännössä monitahoinen projekti, jonka vaiheita toteutetaan osittain samanaikaisesti ja aiempiin vaiheisiin joudutaan usein työn edetessä palaamaan. Toisin kuin sanastoprojekteihin yleensä, tämän sanaston työstämiseen ei ole osallistunut asiantuntijatyöryhmää, mikä lienee vaikuttanut sekä työskentelymenetelmiin että lopputulokseen. Avainsanat – Keywords terminologia, sanasto, käsitejärjestelmä, maataloustuet, yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 2. Agricultural support in Finland and the EU ....................................................................... 5 3. Terminology as the theoretical background of the study ................................................ 10 3.1 Terminology, a combination of theory and application....................................... 10 3.2 Terminology in relation to language for special purposes.................................. 14 3.3 The connection between translation and terminology........................................ 15 4. Concepts and principles of terminology ......................................................................... 21 4.1 The terminological unit ...................................................................................... 21 4.2 Concepts ........................................................................................................... 25 4.2.1 Characteristics ......................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Concept relations and concept systems .................................................. 26 4.3 Terms ................................................................................................................ 28 4.3.1 Term formation possibilities ..................................................................... 28 4.3.2 Criteria for the formation and selection of terms ...................................... 31 4.4 Definitions.......................................................................................................... 34 4.4.1 Principles concerning definitions ............................................................. 34 4.4.2 Acceptable and inacceptable definitions .................................................. 36 5. The glossary compilation process .................................................................................. 40 5.1 Initial planning ................................................................................................... 40 5.2 Decisions on tools and entry format .................................................................. 43 5.3 Glossary source material ................................................................................... 47 5.4 Term harvesting ................................................................................................ 52 5.5 Concept analysis and concept diagrams ........................................................... 57 5.6 Definitions and source documentation............................................................... 64 5.7 Equivalents ........................................................................................................ 68 5.8 Complementary sections of the glossary ........................................................... 72 6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 74 References ........................................................................................................................ 77 Appendix: Maataloustukien sanasto 1. Introduction The aim of this thesis is to present, firstly, a Finnish–English terminological glossary of contemporary Finnish and European agricultural support terminology and, secondly, a description of the glossary compilation process reflecting the theory and principles of terminology. The compilation of the glossary of agricultural support terminology has been an intriguing project. The choice of the glossary topic is based on both interest and necessity. My own professional background is in farm relief services, and holding vocational qualifications in agricultural production, I am in general familiar with Finnish agricultural practices. Agricultural support has recently been a recurring news topic in connection with farmers’ financial difficulties, and the payment claiming procedure has been criticized as being complicated and laborious, but few people outside the farming community actually know much about the agricultural support system and how it works. It was the suggestion of the Natural Resources Institute Finland’s Information Services personnel that I take on the task of putting together this glossary of agricultural support terminology and publish it for the benefit of anyone in need of information about the system. A terminological glossary is a glossary in which search terms are treated as concepts, and their linguistic features are not a matter of interest. Concepts are seen as parts of a concept system and defined in the context of the glossary topic and in relation to each other; the order in which the search terms are presented in the glossary is mostly dependent on their places in the relevant concept systems. The advantage of a terminological glossary is that it gives accurate, delimiting definitions of individual concepts as well as a comprehensive picture of the concept field as a whole. A downside of a terminological glossary can be that this comprehensive picture cannot be perceived by reading a single entry, and that additional context information and specific usage examples cannot be extensively included in the entries. 2 This glossary of agricultural support terminology includes terms which are names and categories of specific support forms available for Finnish farmers in 2015–2016, terminology related to the framework which determines the agricultural support possibilities in the European Union, and terminology concerning the eligibility conditions specified for agricultural support payments. It is not possible to give any estimate about how long any of the terms and concepts in the glossary will be relevant or any definitions accurate, as this is not a collection of terms concerning natural phenomena – the glossary deals with concepts determined only by legislation which is subject to change any time and possibly unpredictably. The glossary is partly bilingual, Finnish–English. The glossary foreword, the concept definitions and notes and the concept diagrams are presented only in Finnish, but all the entries include an English equivalent (sometimes multiple equivalents) of the Finnish entry term. Thus, the glossary can well be used as reference material for Finnish to English or English to Finnish translation and interpreting needs. The glossary is provided as an appendix to this thesis. While the glossary has mostly been put together with a descriptive approach, that is, through presenting terms and equivalents as they occur in genuine texts, the influence of the author’s own views of recommendable terms cannot have altogether been avoided in situations where alternatives exist, particularly concerning English equivalents for specifically Finnish concepts for which native English source texts were not available. No actual subject matter specialists have been involved in the production of the glossary. In this light, the glossary should be considered only a glossary suggestion and never an official term guide. A great source of inspiration for this project has been the book Puusta katsoen – Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta edited by Inkeri Vehmas-Lehto and published by the University of Helsinki Department of Translation Studies in 2009. It has functioned as a model for both the content and structure of this thesis. The body of this thesis is dedicated to presenting terminology as the theoretical background of the glossary project and 3 standardised conventions of terminology work as the guidelines for the glossary compilation. As a side issue, the connection between terminology and translation is also briefly discussed. The description of the glossary compilation process is intertwined with the presentation of work flow recommendations given in literature, and it gives insight into the process as a whole and provides explanations for some individual choices regarding terms, equivalents and definitions. Selected examples from the produced glossary are used scatteredly also in the chapters concerning terminological theory. The glossary topic, agricultural support in Finland and in the European Union, is briefly presented in Chapter 2. 4 2. Agricultural support in Finland and the EU Most countries across the world support their agricultural production in one way or another. Policies vary, and support measures range from direct producer support and subsidised product prices to services provided for the agricultural sector (OECD 2015). In Finland, the country being a member state of the European Union (EU) since 1995, the framework determining agricultural support policy is provided by the EU. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU was first formulated in 1962 by the contemporary member states of the European Economic Community (EEC), the predecessor of the EU, and it has been the fundamental basis for the European integration process ever since. The CAP has been reformed from time to time in order to address the changing issues and challenges faced by the European economies and the agricultural sector. While the first main aim of the CAP was to ensure food sufficiency and affordability for the EEC citizens, the path of the CAP has travelled through surplus control, food quality enhancement and the expansion of the EU to rural development and environmental issues. Through the decades, the support instruments have shifted from market support to producer support, from production-coupled support to farmers’ income support and support conditional to implementing sustainable farming practices. One of the present challenges is engaging new young producers into the agricultural industry to continue the work of the retiring ones (EC 2012). The most recent reform to the CAP was introduced in 2013, with regulations taking effect in 2015. Financially, the nominal amount of money allocated to agricultural support in the EU budget has been frozen to the 2013 level. The present-day CAP consists of two “pillars”: Pillar I comprises direct payments providing income support to farmers, while Pillar II covers various kinds of rural development measures. Pillar I contains elements which are mandatory in each member state. These include an area-based basic payment which is complemented by a greening payment for farmers who comply with regulations 5 concerning crop diversification, permanent grassland and special “ecological focus areas”. Top-up payments for new farmers under 40 years old are also prescribed by the EU. Besides these, from the envelope of funds allocated to their Pillar I, each member state can have decided to direct a lesser amount of funds to a so-called redistributive payment benefitting smaller farms, to natural constraint area support or to coupled support aimed at the production of certain commodities. Also, a member state may have opted to provide a simplified small farmer scheme for producers who claim a maximum of 1250 euro support per year (EC 2013). Pillar II measures are all member state specific, based on national or regional rural development programmes (RDPs) drafted by each national or regional government and approved by the European Commission (EC). The current programming period covers the years 2014–2020; however, the support schemes drafted for this period have only been open for applications starting 2015. The EU has specified six priorities which the current RDPs should focus on: promoting knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture and forestry enhancing the viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture promoting the organisation of the food production chain, enhancing animal welfare and improving risk management in farming restoring, preserving and reinforcing agricultural and forest ecosystems promoting the efficient use of resources and supporting the transition to a lowcarbon economy promoting social inclusion and economic development and reducing poverty. Based on these priorities, member states have designed support schemes which suit local conditions, needs and aims. On a European scale, these include support for advisory services, farm relief services, farm improvement investments, village infrastructure investments, biodiversity management, environment protection, preserving cultural heritage, forest management, organic farming, promoting animal welfare, plant and animal disease control and similar undertakings enhancing productivity and sustainability beyond statutory requirements. The regulations also allow the funding of payments to areas with natural or other specific constraints from the Pillar II envelope instead of Pillar I, if the member state so wishes. RDP schemes are funded partly from the European Agricultural 6 Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), partly from national funds. In addition to actual agricultural support, Pillar II funds are also intended for supporting other rural SMEs and community projects (Ragonnaud 2016). For the current programming period, in addition to the above mentioned mandatory basic payment, greening payment and young farmer payment, Finland has adopted the voluntary coupled support option from Pillar I, paying for the production of certain oilseeds, rye, field vegetables, sugar beet and potatoes for the starch industry as well as bovine, caprine and ovine livestock in southern Finland. Rural development payments in mainland Finland include a natural constraint payment available throughout the country, payments for organic production (including arable and livestock options), species-specific animal welfare payments, and agri-environment-climate payments with various management options for arable farming in general and for specific targets: crane, goose and swan field management, wetland management, farmland habitat and feature management, raising heritage livestock breeds and preserving heritage crop cultivars. The RDP for mainland Finland also includes start-up grants for young farmers and capital grants for farm improvement investments and for investments in certain types of wetland management and heritage site projects. RDP money is also used to finance part of the agricultural advisory system, lowering counselling costs for farmers (Mavi 2015(b): 47–123, Mavi 2015(a)). The Åland archipelago has its own independent RDP, but Åland rural development schemes are not included in this glossary project. The EU also allows, although restrictedly, state aid for the agricultural sector. The EC has granted Finland the opportunity to pay so-called northern aid as national support for arable farming, milk production and beef, goat and sheep production in areas not covered by Pillar I coupled support. Additionally, pig and poultry farmers, sugar beet producers, beekeepers and greenhouse growers throughout the country are eligible for a small share of nationally funded support payments (MMM 2016). Looking back from the beginning of the 20th century until joining the EU in 1995, the Finnish agricultural sector has experienced various eras with different challenges each, and agricultural policies have varied accordingly. In the early 1900s, tenant crofters 7 received a statutory right to buy areas of land from their landlords and create their own smallholdings. Following World War II, new legislation provided war veterans and farmers evacuated from territories ceded to the Soviet Union with parcels of land for building a home and setting up a small farm. Up until the 1960s, the independent smallholder’s way of life was widely aspired and also politically supported. For enhancing livelihood prospects of the rural population, prices of agricultural products were subsidised and premia for clearing farm land from forest areas were granted. This eventually led to surplus production the same way as elsewhere in Europe, and the Finnish agricultural support policy gradually shifted towards area-based support, early pensions in return for giving up farming and premia for reforestation of arable land. In the 1980s, price subsidies were continued but production quotas for individual farms were introduced for certain products. The 1990s’ strategy for tackling surplus production was a compulsory set-aside scheme where a certain percentage of a holding’s agricultural land was to be left fallow in order to avoid fees collected for funding cereal exports (Niemelä 2008: 122–204). The enforcement of Finland’s EU membership meant entering the European common market, which collapsed the prices of agricultural products to market level overnight. In order to compensate for farmers’ losses, a national transition phase with certain national support possibilities had been agreed on in connection with the treaty of accession. Before EU membership, the Finnish agricultural policies had promoted the survival of small family farms, and this had effectively held down the growth of holding size. Up to the present day, Finland’s EU membership period has been an era of agricultural restructuring, with the number of farms steadily declining and average holding size simultaneously increasing (Niemelä 2008: 224–231). Still even today, the structural and climatic realities in Finland do not allow for production levels equal to those in central Europe, and the prevailing national agricultural policy continues to hold on to the opportunity of paying national producer support within EU regulations (MMM 2016). All this historical and present-day load considered, it seems no wonder that the agricultural support system in Finland is a complicated one. The complexity comes, on one hand, from the EU, which has devised elaborate mechanisms for ensuring that the total amount of agricultural support will not rise. On the other hand, Finland has complemented this complexity with national implementation decisions which attempt to soften the blow of 8 plummeting agricultural incomes but, at the same time, distribute losses evenly between the north and the south and between different types of agricultural operations. Some concepts within the support system exist merely for enabling the setting of penalty rates for cases of non-compliance. Frequent policy and support system reforms add to the abundance of concepts and terms; understandably, using old terms for new concepts would create unnecessary confusion, and the preferred approach has been to come up with new terms each time the system is changed. 9 3. Terminology as the theoretical background of the study This chapter will introduce terminology as it is presented in a selection of existing literature. The theory of terminology provides a foundation for the terminology work performed in connection with this study. 3.1 Terminology, a combination of theory and application Terminology is the study of concepts and terms. It is a discipline concerned with concepts, their relationships, concept systems, the defining of concepts, terms, and the principles which guide the choice of preferred terms (TSK 1988: 22). It is also concerned with the relationship between terms and concepts and the principles by which terms are assigned to concepts (Cabré 1999: 7). Terminology can also be seen as having the function of creating order and transferring special field knowledge (Suonuuti 1997: 9). In this view, terminology is not an “end in itself” nor a discipline. It is a practice, an activity or a methodology, a process including the compilation, description, processing and presenting of sets of terms of different special fields. As a practice it strives to optimise communication and enhance efficiency within a special field as well as to answer to the social needs of the operators in the field (Cabré 1999: 10). Terminology as a field of study and discussion is “as old as logical thinking” (Hjulstad 1999: 126). Historically, terminology as a discipline has had several courses of development throughout the academic world. Various schools have built upon different theories drawing from linguistics, philosophy, engineering and natural sciences. Different motivational 10 starting points, for example the strive for monolingual or bilingual harmonisation or language planning with the aim of developing previously non-existent special-language vocabulary, have created diverging orientations of terminology with different points of emphasis in their practical work (Cabré 1999: 1–14). The foundation of the field we today understand as terminology is the legacy of Eugen Wüster, an engineer who, to begin with, emphasized the importance of terminological harmonisation (ibid.) and later on went on to develop the theory of terminology set “at the crossroads between linguistics, logic, ontology, computer science and the sciences of things”, as quoted by Cabré (1999: 25). Wüsterian terminology, which today is commonly referred to as traditional or Vienna school terminology, incorporated five basic principles: the concept is the core of a terminological unit and is not affected by the discourse situation the boundaries between concepts are definable and concepts can be placed in a logical or ontological concept system concepts shall be defined through their characteristics and their position in a concept system each concept has one and only one unique designation concepts and their corresponding designations form a permanent pair (Temmerman 2000: 16). Today, there is more consensus over a socio-cognitive approach to terminology, or socalled modern terminology. It has taken up to question the traditional theory and come up with additional ideas regarding the five original principles; respectively: language and communication are a functional aspect of the terminological unit all concepts cannot be exactly distinguished from one another using ontological or logical dimensions it is not always meaningful to define concepts through their characteristics and their position in a concept system 11 polysemy, synonymy and metaphor are innate and justifiable also in language for special purposes knowledge and practices evolve; hence terms and concepts and their relations also change (Temmerman 2000: 16). The principles of terminology work followed in this thesis are those prescribed by the Finnish Terminology Centre TSK, which is an association providing information, expert services and coordination related to terminology work. TSK cooperates with the Institute for the Languages in Finland (Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus) and represents Finland in several international networks engaged in terminology and the development and standardisation of terminology work (TSK 2016(a)). TSK does not explicate the origin of the theoretical foundation their guidelines are built on, but the guidelines certainly reflect a modern approach – one which accepts synonymy, polysemy, the evolution of concepts, discourse-related term variation and various types of definitions. The word or term “terminology” is a somewhat confusing one – it can be defined as ‘a field of study’, ‘an activity’ and ‘the ensemble of terms of a specific field’. Even the scope of terminology as an academic discipline continues to be a debated issue (Sager 1990: 3–4). The irony of the situation is striking – how can a branch of study dedicated to the defining of concepts and harmonisation of terms not be able to create unanimity over its fundamental nature or over what its appellation represents? The contradiction around the term “terminology” can be overcome by looking at terms that Finnish scholars have assigned to the above discussed concepts: terminology as a discipline – terminologia terminology as a practice – sanastotyö terminology as the ensemble of field specific terms – termistö (TSK 2006: 30– 31). From the point of view of a Finnish speaking person, there is no contradiction at all, because all three concepts have their own term and one term does not have to be used for more than one concept. Unfortunately, English does not include a morpheme corresponding to the Finnish derivational suffix -sto/-stö used for creating noun formations 12 with a collective meaning, for example, termi+stö, ‘collection of terms’. (For more information on this and other Finnish derivational suffixes in English, see, for example, Fred Karlsson’s and Andrew Chesterman’s (1999) Finnish: An Essential Grammar, Chapter 21.) Following the recommendations of the Finnish Terminology Centre TSK, the corresponding English terms are: terminology as a discipline – terminology terminology as a practice – terminology work terminology as an ensemble of special field terms – terminology (TSK 2006: 30–31). In her own publication, Rita Temmerman (2000: xiii) has worked her way around the polysemy problem by using a normal lower case first letter only with the ‘ensemble of terms’ meaning of terminology, and expressing ‘the discipline of terminology’ with an upper case first letter. I do not regard this as an acceptable orthographic practice for this study. The Finnish Terminology Centre (TSK 2006: 30) also mentions “terminology science” – in Finnish, terminologiaoppi – as a term option for ‘terminology as a discipline’. However, since the constituents “-logy” and -logia already mean ‘the study of [a field]’, adding “science” or oppi, ‘a theory, a discipline’, is, in my opinion, tautology and a breach of logic in term formation, and therefore I shall not use these in this study. Furthermore, in order to distinguish between the theory and the practice of terminology, we could refer to the practice and its standardised principles as “applied terminology” (Rey 1995: 95). However, since we already have the acceptable closely synonymous term “terminology work”, there is no need for an additional term in this study. Since it is also unlikely that there would be unanimity to be found regarding the definition of the concept of applied terminology, there is all the more reason for refraining from the use of the term in this study. 13 In this thesis, I shall use the term “terminology” for both terminology as a discipline and terminology as an ensemble of terms of a specific field. I intend to differentiate between the two by using explicit co-text when referring to the ‘ensemble of terms’ meaning; for example, “agricultural terminology”, “the terminology of rural grants and payments in the EU”. Subsequently, all mentions of “terminology” without specifying any particular field shall refer to the discipline. Terminology as a practice shall be referred to as terminology work. 3.2 Terminology in relation to language for special purposes Terminology can only be applied in the context of specialised language or “language for special purposes” (Cabré 1999: 11, 80), henceforth in this study referred to as LSP. LSP can be seen as a form of natural language in contrast to general language or “language for general purposes”. LSP is a tool for communication within any certain special field, and its development is driven by the need for greater accuracy than which can be achieved with general language. LSPs differ from general languages in vocabulary and/or sentence structure. Since LSPs are not independent languages, they use the same basic vocabulary as the corresponding general languages do. In addition to this basic vocabulary, LSPs contain specialised vocabulary, that is, terms. As opposed to general-language words, terms refer to accurately delimited and definable concepts, and the contents of the concepts are not affected by their context of use (TSK 1988: 11). Although the means and principles for formation of general-language words and LSP terms are the same (and language-specific), the processes of term formation differ from those of general-language word formation. Term formation processes are said to be more conscious. Terms must also meet different requirements than general words. As a result, the average structure of terms differs from that of general-language words (Tyysteri 2010: 350–351). However, the fundamental difference between general-language words and LSP terms is not in structure nor in semantic aspects but in their pragmatic function: terms exist in order to designate concepts of special fields and their activities (Cabré 1999: 81). 14 The works of Sager (1990), Cabré (1999) and Temmerman (2000) cited in this study focus mainly on the LSPs of natural sciences and technology; this is often explicit in the text, obvious in the selected examples and also inferable from the contents otherwise. Only occasionally is it mentioned that terminology can be applied in connection with the special fields of, for instance, sports, commerce and finance, social sciences and the law (e.g. Cabré 1999: 63). Within this study, the special field of the research material is agriculture. Furthermore, the genre of the research material texts can be categorised as that of administrative language (in Finnish, virkakieli), the language used by public administration for communicating with its subjects. Administrative language has recently been in the focus of so called plain or clear language campaigns in various countries. While the strive for clarity often concerns syntax, the intelligibility of terms is also an integral part of clear administrative language (Tiililä 2014 and 2015). However, the extent of this study does not allow for the evaluation of agricultural support terminology in the light of clarity aims. 3.3 The connection between translation and terminology In an ideal world where translators translate and terminologists do terminology work, translators and terminologists co-exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Terminologists compile glossaries and term banks, from which translators can find definitions of source language terms as well as target language equivalents and their definitions and thus become assured that the target language terms s/he intends to use are truly equivalents of the source language ones and that they are in actual use in the particular domain (Sager 1990: 49). LSP translators can rarely specialise in only one particular subject field and it is not reasonable to expect that a translator would have perfect command of every field from which translation tasks emerge; thus good terminological reference materials are essential tools for translators (Rey 1995: 100–101). Moreover, translators can provide terminologists with first-hand information on what new terms have come up in texts and which concept systems need revision or harmonisation in order for good quality texts to be produced efficiently (Rossi 1999: 110). Another obvious connection between translation and terminology work is that these activities are often performed by the same people, as can be inferred from the description of services provided by the Translation and Language Division of the Finnish Prime Minister’s Office (Kouki 2015). 15 While it is somewhat obvious that terms play an essential role in LSP translation, it can also be argued that a practising translator should be familiar with methods of terminological work. As Anita Nuopponen (1999: 94–95) puts it, translators, among other professionals, need to find equivalents for terms and concepts in another culture or language, or sometimes even within the same language in another text or organization. Special field dictionaries are not always available, they may be unable to provide the necessary information, or the provided information may be unreliable. In such cases, the best result is achieved by first getting a grasp of the language-specific concept systems formed by the concepts under comparison and subsequently comparing these systems with each other. Nuopponen (1999: 94) also says that knowing the principles of term formation in normative terminology work helps the translator in choosing the best option when multiple term variants are available for a concept as well as when the need arises to create target language terms in the absence of established ones. According to Inkeri Vehmas-Lehto (2010: 362), terminological issues are an essential part of LSP translation. She claims terms to be the key to specialized language, as they contain the extralinguistic information of the text. Terms, she says, correspond to general concepts of the special field in question, that is, the specialists’ mental images of classes of entities, phenomena, processes and characteristics. Relationships between concepts are just as important as the concepts themselves, and so are the concept systems they form. Special field knowledge is actually knowledge about concepts and concept systems. Therefore, in order to produce a good translation, the translator needs information about both the terms in the source text and their equivalents in the target text. In both cases, the necessary information can include the intention and extension of the concepts as well as their relations to other concepts which exist in the field (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 363). The first part of the translator’s terminological task, according to Vehmas-Lehto (2010: 362), is the understanding of source text terms. Terminology-oriented scholars might point out that before challenges of understanding become relevant, there is the challenge of identifying terms from running text (Sager 1990: 61, Pasanen 2009: 45). Vehmas-Lehto (2010: 363), however, does not consider recognising terms from the source text as being 16 problematic. In her view, a translator can easily identify even seemingly general-language words and phrases as terms carrying a specialised meaning at least when the generallanguage meaning of the expression does not result in a sentence which could be interpreted meaningfully. Sager (1990: 61), on the other hand, believes that the ability to recognize terms in texts is often dependent on special field knowledge and familiarity with related terms. Looking at agricultural support, we can find an example of a term that might be mistaken for a general-language word – toimenpide, ‘management option’, whose general-language meaning is ‘action’, ‘operation’, etc. A clue for identifying toimenpide as a term in the agricultural support context is the fact that it is used in the generally uncommon phrase toteuttaa toimenpiteitä, with the verb toteuttaa, ‘to fulfil’, instead of the more usual phrases suorittaa toimenpiteitä or ryhtyä toimenpiteisiin, translatable as ‘to perform actions’ and ‘to take action’, respectively. Vehmas-Lehto (2010: 363) goes on to claim that having recognized a source text expression to be a term, the translator immediately starts pondering, sometimes subconsciously, what the concept behind it is. In some cases, this can be fairly easy to figure out, as some terms are quite transparent; that is, they reflect the essential characteristics of the concept semantically. At the other end of the transparency spectrum are the opaque terms; that is, terms whose meaning cannot at all be deducted from the form of the word. Moreover, some terms, while seemingly transparent, can be misleading. Their lexical form suggests a different interpretation than the actual concept they refer to in a certain special field. Grasping the true meaning and correct usage of such a term requires looking at concept information available in the text itself or in other texts of the same special field, including terminological definitions found in glossaries (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 363–364). An example from agricultural support terminology fit to be taken up here is aktiiviviljelijä, ‘active farmer’. The apparent transparency is misleading: the term has nothing to do with how actively one operates their farm; in reality, the concept rules out farmers who operate specified businesses – an airport, a railway service, waterworks, real estate services, a sports ground or a recreation facility – unless their agricultural income is considered significant by certain criteria. Furthermore, the translator can often be distracted by synonymous terms. Another problem-posing issue is polysemy, a situation where one term refers to two or more 17 different concepts. While normative terminology aims at creating situations where each concept corresponds to a single term and vice versa, in practice, synonymous and polysemic terms are quite common (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 364). In their work, translators are obviously dealing with real life texts and not an ideal world of linguistic unambiguity, and this is why it is easy to agree with both Nuopponen and Vehmas-Lehto on their view that translators need some practical terminological skills. Having understood a term in the source text, the translator’s next challenge is finding its equivalent in the target language (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 364). Hilkka Yli-Jokipii (2006: 100– 101) lists possible and recommendable reference sources for translators. These include special field dictionaries, term banks and glossaries, parallel texts and experts. Finding equivalents in parallel texts can sometimes be difficult, because the external forms of corresponding terms can be quite different from each other. The terms may be words of different parts of speech or of a different type of semantic origin altogether (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 368). A good example from the agricultural support context is the täydentävät ehdot. A literal translation of täydentävät ehdot could be, for example, ‘complementary conditions’, which is nothing similar to the correct English term, ‘cross compliance’. Michael Wilkinson (2005, 2007) emphasises that translation students should specifically be taught skills which help them produce quality translations – quality being understood as following vocabulary, stylistic and other conventions favoured by native speakers of the target language. Such quality can be achieved by exploiting electronic parallel texts and corpus analysis tools, and Wilkinson has specified a range of different strategies for efficiently finding translation equivalents in corpora with the help of concordance searches using context word queries and specific query modifiers. Sometimes success in finding adequate target language equivalents in parallel texts can even be attributed to sheer luck or accidental findings – serendipity, as Wilkinson (ibid.) puts it. In her article on LSP translation, Yli-Jokipii (2006: 100) speaks on a more general level, emphasising the importance of information retrieval skills and the creative use of translation aids. In my view, the principle behind these ideas on translation can be directly derived from terminology work; creative and otherwise enhanced searching for target language equivalents is only fruitful after considering the concept behind any term or word, its intension and extension and its relations to other concepts. Vice versa, productivity in 18 terminology work calls for a good command of information retrieval strategies identical to those used by professional translators. In her article, Vehmas-Lehto (2010: 364–368) addresses the problem a translator faces when concept systems in the source and target languages and/or cultures do not match. A concept can be altogether missing from the target language concept system, or the intension or extension of concepts can differ in a way that makes a term unsuitable for conveying the contents of the source text. A terminologist has a number of options for dealing with such cases (as discussed in Section 5.7 of this study); so does the translator, but leaving a blank space in the target text is not one of them. Using a partial equivalent of a term may in some cases be adequate as part of a domesticating translation strategy (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 367). In other cases, a possible solution may be to create a term. According to Vehmas-Lehto (2010: 268–369), strategy options for translators’ term creation include: offering the source language term as a direct loan into the target language producing a loan translation from the semantic elements of the original term replacing the term with an explanation. Vehmas-Lehto (2010: 367) calls a term created by the translator an artificial equivalent. (Actually, to be accurate, she calls it keinotekoinen vastine, and ‘artificial equivalent’ is merely my own loan translation of the expression found in her article written in Finnish.) By creating an artificial equivalent, the translator offers the reader a proposal for a new term. The proposed term can in time become an established term if the concept it names becomes permanent in the target culture and if the term itself is a good one – transparent, concise and logical (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 368–369). Or, as Sager (1990: 59) puts it, the validity of a newly created equivalent only applies in the context in which it was created unless or until it becomes widely accepted and incorporated into the lexicon of the LSP in question; of course, the same applies to monolingually created neologisms. While artificial equivalents can be necessary in situations where true equivalents do not exist, the unnecessary use of artificial equivalents is a characteristic of a translation of poor quality. Using artificial equivalents instead of existing established terms reduces the 19 readability of translated texts and confuses their reader, and in the worst cases even renders the translated texts incomprehensible to the extent that they must be retranslated from “translationese” into accurate target language LSP (Vehmas-Lehto 2010: 367). This, again, is a justification for the claim that terminological skills are essential to LSP translators even when their terminological needs are restricted to solving individual translation problems. Despite the common terminological challenges that translators and terminologists face, translation and terminology are two different special fields. The job of terminologists is systematic terminological research which goes beyond the acute need to solve a one-off translation problem; the aim of a terminology project is to produce special field dictionaries and glossaries and to find solutions to terminological questions for the needs of translators and other specialists in the fields of technical, scientific and, for instance, administrative documentation and communication. Normative terminology includes a language planning aspect, and organised terminology work is particularly suited for the overall coordination of the development of any LSP, be it in a prevailing language, a minority language or a developing language. Thus language service units employing professional terminologists in both public and private organizations are essential in all societies where specialised and multilingual communication have a role in the function of the society and the thriving of economic activity (Cabré 1999: 214–220). An additional connection between terminology and translation, although somewhat beside the point here, is the fact that good, well considered terms are easier to translate, as Kaisa Kuhmonen has said in an interview by Päivi Kouki (2015). 20 4. Concepts and principles of terminology This chapter introduces terms and concepts used in the description of terminology. The first two sections deal mostly with theoretical aspects of terminology, while the sections on terms and definitions focus more on the standardised principles of terminology work. 4.1 The terminological unit A terminological unit is generally seen as being an entity that combines three inseparable aspects: a concept, its designation and its object. Their relationship is traditionally visualised by the semantic triangle or “Ogden and Richards triangle”, where the triangle represents the entity of the terminological unit and each of its vertices represents one of the aspects, with the sides of the triangle representing the fact that each aspect is linked to the other two (TSK 1988: 24); see Figure 1 below. Figure 1. The Ogden and Richards triangle (TSK 1988: 24) The concept is the mental image, the perception, of any unit thinkable by man (TSK 1988: 24). (Philosophically thinking, I see no reason for excluding any other conscious beings 21 from having the ability to form concepts as well.) A concept can also be defined as a unit of content and an element of taxonomy (Cabré 1999: 95), a unit of understanding (Temmerman 2000: 73) or a unit of knowledge (TSK 2006: 10). A concept can be broad or narrow. A broad concept would be the mental image of a class of things, which can further be classified into different subclasses. A narrow concept would be a more specific unit of thought with fewer possibilities of further distinction. At its narrowest, a concept can be an individual concept, for example one specific being or event. All those concepts which are not individual concepts are general concepts (TSK 1988: 25–28). The designation is the communicative representation of the concept; for communicative purposes, the unit of thought must be expressible by a symbol or an utterance and, since the invention of writing, its written form. In practice, the designations that terminology is concerned with are terms, that is, designations of general concepts, although some terminological situations may also require dealing with names of individual concepts (TSK 2006: 22). The object is the reality that the concept refers to. An object can be an entity or a group thereof – either something concrete that exists in the real world, or an abstract or theoretical entity, even an imaginary one (TSK 2006: 10). The object can also be an activity – a process, an operation or an action – or a quality – a property or a disposition – attributable to a concrete or abstract entity (Sager 1990: 26–27). Furthermore, dimensions such as time, position and space are also possible categories of objects (Nuopponen 1994: 54). In terminology, a definition is generally also considered an aspect of the terminological unit. The definition is a linguistic description of a concept (TSK 1988: 25). In terminology, an optimal definition is interchangeable with the term as a representation of the concept it refers to (Suonuuti 1999: 29). Therefore, the tetrahedral model, an extended version of the semantic triangle, is often used as the conceptual model for the relation between concept, object, term and definition and their inseparable nature in terminology (TSK 1988: 24); see Figure 2 below. 22 Figure 2. The semantic triangle extended into a tetrahedron including the terminological definition as a dimension of a terminological unit (TSK 1988: 24) Cabré (1999: 81), viewing terminology from a sociolinguistic perspective, sees discourse as a dimension of a terminological unit in addition to reality, the concept and the designation. This is because in her view, enabling LSP communication, or specialised discourse, is such an integral function of terms that they would not even exist without discourse. Her visualisation of the idea is replicated in Figure 3 below. Perhaps the model would be more accurate if depicted as a tetrahedron similar to the one in Figure 2 instead of a rhombus, in order to emphasize that concepts are as directly linked to discourse as the reality and designations are; see Figure 4. Figure 3. Cabré’s (1999: 81) representation of the relation between concept, reality, designation and discourse 23 Figure 4. The thesis author’s proposal for a tetrahedral model of a terminological unit including the communicative dimension of discourse Within terminology, it is nearly unanimously agreed on that the concept is the foremost dimension of a terminological unit. In traditional terminology as well as in international standards of terminological work, the concept is the starting point to which terms are assigned, and concepts are the units whose characteristics and relations are analysed (Cabré 1999: 7–8, Suonuuti 1997: 9). An exception to this is the Russian school of terminology, which prioritises terms and their relationships, as Inkeri Vehmas-Lehto points out in her translator’s footnote to Alexander Gerd’s article (Gerd 2009: 18). The dimension of reality is relevant in terminology only in theory, for explaining the notion of concept in relation to real world objects. Otherwise, reality and the existence and nature of objects are beyond the scope of interest of terminology (Sager 1990: 21). 24 4.2 Concepts Concepts, as defined above, are the mental representations of objects. Within concepts, we can identify characteristics, and between concepts, concept relations. 4.2.1 Characteristics In terminology, individual concepts are distinguished and defined through their characteristics. A characteristic of a concept is a property attributable to the corresponding object; such properties can be perceivable or measurable or generally accepted as belonging to the object in question (TSK 1988: 26). An essential characteristic is a characteristic which is necessary for understanding the concept in question; it helps in connecting a concept with its object in the cognitive sense. What is considered essential depends on the target group of the concept’s definition and on the concept system in which the concept is presented (TSK 2006: 11). Delimiting characteristics are those essential characteristics that differentiate a particular concept from another one (Suonuuti 1997: 10). In some literature, the characteristics which are the minimum requirement for determining the nature of a concept and distinguishing it from others are called necessary and sufficient characteristics (Cabré 1999: 30). A concept can be seen as having an intension and an extension. The intension of a concept is the set of all its characteristics; it is the answer to the question of what [X] is like. The extension of a concept is the set of objects that can be regarded as being covered by the concept; it is the answer to the question of what particular things are [X]s (Suonuuti 1997: 10–11). 25 4.2.2 Concept relations and concept systems Concept relations are the links between concepts. Firstly, certain concepts can be seen as belonging to a certain special field; as a group they form a concept field (TSK 2006: 16) in the same way that their corresponding terms form the terminology of a special field. Secondly, within a particular concept field, concepts are linked to each other in some kind of logic-based order; a concept relation is this link between two concepts, the way in which they are connected to each other (Suonuuti 1997: 11). A concept system is a network formed by several related concepts and their relations (TSK 2006: 16). Concepts can be related in different ways. Relations can deal with the similarity of concepts, but also with other aspects. A generic relation, or a genus-species relation (TSK 2006: 16), is a relationship where one concept, the subordinate one, is a subtype of another, the superordinate one. In other words, the intension of the concepts is otherwise exactly the same but the subordinate concept has at least one additional delimiting characteristic (TSK 1988: 29). Nuopponen (1994: 240) calls this type of relationship a logical relation and describes these relations as being “immediate”. A generic or logical relation is usually the first one introduced in guidelines for terminology work, for example in TSK (1988: 29), Suonuuti (1997: 11), and Nykänen (1999: 17), which would lead to the assumption that it is also the most common one in all concept systems. Another type of concept relation is a partitive relation, also called a part-whole relation. In a partitive relation, the link between the involved concepts is such that one concept denotes an entirety and the other concepts are the parts of which it is made up (TSK 2006: 16). In a partitive concept system, the superordinate concept is called a comprehensive concept and the subordinate ones are called partitive concepts (TSK 2006: 12–13). Those subordinate concepts which are linked directly under one superordinate concept in a generic or a partitive concept system are called coordinate concepts (TSK 2006: 13). All other kinds of concept relations can be classified as associative relations; or, synonymously, pragmatic relations (TSK 2006: 17). Examples of these include 26 relationships of cause and effect, of phasal or temporal succession, of producer and product, of activity and medium or tool, of raw-material and end product, of physical quantity and unit of measure (TSK 1988: 31). The above listed types of concept relations are classified according to the quality of the relation. There is also the possibility of looking at how the sets of characteristics or the partitive components of related concepts compare with each other; from this viewpoint, concept relations can be classified according to quantitative aspects. A quantitative analysis of concept relations points out whether certain terms are synonymous or whether the concepts in question are hierarchically connected, overlapping, mutually exclusive or combinable (Nuopponen 1994: 112–117, 242–243). Concept systems can be homogeneous or mixed systems. Homogeneous concept systems would consist purely of one type of concept relations. Of these, generic, partitive and associative concept systems are commonly identified (TSK 1988: 29–32). In practice, many extensive concept systems turn out as mixed systems, that is, with more than one type of concept relation appearing in the system (TSK 1988: 35, Nuopponen 1994: 245). In a concept system, a concept subordinate to one concept can simultaneously be a superordinate concept for other concepts; the result is a polyhierarchical, multi-level concept system as opposed to a monohierarchical one with only two levels. Superordinate concepts can have several sets of subordinate concepts, if they can be divided according to different types of delimiting characteristics; the resulting concept system is a polydimensional one as opposed to a monodimensional one with only one type of subdivision (TSK 1988: 32–35; Nuopponen 1994: 243). Not all concept systems are hierarchic. Non-hierarchic concept systems can be, for example, sequential. Sequential concept systems deal with temporal relations, and such relations can be either simultaneous or consecutive (and why not even overlapping). Even such concept systems can be found which are neither hierarchic nor sequential, for 27 example, systems employing cause/effect relations. These could be called heterarchical, that is, unranked, concept systems (Nuopponen 1994: 243–245). It is quite possible that in practical terminology work, one arrives at situations where none of the above models or classifications are applicable, and different field-specific or taskspecific solutions may emerge (Nuopponen 1994: 245). For example, auxiliary classes may be necessary in order to achieve a continuous concept system in cases where relations between terms are not obvious or a polydimensional concept system needs “subheadings” for the sake of clarity. Such auxiliary or ostensible classes are relevant only for constructing the system, and therefore no terms or definitions are assigned to them (TSK 1988: 34; Kudasheva 2009: 116–118). 4.3 Terms A term, or a designation, is the linguistic representation of a concept (Sager 1990: 57, TSK 1988: 70). In this section, the possibilities and good practices regarding term formation will be discussed. 4.3.1 Term formation possibilities The need for creation of new terms can arise in basically three different situations: a new concept has emerged (neologism) a concept has been transferred from another language community (translation) previously used terms have been rejected (harmonisation) (Sager 1990: 80–81). Sager (1990: 80) calls the formation of neologisms primary term formation, describing it as being spontaneous and externally uncontrolled, although naturally influenced by existing terminological patterns. The latter two situations he classifies as secondary term formation, which is usually more premeditated and subject to established guidelines. A neologism may become accepted and establish itself as a term without further effort, or it may not. It may subsequently be replaced by another spontaneously emerging term or by a term 28 created or selected as a preferred one in an interventional process involving conscious planning (Sager 1990: 80–81). LSPs acquire their linguistic elements from general language (Cabré 1999: 80–81). The fundamental cognitive principle behind term creation is analogy. Defined as ‘structural similarity’ (Itkonen 2005: 1), it can be argued that analogy has a role in, firstly, the semantic principles of naming entities and their parts (ibid.: 101–105) as well as in the choice of lexical and morphological units used in the designations (ibid.: 78–85). Linguistic analogy offers a mould for producing new words not only by derivation and compounding but also through the combination of other phonological elements, for example parts of word stems, with other lexical material (VISK § 146–148). Concerning term creation, Sager (1990: 62) points out the importance of exploiting existing target language LSP resources and attempting to follow term formation patterns already in use in set of related terms. In practice, there are three distinguishable means of term formation: exploitation of existing linguistic resources without modification exploitation of existing resources via modification creation of new linguistic units (Sager 1990: 71). The use of existing resources without modification results, for example, in phrasal terms which exploit simile-type or metaphorical combinations of general language words and/or terms. Names of known objects can be used as qualifying modifiers in terms, but analogy also enables the transfer of, for instance, words normally referring to human or animal body parts or the structure of articles of clothing as constituents of designations of LSP entities. Also transferring designations from one special field to another is an option, as well as the terminologisation of general-language words or their (possibly obsolete) dialectic variants into specific designations in an LSP (Sager 1990: 71–72; TSK 1988: 84– 86). The “use of existing resources” approach is, in some literature, also referred to as the “semantic methods of term formation”, which include extending, narrowing or changing the meaning of the original word or term (Cabré 1999: 93–94). The most common way of creating new designations is through modifying existing linguistic resources. Possible strategies include derivation by adding affixes, compounding, 29 conversion between parts of speech, and compression – that is, using methods of abbreviation and truncation (Sager 1990: 72–79). The creation of new linguistic units is rarely done by creating totally new phonological strings out of nothing (TSK 1988: 98). Instead, borrowing phonological strings from other languages is frequent. Loan words can be taken into use in their foreign language forms, or they can be adapted to the receiving language’s phonological, orthographic and morphological conventions (TSK 1988: 94–97). Curiously, creating loan translations, or calquing, does not seem to fit in any of the above or even any other categories and is listed as a separate term formation strategy for example by Cabré (1999: 94) and Sager (1990: 82). Moreover, there is also the option of combining direct transfer and loan translation in one term (TSK 1988: 108). Regarding part of speech, terms can be nouns (usually singular but occasionally also plural), verbs or adjectives (Suonuuti 1997: 25). However, in glossaries, terms are usually presented as nouns, which in practice means that verbs and adjectives are converted to noun forms which designate their corresponding processes, activities, qualities, states etc. (Sager 1990: 63). Of course, besides linguistic representations, terms can have other types of representations in communication, for example, images, symbols and the signs of sign languages (Kalliokuusi 1999: 43). These, however, are beyond the scope of this study. Also, the pragmatic or sociolinguistic aspects of terms as units of LSP communication could be discussed further. However, for the purposes of this study, it is sufficient to mention that synonymy and discourse-specific variants of terms are accepted and even appreciated in modern terminology, since terms have been acknowledged to be instruments of communication and, for communicative purposes, different discourse situations and text types call for flexibility also in term usage (Sager 1990: 58). Also, the development of reality and knowledge, which result in the evolution of units of 30 understanding, that is, concepts, is a justification for both synonymy and polysemy within the terminology of many special fields (Temmerman 2000: 125–154). 4.3.2 Criteria for the formation and selection of terms The established criteria according to which terms are assessed as “preferred” or “deprecated” (TSK 2006: 23–24) has been developed by the Technical Committee 37 of the International Organization for Standardisation, ISO TC 37 (Hjulstad 1999: 127). Assessment of terms in this way is necessary in normative terminology work when creating new terms and when selecting preferred terms from a range of synonymous options (Nuopponen 1999: 92). According to the guidelines presented by the Finnish Terminology Centre (TSK 1988: 74– 79), the most important characteristics of a good term are: transparency consistency appropriateness distinctiveness conciseness suitability for derivation functionality in the linguistic system linguistic correctness endemicity. The transparency of a term means that the term’s lexical form enables “seeing” the most essential characteristics of the concept it names. This can often be achieved by constructing compound terms from general-language morphemes and lexemes and wellestablished terms in such a way that they reflect their original or customary meanings also in the intended LSP (Sager 1990: 73). However, overdoing transparency is not recommendable – a balance between transparency and conciseness should always be considered, and a term does not need to a summary of its definition (TSK 1988: 74). 31 Furthermore, transparency conveying an irrelevant dimension is of no help in understanding a term whose concept is in practice perceived through another dimension of a concept system (Sager 1990: 73). Consistency in term formation means that related terms should follow logical and coherent patterns (Sager 1990: 81). For example, compound terms with a direct hierarchical relation should share a common head word whenever possible, and the hyponym should preferably have a simpler form than its subordinate terms, not vice versa. Using the same base words instead of a random selection of their synonyms for different types of pragmatically related derived or compound terms is also an aspect of consistency. The choice of derivational morphemes should also be consistent; this point is relevant in a language like Finnish, which offers an abundant range of possible affixes which are not always strictly bound to a single meaning (TSK 1988: 74–75, 93–94). Appropriateness has to do with the connotations of the term. Terms may pick up disturbing connotations from their historical origin or their use in general language (Sager 1990: 69, 120). In some cases, it can be more appropriate to describe something through the abundance of a desired quality instead of the lack of an undesired quality (TSK 1988: 76). The distinctiveness of a term means that the lexical forms of separate terms are different enough to avoid confusion. Slight orthographic or declinational variation between components should not be the only distinction between two different terms (TSK 1988: 76– 77). An example of a non-distinctive pair of terms are the producer support forms nuoren viljelijän tuki, ‘young farmer’s payment’, and nuorten viljelijöiden tuki, ‘young farmers’ payment’, where the only difference is the singular and plural form of the modifier. Conciseness is usually an asset when several terms compete over acceptance and establishment. Excessive length can make terms difficult to use in speech and writing and impede their comprehension; this, consequently, elicits the formation of unofficial, often arbitrary and opaque truncations and abbreviations of long terms. The planned compressing of a term can be carried out, for example, by first moulding a phrasal term 32 into a compound word, stripping it of irrelevant components, and lastly, replacing the compound with a derivation (TSK 1988: 77–78). Of course, language-specific syntactic and morphological conventions pose their restrictions on the use of this strategy, and transparency may also suffer in the process. An example of a concise term related to agricultural support is Natura-nurmi (literally, ‘Natura grassland’) as the Finnish equivalent for Environmentally Sensitive Permanent Grassland – its transparency from the layman point of view may be debatable, but I believe a Finnish farmer finds the term very transparent indeed, since the environmentally sensitive permanent grasslands in question will be found in areas included in the Natura 2000 network, and in the Finnish rural communities, people are generally familiar with the concept of Natura 2000 sites. Considering its communicative function, a term must allow the same customary derivational possibilities as general-language words language-specifically do. When creating a new term, such derivational possibilities should be systematically tried out and incompatible term propositions subsequently rejected (TSK 1988: 78). In the above list, “functionality in the linguistic system” means that terms should conform to language-specific phonological, orthographic and morphological conventions in such a manner that their pronunciation and spelling are unproblematic and they fit into existing inflectional and declensional patterns. The pronunciation and spelling issues are most often relevant with loan word terms, but, at least in the Finnish language, inflectional inconveniences may occasionally also concern compound word terms of domestic origin (TSK 1988: 78–79). A special case regarding conformity with the language-specific inflectional system are acronym-type formations. For example, in Finnish, their correct use in running text can be challenging as the applicable inflectional pattern is dependent on whether the abbreviation is perceived as single graphemes, a representation of the unabbreviated term or a readable acronym (Räsänen 2008). Terms should conform to norms of linguistic correctness, language-specifically. This means that, for example, loan translations must not be forced into morphological moulds transferred directly from the source language term’s form if such formations are considered incorrect in the target language (TSK 1988: 79). It is not the purpose of 33 terminology harmonisation to impose the grammar of prevailing languages onto any other independent languages (Cabré 1999: 212). According to international recommendations for terminological standardisation, a term of indigenous lexical origin is always preferable to a loan word term. The intention of this principle is to encourage terminological work in small language communities. This does not mean that loan terms should never be used, but that endemic variants should be prioritised whenever possible (TSK 1988: 79). In reality, for example in Finland, even though this principle has been a language planning guideline already since the 19th century, the flow of loan words into the language has not ended; on the contrary, it is widely accepted that different fields of science and technology produce novelty concepts at a pace with which organised terminology planning cannot keep up, and therefore these concepts may be referred to with their original, frequently English terms. The popularity of foreign-originated terms may be due to seeing them as a means of enhancing community spirit among specialists or professionals (Stenvall 1999; 58–61). While loan terms can be acceptable as neologisms, an established indigenous term should never be replaced with a loan in a harmonisation process (TSK 1988: 109). 4.4 Definitions In this section, definitions will be discussed, firstly, in general, and after that, through explanations regarding what terminological definitions should and should not be like. 4.4.1 Principles concerning definitions According to terminological theory, definitions serve three distinct functions: They are the semantic justification for assigning terms to corresponding concepts. They legitimise the existence of a term – if a definition exists, so does the concept and therefore the term is a necessary one. 34 They explain the meanings of concepts to users of term banks and glossaries (Sager 1990: 45). According to Virpi Kalliokuusi (1999: 45), the purpose of terminological definitions is to identify and delimit concepts within a particular ensemble (the concept system) whose constituents (the concepts) are linked to each other by accurately defined bonds (the concept relations). From a merely practical viewpoint, in order for a glossary to be useful to its users, terms must be equipped with definitions, which, in turn, are of equal status to terms as representations of a concept. The quality of the definitions finally determines the quality of a glossary (Suonuuti 1997: 9, 16). The factual content of a terminological definition must correspond to reality and must not contain erratic, irrelevant or self-evident information (Kalliokuusi 1999: 45). According to international standards, a definition should indicate the position of a concept in a concept system in relation to its related concepts; the definition should also describe the concept adequately. Therefore, in order to be able to formulate a definition, the terminologist must have identified the target concept’s related concepts as well as the types of relations between these (Suonuuti 1997: 16). The aim in terminology work is that definitions chain up within a concept system in such a way that it is (only) possible to gain full understanding of a narrow concept by working one’s way up the chain definition by definition, until understanding (or, alternatively, the ultimate superordinate concept) is reached. This property of terminological definitions is an asset when the user of the glossary is familiar with the subject field and only needs to verify details; it is also an asset in the way that systematic terminological glossaries help their user to acquire a broader knowledge of the subject field than what can be achieved through pursuing definitions for individual terms. However, the chained nature of definitions can cause frustration to layman users of specialised glossaries who would prefer to find a comprehensive explanation of a concept in one single entry. Another shortcoming of terminological definitions is that they usually observe the concept from only one point of view, which can be different from the point of view the glossary user has in mind. Although information concerning alternative viewpoints can be given in explanatory notes in the glossary entry, it is not a systematic practice; the guidelines for terminological 35 work methods do not include instructions for analysing and presenting information which is irrelevant within the concept system at hand (Kalliokuusi 1999: 50–53, 56). 4.4.2 Acceptable and inacceptable definitions There are two types of acceptable definitions in standardised terminology work: intensional definitions and extensional definitions. An intensional definition presents the concept’s delimiting characteristics, and its core element must be a generic superordinate concept. An extensional definition provides a list of all possible objects belonging to the defined category. An incomplete list of examples of objects is not an adequate extensional definition; however, an intensional definition can be complemented by with an explanatory note where such examples of extension can be given (Suonuuti 1997: 16, 23). In the view of some terminologists, an extensional definition is not an acceptable terminological definition and therefore should not be used in standardised terminology work (Kalliokuusi 1999: 46). When formulating definitions, it is important to remember that intension and extension are always dependent on each other: a concept’s intension delimits the range of objects it covers, but the intension of a concept can only be discovered by examining the range of covered objects (ibid.: 45). Definitions must be of a systematic nature – they must be written with reference to a concept they are directly related to and the quality of the relation must be expressed. With generic concept relations, the only option for an intensional definition is one that names the concept’s nearest superordinate concept and goes on to list delimiting characteristics that distinguish it from the superordinate concept and possible co-ordinate ones. With partitive concept relations, the relationship between the whole and its parts must be expressed in the definition of one of these, but not both, because defining [A] as being made up of [X], [Y] and [Z] and subsequently defining [X] as a part of [A] is an uninformative circular definition. In other words, either the superordinate or the subordinate units in a partitive concept system must receive an intensional definition complete with delimiting characteristics. In the case of an associative relation, the core of an intensional definition is a generically superordinate concept which necessarily does not have to be a 36 term included in the concept system at hand – it can be a term defined elsewhere or a general-language word; the definition shall also mention the concept that the associative relation directly concerns along with explicating the functional quality of the relation (Suonuuti 1997: 17–18, Kalliokuusi 1999: 46). Definitions should be as concise as possible, providing only the essential concept system related information. Definitions should be formulated so that syntactically they could replace their corresponding term in a text (Suonuuti 1999: 18–19). Redundant text must be avoided: when a related concept is referred to with a term in a particular definition, the characteristics of this concept should not be repeated in the same definition (Kalliokuusi 1999: 48). Any additional information that is considered relevant for glossary users should be written in an explanatory note which shall be included in the glossary entry after the actual definition; illustrations may also be included to complement a definition but not to substitute it (Suonuuti 1997: 18–19, 24). Should resources permit, technology could provide useful new alternative ways for presenting additional concept information in connection with terminological glossaries (Kalliokuusi 1999: 56). Some “traps” that a definition compiler can easily fall into include circular definitions, incomplete definitions, negative definitions and hidden definitions within definitions. These are all breaches of logic and/or the principles of systematic terminological definitions. To avoid such and possible other deficiencies in definitions, the relation between the contents of a definition and the designated objects can be tested, for example, by considering whether there are existing objects which would fit into the definition but do not belong to the actual extension of the concept, and, additionally, objects which the definition erroneously excludes from the extension of the concept. Testing with the principle of substitution – that is, replacing terms used in the definition with their corresponding definitions – may also expose a deficiency by drawing one’s attention to the possible circularity of the definition (Suonuuti 1997: 19, Kalliokuusi 1999: 48). There are two possible types of circular definitions, internal and external. Internal circularity occurs within a single definition – the concept which is supposed to be defined is repeated in the definition in place of a superordinate concept or a delimiting characteristic. 37 External circularity occurs within a concept system – concepts are cross-defined by each other (Suonuuti 1997: 19–20). A negative definition is one which attempts to define a concept by explaining what it is not rather than what it is. A negative definition is only acceptable when the absence of a characteristic is essential to the concept; in these cases, the corresponding term usually contains an explicit negative morpheme, e.g. un-, non- (Suonuuti 1997: 21). Definitions can be incomplete in several ways. Intensional definitions can be too broad or too narrow. An unacceptably broad definition does not include enough essential information for delimiting the concept, it is missing either delimiting characteristics or an appropriate superordinate concept. An unacceptably narrow definition includes excessive delimiting characteristics unintentionally ruling out some objects which should be covered by the concept; alternatively, it refers to a supposed superordinate concept which in reality is not superordinate to the defined concept but perhaps a synonymous or coordinate one. An incomplete extensional definition lists only part of the possible objects belonging to the defined concept. If it is not possible to present the concept’s extension exhaustively, the definition must be formulated into an intensional one (Suonuuti 1997: 21–24; TSK 1988: 62–65). A “hidden definition within a definition” is a definition which actually contains another terminological entry inside it – in addition to the actual concept, the definition defines, for example, one of the concept’s characteristics. If the characteristics need definitions, separate entries must be provided for them (Suonuuti 1997: 24). Sometimes the correcting of deficient definitions is best done by altering the concept system in question. If many definitions turn out as containing only self-evident or circular explanations, looking for possible associative or partitive approaches instead of a generic relation may help (TSK 1988: 61–62; Suonuuti 1999: 30–32). Furthermore, if definitions turn out too broad or too narrow without being necessarily “wrong”, the problem might lie in having constructed the hierarchy of the concept system erroneously. 38 Sometimes it is necessary to provide several definitions for one term. This need may arise from polysemy – the term just happens to have several meanings either within one subject field or in different subject fields (which happen to be represented in the same term bank) (TSK 1988: 65; Vehmas-Lehto 2009(a): 138). Sometimes several definitions may also be given because the concept pertains to several concept systems within the same subject field and there are several distinct approaches for observing the concept and all of them cannot be included in one definition (Kalliokuusi 1999: 50–51). There may be cases where a terminological definition would not be meaningful; sometimes giving only an explanatory note with a reference to a related concept, or explaining a variant of a particular concept in the note is more satisfactory. Then, however, in order to satisfy the needs of glossary users, terms explained in the notes must be included in the alphabetical index at the end of the glossary or possible other search tools along with the defined entry terms (Kalliokuusi 1999: 54–55). In the case of common names of plant and animal species, the scientific name may satisfactorily replace the definition, possibly with a complementary note (Vehmas-Lehto 2009(a): 127). A particular special case where terminological definitions are not desirable are proper names; they can logically only receive explanatory notes (Sager 1990: 68). A multilingual glossary might include, for example, names of laws, decrees, agreements, organizations and authorities. The needs of the glossary user are satisfied by an explanatory note and target language equivalents; sometimes even several equivalents can be included – a translation of the original name and the corresponding entity in the target culture, of course accompanied with mentions of which is which (Vehmas-Lehto 2009(a): 127; Kudasheva 2009: 109). Questions concerning proper names in the agricultural support system are further addressed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of this study. 39 5. The glossary compilation process This chapter shall present, side by side, some established guidelines for carrying out a terminology project, detailed procedural tips concerning individual stages of the work, and my own comments on the compilation process of the glossary of agricultural support terminology. Although glossary compilation is depicted as a sequence of individual steps here, in practice, many of these steps are performed simultaneously or in bits between other stages of the project. Frequently one must also go back and complement a step already once completed. Experienced terminologists’ advice is to plan well but to be prepared to change plans when necessary (Nykänen 1999(b):65, Kudashev 2009: 103). 5.1 Initial planning A fundamental stage of a terminology project is initial planning. While no two projects are alike, there are basic elements which apply to all of them. To begin with, the target must be clear: What kind of end users will the glossary or dictionary be intended for, and what are their terminological needs? What language(s) will the glossary be written in? About how many terms shall be included? How will the end product be published or otherwise utilised (Nykänen 2009(b): 63–64)? In the case of the glossary of agricultural support terminology presented in this thesis, the preliminary idea was to compile any agriculture-related glossary which would serve the purpose of being part of my MA thesis. After asking around within a few commercial and public organisations, the Information Services department of Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luonnonvarakeskus, Luke) picked up my idea and suggested agricultural support as a glossary topic. Their need was a descriptive Finnish glossary which would clarify the recently reformed agricultural support system and thus be a reference piece for people who are not necessarily familiar with the topic but occasionally need to read and write 40 about it in their work. Since this is a thesis for the study programme of English language and translation, inclusion of English term equivalents was self-evident but additional languages were not even considered. The glossary size of about 100 terms was premeditated, based on the fact that I had seen some good terminological theses whose glossary sizes range from 60 to 120 terms, for example Heli Hyttinen’s MA thesis On the Finnish and English Terminology of the Short Rotation Coppice Willow Production, produced at the University of Joensuu in 2006, and Viktoria Abrasimova’s and Olga Sakurina’s thesis on the terminology of construction and interior decoration materials and paints, Строительно-отделочные и лакокпасочные материалы, produced at the University of Tampere in 2009. In the course of my project, it also became clear that the size range of 100 terms was perfect for conveying the most essential information of the agricultural support system. While the overall topic of a terminology project is inherently chosen at the same time as the idea of the project is born, it is usually necessary to explicitly delimit the subject field – decide which subfields should be covered and which ones excluded (Suonuuti 1997: Appendix). When starting from an absolute beginning, this may not always be possible before having familiarised oneself with the subject. At the beginning of my glossary project, my knowledge about the agricultural support system was so vague that I could not possibly have listed the necessary subsections of the glossary before collecting the material and completing a preliminary term inventory. However, I did know that looking into the details of monitoring farmers’ compliance with support terms and conditions – inspections, payment reductions and penalties – was beyond the scope of my glossary work, because a 50-word glossary on those, Maataloustukien täydentävien ehtojen sanasto, had already been produced in 2006 by the Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön tietopalvelukeskus Tike, which has since been integrated into Luke). The entries from the mentioned glossary have been incorporated into the Finnish Terminology Centre TSK’s term bank TEPA available online at http://www.tsk.fi/tepa. In vast terminology projects, one of the first stages is finding people who are interested and able to participate in the project, and finding funds for it. If the goal is a comprehensive special field dictionary, one must be prepared for years of work – for example, the making 41 of Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja, Финско-русский лесной словарь, a FinnishRussian forestry dictionary comprising 5000 terms, took about 12 years from idea to publication. Of course, all the participants need not be engaged in the project for its whole duration, and all the funding cannot, in reality, be found at once (Vehmas-Lehto 2009(b): 91–95). The average duration of an “average” terminology project involving 200–300 concepts might be around two years. The “average” project would very likely be initiated by an organisation who is also the financer of the project (Nykänen 2009(b): 64, 71). A practical way of carrying out a terminology project is to gather a group of special field experts from the organisation initiating the project and commissioning practical assistance from a professional terminologist – thus everyone gets to do what they are best at, and best value for time and money inputs is likely to be achieved (TSK 2016(b)). However, a project may just as well be initiated by terminology specialists who find special field experts to provide advice on established terminology of the field, to help in concept analysis and to proofread the overall work (Vehmas-Lehto 2009(b): 94–95). My glossary project is rather unorthodox in the sense that no subject field experts were consulted for term or concept information during the project. While initial plans did include closer cooperation with Natural Resources Institute Finland personnel, I ended up producing the glossary independently, without help or supervision. At one point I attempted to consult the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry via e-mail on possible official English translations for the names of Finnish national aids to agriculture; I did get a reply that my question had been forwarded to a Government Administration Department translator, but the translator never got back to me. Obviously, the lack of expert help may have been the default also for other terminological glossaries produced by university students, for example, at the University of Helsinki in connection with the above mentioned forestry dictionary project, which started out by having students compile forestry-themed glossaries for their MA theses (Vehmas-Lehto 2009(b): 92–93). 42 5.2 Decisions on tools and entry format One of the next things to do in a glossary project is to decide on the form and information content of the term entries. Standards give the basic model for this, but certain variation is permitted. The conventional entry format for printed and printer friendly electronic glossaries is depicted, for example, in the glossary Terminology of Terminology (TSK 2006: 7): Each entry is given a running number. The search term and its possible synonyms are given in bold type. If established but less desirable terms exist, these may also be pointed out. Equivalents in other languages are given, labelled by language. The definition is given in the glossary’s main language; a possible explanatory note may follow. Definitions and notes may additionally be provided in other languages. If relevant, the grammatical genders of terms should be mentioned. In Terminology of Terminology, the entries appear in the glossary in approximately the same order as in the concept diagrams (TSK 2006: 10–36). In Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja, the entries are in alphabetical order (Kudashev & Kudasheva 2009(a): 165). A symbolic mark-up system is also common in glossaries. In Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja, for example, the following are used: the approximation symbol or “double tilde” for incomplete equivalence between Finnish and Russian terms; a frowning smiley for non-recommendable terms; a pen symbol for equivalent suggestions produced by the dictionary authors in cases where established equivalents were not available and for definitions and notes missing a literary source; a book symbol preceding every literary source reference. Different fonts, font sizes, italics and bold type are also used to differentiate between entry fields (Kudashev & Kudasheva 2009(a): 168–179). The layout of the entries and pages should also be considered at an early stage. For example, for Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja, it was decided that the text shall run from edge to edge on a page, not as multiple columns; entries shall be separated from each other with an empty row; a page break and a bold capital letter shall be inserted where the entries’ initial letter changes in the alphabetical ordering; the header of a lefthand page shall show the first entry on the page at its left edge, and the header of a right- 43 hand page shall show the last entry on the page at its right edge (Kudashev & Kudasheva 2009(a): 187). The entry layout and information content for the glossary of agricultural support terminology was designed based on these above examples but with some modifications. Figure 5 shows this layout with visible table borders for easier perception; in the actual glossary, the borders are invisible for aesthetic reasons. In the top left corner there is the entry number. The next column includes the language labels fi (Finnish) and en (English). The Finnish term is in bold type, as is its English equivalent in the next row below. Capital initial letters are used only with proper names. Possible synonyms are separated with semicolons. English synonymous terms have each got their own row, so that their sources listed in the smaller field to the right can be matched correspondingly row by row. In the top right corner, each entry is tagged either #Fin or #EU; in my glossary #Fin means that the concept exists only in the Finnish agriculture support system, and #EU that it is valid throughout the European Union. The definition is given on the next rows, in the conventional way with a lower case initial letter, unless the definition starts with a proper name, and no full stop at the end. The explanatory note is slightly indented compared to the definition; normal complete sentences are used. Each definition and note has at least one source reference, but frequently several. In order to save space, the source texts are labelled with short letter + number codes, and the texts they refer to are listed separately in the Sources (Sanaston lähdeluettelo) section of the glossary. Each entry ends in an @ symbol and number in the bottom right corner; this signifies the concept diagram(s) where the concept appears. The numbered concept diagrams are presented after the entries in the glossary. 44 [entry No.] #Fin or fi Finnish term; possible synonym #EU en English equivalent; (source of English possible variant term) (definition the definition in Finnish source) A possible explanatory note in Finnish. All references to other entry terms are in green text. There are also some terms in purple; these do not have their own entries, but they are explained in the note where they appear and listed in the index. (source of note) @xyz Figure 5. The entry layout in the glossary of agricultural support terminology The glossary is divided into five sections according to topic; each section starts with a heading after a page break. Two empty rows separate entries from each other. No single entry runs from one page to another; this is why there are random lengths of empty space at the bottoms of pages. The page header reads “Maataloustukien sanasto” (‘Glossary of agricultural support terms’) on every page, followed by the page number. This helps differentiate between the page numbering of this thesis body and that of the glossary. Two colour codes are used within the definitions and explanatory notes in my glossary. Green font is used to highlight terms which have their own entries elsewhere in the glossary. While it would have been nice to provide clickable links between such term occurrences and their entries, producing these would have been such an extensive task that I did not see it worthwhile. Purple font is used for terms which are relevant in the glossary context and are listed in the index but do not have their own entries. These occur only in the explanatory notes and their meaning is inferable from the co-text. The purpose of this solution is to provide the maximum amount of agricultural support information and still keep the glossary size reasonable. 45 In my glossary entries, partial equivalence between English and Finnish terms is denoted with a tilde (~) before the English term. The difference between the terms is explained in the note. The currency symbol (¤) is used in my glossary to mark English term equivalents which are my own suggestions. This symbol is occasionally coupled with a source reference, denoting that the presented term has been slightly modified from the one appearing in the source in order to achieve formal consistency among coordinate concepts. In the beginning, my intention was to use an asterisk (*) for marking term equivalents which were found in source texts but which I thought somehow unsuitable, but later I decided to abandon this practice because evaluating or prescribing terms was not an aim in this project. The asterisk remains in one entry, used as a type of footnote marker in connection with one English equivalent to bring the reader’s attention to the note pointing out that the particular term variant is only found in translated texts. Another essential decision in glossary compilation projects is the choice of tools and applications to be used. The last century instruction to “use a computer, if possible” (Suonuuti 1997: Appendix) seems already redundant, since a computer is the default tool for any writing and information management task these days and a such a device is bound to be at every terminologist’s disposal. However, at the drafting stage, collections of index cards or sticky notes should not be out of the question, either. In my experience, the essence of a terminology project is to create order out of a ball of intertwined concept information and explicate it, and having the fragments of information on physical slips of paper or cardboard may sometimes help. For the purposes of Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja, a specific term management application was developed. Considering the extent of the project (5000 terms fully bilingually), this was a sensible solution. The application used was a customised online database program with a server connection (Kudashev & Kudasheva 2009(b): 149–150). For my own glossary project, an everyday word processor seemed sufficient, not only by virtue of the modest size of the glossary but also because my work method was to formulate the concept systems before starting systematic definition writing. My strategy with the word processor documents was to first prepare a table template where the 46 necessary fields are already in place with font sizes and bold type set according to my preferences (see Figure 5 above), and then just copy and paste this template for every new entry. Automatic formatting was set to prevent the splitting of tables across two pages. At the working draft stage, I had five separate word processor documents, one for each section of the glossary, so that the number of pages in each document remained within reasonable limits for scrolling back and forth. 5.3 Glossary source material In general, good source materials for terminology work are said to be, for example, encyclopaedias, textbooks for higher education, monographs, academic articles and product catalogues (Gerd 2009: 19). Source material can also be classified as authorised sources (laws and decrees, documents issued by public authorities, standards), sources accepted by the academic community (textbooks, dissertations, professional journals and magazines, glossaries, thesauri, classifications), up-to-date but not necessarily established sources (brochures, manuals, product catalogues, contracts, protocols, reports, advertisements), and verbal sources (work group members, other specialists) (TSK 1988: 142–143). In the Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja forestry dictionary project, academic articles, monographs and textbooks were available and used as sources; other sources used were the Forest Act, forestry standards, the forestry professionals’ and forest owners’ manual Tapion taskukirja (published by Metsäkustannus Oy, several editions exist), and existing glossaries and dictionaries of forestry and forest industry terminology (Kudasheva 2009: 114). The most essential criterion for source text selection is that the texts contain reliable information about the terms and concepts of the field (Kudasheva 2009: 113). Reliability is best ensured by using texts that are written by acknowledged subject-field professionals and experts (Bowker & Pearson 2002: 51). Texts are generally the most reliable if they have been written by native speakers of any certain language (Varantola 1999: 131). For a professional translator, it should be self-evident that authentic native-speaker texts are always the primarily recommendable, if not the only acceptable sources for terms. 47 However, regarding texts produced in multilingual organisations, for example institutions of the European Union, it may be difficult to determine whether their author is a native speaker and whether they are authentic first-language versions or translations. For the terminology work in my glossary project, for the Finnish part, there were two main types of sources: guidance material for farmers claiming producer support and informational EU texts. The Agency for Rural Affairs (Maaseutuvirasto, Mavi) is the authority responsible for rural payments in Finland. The Mavi website (www.mavi.fi) provides dozens of guidance booklets and info sheets on the different support forms, on how to apply for support, on eligibility criteria, agricultural practices to be followed and other conditions to be met in order to receive payments. I started out with collecting all the guidance material for 2015; over the course of the work I had to go back and complete my collection with the 2014 and 2016 versions of the main guidance booklet Hakuopas, as well as a few individual web pages for pieces of such information that was not included in the separate guidance documents. Some guidance brochures were available also on the maaseutu.fi site, which is the web portal related to the Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland. The overall amount of text is not a small one – the support guidance material amounted to 47 individual texts, and while some of them are just one-page info sheets, others, for example yearly Hakuopas general guidance booklets, contain over 150 pages each. For Finnish language information on the EU agricultural policy, I turned to the European Parliament website, which provided translated texts on the subject. It is obvious that originally Finnish texts on European Parliament or European Commission decisions are not available; however, I trust that the EU language service units have figured out official terminology regarding EU policies, and that official terminology is used on the official web sites. Also, a Finnish report on the impacts of EU’s agricultural policy on the Finnish agriculture industry by MTT Agrifood Research Finland was picked out as a source text for the terminology work. There were, in addition, other texts which were considered for sources but later discarded. 48 At the material collection stage, the texts were skimmed through in order to get a basic idea of the agricultural support system and to stay on track of what had already been collected and what was still missing. My strategy was to save a pdf copy of each document and also copy and paste the text into a word processor document to be saved in txt format, since this is necessary for using the text in the corpus analysis application WordSmith Tools. From some pdf documents, the text could only be extracted via optical character recognition (OCR); in this project, I used the OCR function of the Foxit Phantom pdf editor. Only the above mentioned MTT report was encrypted in such a way that OCR was not possible. From previous experience with WordSmith Tools, I already knew that it is useful to create a systematic file hierarchy for easy text selection in the application and to name text files so that they are recognisable from the first few characters of the file name. It also proved essential to rename the saved pdf originals correspondingly. A reference list of the document names and their internet addresses was kept from the beginning of the collection task, and updated whenever new texts or documents were added to the collection. By no means was the text collection complete in one round, and vice versa, all the documents did not end up being actually cited in the glossary, but the whole collection was necessary for understanding the agricultural support system and performing comprehensive concept analysis. In all, 55 Finnish text documents were collected. They contained altogether 274,349 running words, counted by the WordSmith Tools WordList function (this word count does not include the above mentioned 67-page MTT report). The reference list at the end of the glossary contains only those documents which were actually cited as sources in the glossary entries. For English source texts I chose to use documents from the European Commission’s (EC) website and support guidance material for British farmers. The EC offers general information about the recently reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as well as overviews of the CAP history. Additionally, the EC has provided detailed statistical information on its agricultural spending and information on member state implementation decisions regarding the optional parts of CAP support. One cannot be certain whether all of these texts have been written by native English speakers, but the language seems flawless and the official status of the texts ensures that official terminology has been used, so there should be no reason to doubt their reliability as sources for terminology work. 49 In the UK, agricultural support administration is a regional matter. The UK government website hosts the web pages of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which in turn governs the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), which is responsible for rural payments in England. The Scottish government has its own Rural Payments and Services office, which has an independent website. In Wales, the Welsh Government’s website includes a section for environment and countryside affairs, under which rural payments guidance is provided. For Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland (DARDNI) had its own website; however, at the time of source text collection, very little information was available, and it could be inferred that rural development support schemes for the current programming period were still under construction and not available for applications like their counterparts in other regions of the UK (and other EU member states) were. Since May 2016, in connection with the restructuring of Northern Ireland government departments, rural affairs are the responsibility of the new Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA); this should be taken into account by readers who wish to check the validity of my glossary sources of Northern Irish origin. The site structure of these regional websites varied, and so did the format in which information was provided; while RPA England offered most information in separate pdf guidance booklets the same way as the Finnish Mavi did, the Scottish Rural Payments and Services had opted for a network of html text pages. For my purposes, it did not seem necessary to collect all the available British guidance materials for terminology sources. My strategy with the English source text collection was quite similar to the Finnish one – to skim through the documents, keeping a mental track of what the documents contained and what was still missing. Again, the course of the work revealed that the collection was not complete after the initial harvest, and texts were added as necessary; and not all the collected and studied documents were actually cited in the glossary entries. The document saving and reference list keeping tasks were done in the same way as for the Finnish texts. I could have complemented the collection with documents provided by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine of the Republic of Ireland, but the UK sites seemed already abundant enough for my purposes. 50 Having decided that each entry term should have an English equivalent (for basically the same reason that Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja presents Russian equivalents for all Finnish search terms: translators cannot leave blanks in their texts (Vehmas-Lehto 2009(b): 96)), it was obvious that translated English texts were also needed as source material – for finding equivalents for Finnish rural development support forms and national aids. Since these exist only in Finland and have been drafted by Finnish administration, no original English documents are available. For rural development support terminology, a comprehensive document was the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s English translation of Manner-Suomen maaseudun kehittämisohjelma 2014–2020, the Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland 2014–2020 (838 pages). The document mentions that it is not an official translation, but it is the document based on which the EC has approved Finland’s rural development plans for the current programming period. Another good source for both rural development support and national aid terminology was Natural Resources Institute Finland’s English report Finnish Agriculture and Rural Industries 2015. I do not know whether this has been written in English by the Finnish article authors themselves or translated by the editor or some other translator. A corresponding report by the same authors exists in Finnish by the name of Suomen maatalous ja maaseutuelinkeinot 2015. These form part of a series of yearly publications. The English web pages of the Agency for Rural Affairs (Mavi) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry were also considered as possible terminological sources, but in the end they were mostly ignored in the work. Comparing the term choices in all the four mentioned translated sources, unanimity over the English names of Finnish rural development support forms and national aids was not encountered. A total of 72 English text documents were collected. They contained altogether 727,098 running words, counted by the WordSmith Tools WordList function. 51 5.4 Term harvesting The next step in terminology work is analysing the subject field documentation in order to identify the concepts pertaining to the topic (Suonuuti 1997: Appendix). While in some cases, pre-existing glossaries and dictionaries which already list relevant terms can be used as terminology sources, the use of authentic texts is more common in contemporary terminology work. This brings about the need for term harvesting, picking out terms as they occur in LSP texts (Pasanen 2009: 37). Term harvesting usually results in a collection of term candidates which is larger than the selection of terms which will be used in the glossary. Depending on the material and aims of the work, the list of term candidates might be anything from two- to tenfold compared to the final number of glossary or dictionary entry terms. Another possible approach to term harvesting is starting out with a small group of core concepts and working “outwards” from these (Nykänen 1999(b): 65). Methods used for term harvesting can be either manual or computer-aided. Manual term harvesting means reading the source texts and making lists of terms found. This method is based principally on the person’s own intuition of which words are terms. The advantages of manual term selection are that no special tools are needed and the texts, printed or electronic, do not need to be prepared in any way. Manual term selection is usually quite reliable – all essential terms tend to get noticed, and the created lists do not include extraterminological elements. The manual method is particularly suitable for situations where the terminologist is not familiar with the subject beforehand – reading the sources in search of term candidates provides the opportunity for getting an idea of related concept information and the subject field as a whole (Pasanen 2009: 44–45). Päivi Pasanen (2009: 45–50) calls computer-aided term harvesting methods semiautomatic term extraction. “Semi-automatic” here means that the methods only suffice to provide lists of possible term candidates, and a human must go through these and sort out actual terms from “noise” or “rubbish”, that is, general-language words and names. There 52 are two basic approaches to semi-automatic term extraction: statistical and linguistic methods. Statistical methods are based on the frequencies of words and word combinations (which the computer sees as strings of characters) in texts. The assumption given to the computer program is that words and combinations which occur more frequently in a text than others are most probably terms, and the exclusion of common non-LSP words from term candidate lists can be ensured by providing the program with stoplists, that is, lists of words which are to be filtered out of the harvest results. Linguistic methods, on the other hand, rely on the idea that terms can be picked out from texts based on morphological or syntactic patterns. The utilisation of such linguistic methods requires either equipping the text with morphological tags or incorporating a morphological analysis system and/or dictionary of all possible lexical units into the term harvesting application. In order to be functional, the system must be taught what linguistic constructions to look for. For these reasons, such applications are inherently language-specific, and results may also vary by text type. Applications combining the statistical and linguistic methods in various ways have also been developed. The main benefit of computer-aided term extraction is that large quantities of text can be processed quickly; however, converting printed material into electronic text takes some effort. The disadvantages of the existing term extraction programs are that besides terms, they produce lots of redundant elements, and, even more inconveniently, the programs often fail to find a significant amount of terms (Pasanen 2009: 48–50). One possible term harvesting method is keyword analysis using the “keyword function” included in some corpus analysis applications, for example WordSmith Tools. The keyword function compares two corpora. The output is a list of the words which occur more frequently in the first corpus than in the second one; these words are called keywords. Logically, a significant amount of the keywords are terms or parts thereof, since the main difference between LSP and general language is the lexicon. The procedure for this method is described in detail by Bowker and Pearson (2002: 147–153), briefly mentioned also by Pasanen (2009: 50), and summarised below. For performing keyword analysis with WordSmith Tools, firstly, all source material needs to be in (or converted into) txt format. Here, this electronic collection of source material is henceforward called the LSP corpus. In order to carry out the keyword analysis, a fairly 53 large general-language corpus is needed against which the LSP corpus will be compared. A general-language corpus can easily be produced, for example, by randomly copying target language text from the Internet (Varantola 1999: 130). For performing the keyword analysis, WordSmith Tools will first be used to make comprehensive word lists of both corpora separately, after which the keyword function can be used to compute the keywords, that is, the words which occur in the LSP corpus more frequently than in the general-language one. Single-word term candidates shall be found directly on the keyword list. Some extra effort will be needed for identifying complex terms: words which appear high on the keyword list but do not seem complete terms can be used as search queries for concordance searches – concordance results reveal the missing parts of multi-word term candidates (Bowker & Pearson 2002: 146). Let me present an example of exploiting keyword analysis with some English texts collected for my agricultural support terminology project. For the purposes of my BA thesis (Iloniemi 2010), I produced an English general-language corpus of over 4 million running words using an online web harvesting tool which at the time was available at http://webascorpus.org but is now discontinued; a description of this Web as Corpus tool can be read in Michael Wilkinson’s (2010) article on quick corpora compilation. Analysing my collection of British rural payments guidance documents against this web-harvested corpus, the word appearing highest on the keyword list is “land”. Obviously, “land” alone is a general-language word, but its high frequency within the rural payments guidance documents suggests that it is likely to be a part of one or more terms related to producer support. A concordance search with the query “land” gives over 3000 hits in the text collection. They could be systematically gone through with the help of WordSmith Tools’ concordance line sorting possibilities, but already a random scroll down the lines reveals obvious term candidates: “land parcel” and “land use code” catch my eye first. In addition to the concordance lines, WordSmith Tools displays clusters containing words which frequently accompany the search query. Findings, in this case, include “agricultural land”, “arable land”, “common land”, “eligible land”, “fallow land”, “improved land”, and several others. Also available are lists of word clusters occurring close to but not including the search query; alongside “land”, we find, for example, “management options”, “severely disadvantaged area”, “organic conversion” and “nitrogen fixing crops”; these, too, could be potential term candidates. In this light, keyword analysis and subsequent concordance 54 searches of the source material corpus might be very helpful if one were doing this terminology project from English to Finnish. Pasanen (2009: 44) and Nykänen (1999(b): 65) suggest that simultaneously with term harvesting, the terminologist should also pursue concept information, that is, information about what the concept in question is and is not, what differentiates it from another concept, what and what kind of sub-concepts could it include, how concepts should be grouped. In everyday language, this would mean understanding the concept and its context. Done systematically, it becomes concept analysis – figuring out essential and delimiting characteristics based on which the concept can be defined and placed in a concept system (Kalliokuusi 2009: 27). Pasanen (2009: 51, 141–144) points out that authentic LSP texts rarely contain the relevant concept information in the form needed for terminological definitions, that is, including a superordinate concept and delimiting characteristics. Moreover, definitions or explanations given in texts may not be universal; they may reflect the authors’ individual views or they may not take into account all possible occurrences of the concept in question. In order to formulate universal definitions, concept information from several sources must be put together. In addition to information on generic concept relations, associative concept relations also need to be looked into. When large masses of text are involved, a computer-aided method for finding concept information is desirable. Such a method can be based on so-called knowledge probes, that is, lexical units (verbs, nouns, abbreviations) or symbols (e.g. parentheses, quotations marks) which frequently co-occur with concepts and concept information. Obviously, knowledge probes are language-specific. Pasanen’s (2009) dissertation focused on finding and evaluating Finnish and Russian knowledge probes in texts concerning maritime safety, and her findings show that the use of appropriate knowledge probes together with known core terms as search queries in a concordancer is an efficient way to locate both concept information and additional related terms in LSP corpora (Pasanen 2009: 277). In my terminology project, the starting point was that my knowledge about agricultural support was marginal. This is one reason why I chose the manual method for term 55 extraction – reading through the material and picking terms as I go would give me precious insight on the subject. Being, in general, familiar with agricultural activities and practices and their terminology, no extra effort was needed to understand the support guidance material, and it was relatively easy to pick out relevant terms from the documents. Of course, many terms were rather obvious, as they appeared in the names of documents and in the headings of document chapters and sections. Another fact that further enabled the manual approach was that my source text collection was comprehensive – I considered it safe to assume that the official agricultural support guidance documents would contain all the relevant information and official terminology. Having experimented with the above explained keyword method previously in, for example, my BA thesis (Iloniemi 2010), I knew that although the method works, it would not be the most useful one for this material. The producer support guidance booklets contain lots of agronomic and agritechnic terminology, describing in detail the agricultural activities and practices allowed, forbidden and mandatory for claimants of support payments. Using the keyword method, a significant portion of the actual support terminology would probably have been lost among other agricultural terminology which was beyond the scope of interest in this project. Furthermore, the nature of the Finnish language, involving abundant inflectional variation and favouring the formation of compound words, is a disadvantage in the keyword method for term extraction – a single term may appear in dozens of different morphological forms and formations, and the frequency of a single form in a text collection is therefore only a fraction of the frequency of the corresponding lexeme, which makes it more probable that some terms may be omitted from the keyword list produced by the corpus analysis application. My first selection of term candidates was a list of 126 possible Finnish terms roughly categorised as terms related to eligibility conditions, support forms for arable operations, support forms for livestock operations and other support forms. This was basically the information arrangement system in the Finnish support guidance material, and it makes sense from its intended users’ – the farmers’ – point of view. However, from the support administration’s point of view, support categories are direct support, rural development support and national support, and this is the grouping system that seemed the most suitable for the glossary, since it is unambiguous and compatible throughout the EU. This kind of grouping seemed to call for some background information on the agricultural policy 56 of the EU, and therefore concepts related to the two pillars of the CAP were added to the collection of term candidates. Now all the concepts could be nicely grouped under five categories: the CAP, direct payments in Finland, Finnish rural development schemes, national aids for agriculture in Finland, and terminology concerning agricultural activity and holdings in the context of support eligibility. Terminology concerning farm improvement investment grants and compensation for advisory service fees was not included in the glossary. Limits concerning the amount of entries had to be set somewhere, and this was one of those places. 5.5 Concept analysis and concept diagrams After deciding on the five categories under which the term candidates would be grouped, they needed to be arranged into concept systems. Building the concept systems was not easy, though, and it required many draft versions, regarding both the terms to be included and their places in the concept systems. One specific question was whether all glossary entry terms should be in the singular form, as conventional, or could the names of support categories and sub-categories, for example suorat tuet, tuotantoon sidotut tuet and EU:n nautaeläinpalkkiot (‘direct payments’, ‘coupled support’ and ‘bovine premia’, respectively), be presented in the plural? Usually, glossary entry terms that are nouns are presented in their singular forms unless they only exist in the plural (TSK 1988: 162). In the agricultural support glossary, plural forms seemed a good way to differentiate categories from individual support forms, which would be presented in the singular form. Plural category names would also follow the example set by, for example, the taxonomy of species and various commercial product catalogues. In Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja, plural entry forms have been used for terms which most commonly occur in the plural although their single forms are also possible (Kudashev 2009: 107–108). This justification is also applicable to the support category names, and thus plural entry forms were used. 57 The concept systems concerning agricultural support include all three basic kinds of concept relations: generic, partitive and associative relations. While it was mostly unproblematic to assign one of these relation types to each concept relation, there were a few cases where this was not straightforward. The most challenging case was the relation between ympäristösitoumus, perustaso, ympäristösitoumuksen vähimmäisvaatimukset, tilakohtainen toimenpide and lohkokohtaiset toimenpiteet (‘environment commitment’, ‘baseline requirements’, ‘primary requirements in the environment commitment’, ‘whole farm code’ and ‘management options’, respectively; see Appendix, glossary entries 40 and 42–45, pages 19–22). While the technical requirements for all these aspects of the agrienvironment support scheme were thoroughly explained in the material, it was rather difficult to figure out their exact relation to each other. Partly this may be due to the fact that the terms ympäristösitoumus, ‘environment commitment’, and ympäristökorvaus, ‘environment payment’, seemed to have sometimes been carelessly used as each other’s synonyms in the support guidance material. Finally, all these concepts found their places in partitive and associative relationships – the primary requirements in the environment commitment, the whole farm code and the management options were placed as constituents of the environment commitment, and baseline requirements were appointed an associative relation with both the whole farm code and the management options (see Appendix, Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 3, page 41). While this partitive relationship did not seem totally logical to me, it seemed important to respect the source material cited for the definition, which explicitly says “ympäristösitoumus koostuu tila- ja lohkokohtaisista toimenpiteistä”, ‘the environment commitment is made up of the whole farm code and management options’. An additional challenge concerning these same concepts was the question whether to include the term and concept toimenpide (‘management option’, ‘measure’) as a separate entry, where would it best fit in the concept system, and furthermore, how to define it. The final solution was to include toimenpide, indicate its specific association with the environment and animal welfare commitments, and complement the definition with a note explaining the use of the term in connection with a few other support forms (see Appendix, glossary entry 41, page 20). These examples go to show how intertwined concept systems and definitions are – one cannot be completed without having figured out the other, and changes in one require corresponding changes in the other. 58 It is conventional to include concept diagrams in terminological glossaries. The purpose of such graphical representations of concept systems is to help observe the set of related concepts as a whole, from a wider perspective than through individual term entries. In addition to providing information for the glossary user, concept diagrams serve as tools that aid the terminologist in the compilation of the glossary (Nykänen 1999(a): 16). At the compilation stage, concept diagrams are usually draft versions which will be edited several times before all the concepts find their final position. They can be, for example, pencil sketches on paper or collections of sticky notes on a wall; I found both of these drafting methods useful in my own work. For depicting concept relations in the agricultural support glossary’s concept diagrams, the conventional annotation system described by Olli Nykänen (1999(a): 17–22) was employed. Firstly, generic relations are shown as tree diagrams, that is, straight lines diverging from the superordinate concept towards the subordinate concepts; see Figure 6. Figure 6. A tree diagram depicting a generic concept relation In a case where different aspects of a superordinate concept lead to several groups of subordinate concepts creating multidimensionality in the system, this multidimensionality is usually portrayed by auxiliary lines that are labelled with the aspect in question. In the agricultural support glossary, concepts with multiple explorable aspects did not occur. Socalled ostensible or auxiliary classes were not needed, either. However, incompleteness, as explained by Nykänen (1999(a): 19), does occur in the agricultural support glossary – sometimes it is necessary to include a special case of a concept as a separate subordinate concept while a comprehensive list of coordinate concepts cannot be given 59 because no specific terms exist for the most typical objects. For example, kesanto, ‘fallow land’, is a subordinate concept of peltoala, ‘arable land’, but arable land which is not lying fallow but is being used for actual crop production is usually not called anything specific. As it seemed necessary to explicate that all arable land is not fallow land, a second line denoting another subordinate concept of arable land was drawn and labelled as viljelty peltoala, ‘cultivated land’, in parentheses (see Appendix, Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 5, page 43, and Figure 7 below). One could argue that viljelty peltoala is a term in its own right and would thus deserve its own entry, but I disagree and consider it a combination of the term peltoala and its general-language attribute. Figure 7. A tree diagram where the incomplete set of subordinate concepts is complemented with an explanation of the unnamed concept in parentheses In the agricultural support glossary there is also another incomplete set of subordinate concepts, namely the subordinate concepts of geenipankkisäilytystoimenpide, a set of management options concerning conservation of heritage plant cultivars and animal breeds. Although it is unambiguous that there are three existing subordinate concepts, only one of them, alkuperäiskasvien ylläpitosopimus, ‘preserving heritage crop cultivars’, is mentioned, because only this one is a producer support option; the other two are meant for specific conservation projects whose operators are not farmers, and therefore they are not included in the concept diagram. The chosen solution was to draw in the lines which indicate the existence of subordinate concepts but leave their ends blank (see Appendix, Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 3, page 41, and Figure 8 on the next page). 60 Figure 8. A tree diagram where the existence of additional subordinate concepts is implicated by lines but the concepts themselves are not included in the diagram Partitive relations are shown as bracket diagrams, where the bracket teeth, connected by a back line, point to the partitive concepts which constitute the comprehensive concept; see Figure 9. When a comprehensive concept is an entity made up of several similar parts, the partitive relation is shown by two bracket teeth pointing at the same partitive concept. For example, maatalousmaa, ‘agricultural land’, is made up of several peruslohko pieces, ‘land parcels’, which in turn are made up of several kasvulohko pieces, ‘part fields’ a.k.a. ‘land use areas’ (see Appendix, Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 5, page 43, and Figure 10 on the next page). This annotation system is consistent with Nykänen’s (1999(a): 17) recommendations. Figure 9. A bracket diagram depicting a partitive concept relation 61 Figure 10. A bracket diagram depicting a partitive concept relation in a situation where the comprehensive concept is an entity made up of several similar parts For one minor detail, I created an annotation way of my own: Sokerijuurikkaan kuljetustuki, ‘haulage aid for sugar beet’, is an additional element of sokerijuurikkaan tuki, ‘national aid for sugar beet’. In the concept diagram, the former is drawn as a partitive concept of the latter but with only “half” a bracket diverging from the side of the comprehensive concept (see Appendix, Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 4, page 42, and Figure 11 below). This attempts to portray the fact that the haulage aid is not a true constituent of the sugar beet aid but an add-on. Figure 11. A variation of the basic bracket diagram, depicting a situation where the lower concept is an additional element of the other concept Associative relations are shown using double-headed arrows, as recommended by Nykänen (1999(a): 17); see Figure 12. Some sources, for example TSK (1988: 32) propose arrows which point to one direction only. This would seem useful for sequential or causal relations where it is clear that one concept comes before the other one. In the agricultural support concept systems, the direction of presented associative relations is not 62 unambiguous nor even relevant; therefore double-headed arrows were my annotation choice. Figure 12. Double-headed arrows depicting associative relations For practical reasons, concept diagrams must usually be presented in chunks which fit on an A4-size page; therefore the number of terms that can be shown at once is limited. It is recommended to piece up a larger diagram and include links or references to other parts or pages of the concept diagram in places where concept relations are broken off (Nykänen 1999(a): 23). In my project, the previously explained grouping of terms into five categories (the CAP, direct payments in Finland, Finnish rural development schemes, national aids for agriculture in Finland, and terminology concerning agricultural activity and holdings in the context of support eligibility) also suited well for the concept diagram page distribution. Each of the five concept diagram pages ended up containing between 14 and 25 terms. The first four belong to the same concept system and are linked through viljelijätuet, ‘producer support’, which is presented, firstly, as a subordinate concept of maataloustuet, ‘agricultural support’, and secondly, as a superordinate concept of suorat tuet, ‘direct payments’, ohjelmatuet, ‘rural development schemes’, and kansalliset tuet, ‘national aids’. The fifth concept diagram page is independent of the others. The producer, or active farmer, can, of course, be seen as having an associative relationship with producer support as its recipient (thus connecting the fifth concept diagram page with the others), but it did not seem necessary to draw this association into the concept diagram. The concept diagrams are presented only in Finnish, because the main target group of this agricultural support glossary is a Finnish one. Nykänen’s (1999(a): 22–23) instructions also suggest the optional possibility of including definitions or entry numbers in the concept diagrams, but I preferred the neat appearance of plain terms and relation lines. 63 The agricultural support concept diagrams presented in the appendix of this thesis were produced using LibreOffice Draw (version 5.0.5.2), an open source vector graphics application. My choice of procedure was as follows: First the diagram layout was sketched out by dispersing rectangle shapes roughly around the workspace (whose size matches an A4 sheet by default), one for each intended term. The terms were then written out on the rectangles. After this, the rectangles were made invisible by changing their border line and fill-in colours to white. Regardless of colour, the application treats these rectangles as ”objects” which include ”glue points” to which connecting lines and arrows (which are also ”objects”) can be positioned accurately and consistently. Subsequently, alignment tools were used to reposition the objects in relation to each other – chosen objects can be aligned horizontally or vertically and spaced evenly, and any connecting lines will automatically follow. 5.6 Definitions and source documentation While having had to think about and draft definitions for entry terms already when figuring out the concept systems, the systematic formulation of definitions was done only after drawing the concept diagrams. The principles of acceptable definitions have been discussed in Section 4.4.2 of this thesis. Below, some problems specifically concerning the agricultural support glossary’s definitions are discussed. One of the first questions to solve was whether the names of individual support forms could be defined in the traditional sense. This question becomes relevant when one considers the fact that they can be seen as ”support forms” or, just as well, ”names of support forms”, bearing in mind that proper names are individual concepts which usually cannot receive definitions. The same question was raised in the compilation process of Suomalais-venäläinen metsäsanakirja. Firstly, it had been noted that some entry terms are proper names which cannot be defined but should rather only be accompanied by a description – for example, names of specific laws or institutions. Secondly, some terms turned out to be “items”, for example, names of insect species. The forestry dictionary editors decided that intensional definitions would not be appropriate for these. Instead, 64 such items ended up being defined by their scientific name and accompanied by descriptions pointing out their significance to the forest industry (Kudashev 2009: 103– 105). For the agricultural support glossary, I decided to provide intensional definitions also for support forms, which I see as item-type terms. After all, there is always a superordinate concept available, namely, the relevant support category, and details of eligibility conditions can be used as delimiting characteristics. This solution may not be totally consistent with terminological theory, but the main aim of the glossary is to be as informative as possible, and these kinds of definitions serve this purpose best. In order to avoid having to use definition space for explicating which definitions are valid throughout the EU and which ones only concern the Finnish system, all entries were tagged with a #EU or #Fin symbol as described in Section 5.2. Linguistic correctness of the Finnish definitions was not always simple to determine. For example, when definitions or their notes say that the any payment is paid for any certain area of agricultural land, maatalousmaalle, the grammatical case is the same as when saying that the payment is made to the support claimant, tuenhakijalle, and therefore it would be possible to interpret that the land is the recipient of the payment. A less ambiguous way to express that a payment is paid for the land would be to say maksetaan maatalousmaasta in the same way that the claimant receives payment for a certain animal, eläimestä. I gave quite a lot of thought to whether the maatalousmaalle type expression, which is fundamentally a shortcut, is acceptable language use, and ended up using it because it is the discourse community’s usual expression for the idea. There are a few instances where it can be questioned whether my definitions conform to principles of terminology work. Usually, a negative definition is appropriate only when the lack of a certain characteristic is essential to a concept (TSK 1988: 65). I have defined tuotannosta irrotetut suorat tuet, ‘decoupled direct payments’, as direct payments whose amount is not based on the amount or quality of produced crops or owned animals, which is true as such. A more correct way could, however, have been to define them as direct payments whose amount is based on the area of agricultural land at the claimant’s disposal and the amount of entitlements they hold. In today’s support system, decoupled 65 direct payments are the default in the EU, and (voluntary) coupled support, the type that is tied to specified production, is an exception. Coupled support has been the more common support type in the past, which is probably why decoupledness is explicated in this term. So, strictly thinking, while the lack of coupledness is a characteristic of the concept, it is not necessarily an essential one, and not even an informative one, since the grounds for payment could be anything else imaginable. Thinking only of direct support in the EU, this negative definition serves best as an explanation of the term’s linguistic form and as a juxtaposition with coupled support. However, it defends its place in the context of the Finnish support system which features several coupled direct support schemes as well as national aids, which, but for one exception, are coupled. In practice, this negative definition is complemented by a note mentioning the actual payment basis (see Appendix, glossary entry 14, page 10). A circular definition was almost inevitable in defining the commitment–payment pairs within rural development schemes. For example, in reality, the environment commitment (ympäristösitoumus) is a commitment to the set of rules the producer needs to comply with to get environment payment (ympäristökorvaus), and environment payment is money the producer gets if they comply with their environment commitment. Both are equally artificial elements of the support system, existing solely by grace of legislation. Similar arrangements concern the animal welfare payment (eläinten hyvinvointikorvaus) and its commitment (eläinten hyvinvointikorvaussitoumus) as well as payment for organic production (luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvaus) and its commitment options (luonnonmukaisen tuotannon sitoumus and luonnonmukaisen kotieläintuotannon sitoumus, for crop production and animal husbandry, respectively). My solution with these was to add some extra elements to the definitions so that their circular nature would not be so striking (see Appendix, glossary entries 34–40, pages 17–19). A few definitions were difficult to formulate because deciding on the correct superordinate concept was challenging. For example, while the guidance material gives ample information on how entitlements, tukioikeudet, are used, it does not offer an exact answer to the question what they are as “things”; the answer to that had to be deduced from the provided information. Tukioikeus, ‘entitlement’, ended up being assigned the superordinate concept of ”immaterial commodity”, aineeton hyödyke (Appendix, glossary entry 80, page 66 32), based on the fact that entitlements have an indirect value and they can be possessed, sold and rented. In other cases, the challenge in definition formulation lay rather in fitting the essential characteristics into one sentence together with the superordinate concept. A case in point is the concept of tukialue, ‘payment region’. While it is easily assigned the superordinate concept of “region” or “area”, and the general idea of “payment region” is easy to grasp, putting it comprehensively into words is another question. It is clear that, for example, “an area where the producer can get a certain amount of support” would have been an inadequate definition. After careful consideration, the definition of tukialue (or translation thereof) ended up being “one of a few areas into which an EU member state or its autonomic region is divided for the purpose that amounts of or eligibility conditions for producer support for land parcels and agricultural activity located and carried out in these areas may vary” (Appendix, glossary entry 90, page 35). Fortunately, the sentence is much more understandable in Finnish. Sometimes deficiencies in the definitions can only be solved by altering the concept system. For example, my first versions of definitions for kesanto, ‘fallow land’ and tilapäisesti viljelemätön ala, ‘land temporarily out of agricultural use’ were practically alike, although it is clear that these are two different concepts. I only managed to correct this flaw by specifying that kesanto is either viherkesanto, ‘fallow land with vegetative cover’, sänkikesanto, ‘fallow land with stubble cover’ or avokesanto, ‘fallow land with bare soil’; this is also the way that the Finnish support guidance material defines kesanto. In English, fallow land is not usually classified this way, and the terms seem unnatural, but in a lack better ideas, these were left in the glossary (Appendix, glossary entries 93–96, pages 36– 37). I thought defining the term maataloustuet, ‘agricultural support’, also essential, because the concept is not as self-evident as it may seem – agricultural support includes much more than just producer support, but this is not explicitly pointed out in the support guidance booklets nor in EU documents. In order to be able to cite a source for the definition ”support paid from public funds for agricultural activity and the trade, processing and distribution of agricultural products” (Appendix, glossary entry 8, page 8), a document from the OECD website was specifically added to the source text collection. 67 The documentation of definition sources was a tedious task but an absolutely necessary one. Not only are source references a requirement for reliable terminology work as a convention, but source documentation is also a tool that keeps the terminologist on the right path, preventing flaws that might occur simply from relying on one’s memory and remembering something wrong. Having to find the exact page(s) to cite as a definition source ensures that no incorrect information will accidentally be recorded in the glossary. (The same applies to documentation of note information and second language equivalent sources.) Here, the WordSmith Tools application was a practical tool: using the entry terms as concordance search queries pointed out the location of the necessary information, since the application displays file names alongside concordance result lines. Gathering concept information directly from WordSmith Tools was not very practical, though, because the displayed unformatted text is not nearly as informative as text including headings and a distinctive paragraph layout and possibly complemented with typographical emphasis techniques, tables and images; therefore, the original texts were usually consulted for the actual information. One must keep in mind that authentic texts rarely offer complete definitions next to the terms, but the information must often be pieced together from a whole paragraph, page or even chapter of text. Moreover, looking the information up in the original text files was mandatory also because page numbers were usually not recordable directly from the running text displayed by WordSmith Tools. As a consequence of the strive to provide a generous amount of information to glossary users, the glossary entries ended up including much more text in notes than in definitions. I am aware that this may not be the most ideal solution in a terminological glossary, but as pointed out previously, different aims call for different approaches. 5.7 Equivalents One of the aims in my agricultural support glossary was to provide English equivalents for the glossary terms. There are two kinds of equivalents in the glossary. Concepts which are the same throughout the EU were coupled with established equivalents from authentic 68 English texts, but for concepts which exist only in the Finnish support system, the only option was to settle for equivalents found in translated texts and/or translation equivalents of my own – that is, artificial equivalents. Kalliokuusi and Seppälä (1999: 77–90) point out that there is no universal formula that could be applied to all equivalent searching – mostly, the process is based on concept analysis and similar to the process of sorting out term candidates in the source language. Problems are case-specific, arising, for example, from the fact that source texts may provide various partial equivalents but no complete equivalents. Synonyms and orthographic variation also call for extra thought – should one present all the variants in the glossary, or on what grounds should some variant be left out? What is the best order for presenting multiple equivalents? How extensively should partial equivalence be explained? All this depends on the target group of the glossary as well as the resources allocated for the work, and in most cases, the terminologist must set limits to the amount of presented information. Where multiple equivalents occur, their order of presentation should usually be from the most common to less common ones; also, possible shortened forms of terms should be presented after the longer (official) ones. Partial equivalence can be pointed using an annotation system with labels for partial equivalents, for example, the “less than” and “greater than” signs for terms with narrower and wider extensions and the tilde for other kinds of non-equivalence. Explanations may be given in parentheses after each partial equivalent. Areal variation between, for example, English spoken in different parts of the world, may be pointed out with country abbreviations. The only universal guideline is to be consistent throughout the glossary and treat all target languages with similar diligence. While the main principle is that only established target language terms are to be used and in a lack of such, the equivalent field should be left blank (TSK 1988: 138), artificial equivalents for concepts which do not exist in the target culture can be acceptable when the aim is to convey the idea of the concept to the target language user (Kalliokuusi & Seppälä 1999: 89). In the case of agricultural support, purely descriptive terminology work would have called for studying the English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and the Irish Republic’s producer support systems as concept systems of their own and pointing out where they differ from each other and the Finnish one. However, this was not the point in my project; the point 69 was to figure out what the elements of the Finnish system would be called in English. Therefore, the glossary is inevitably partly a prescriptive one. In many cases, I have chosen the presented equivalents from several options found in the source material – this goes particularly for the support forms which exist only in Finland and translated English sources. Some term findings have been overlooked completely and not even considered, others may have been considered but finally not included in the glossary, and for some terms, I have provided several equivalent variants among which I was unable or unwilling to point out the best choice. I have used only my own judgement to determine which one or ones would be, firstly, the most idiomatic English, and secondly, the most consistent in form with related terms. Keeping in mind that I am not a native speaker of English nor an experienced terminologist, I felt that I am in no position to give recommendations, but some selection had to be done in order to ever finish the work. As a third criterion for equivalent choices, I had been hoping to be able to use the British support systems’ scheme names as models for the translations of Finnish ones, but that was not possible, after all. Each EU region is free to name its rural development schemes as wished. British scheme names seem to have been chosen either to emphasise national identity (e.g. the Welsh Glastir, which, according to online sources, means ‘pasture land’) or positive development (e.g. the English Countryside Stewardship), or to be strictly informative (e.g. the Scottish Agri-Environmental Scheme and Small Farms Grant Scheme). Moreover, notable coupled direct support schemes exist only in Scotland – the Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme and Scottish Upland Sheep Support Scheme – and these were no match for the thicket of national and coupled direct support schemes in Finland. While I was mostly happy with picking from the range of translation choices used in Mavi’s, Luke’s and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s English translations, there were a few instances where I added my own suggestions. For example, I entered “farmland habitat and feature management” as an English equivalent suggestion for maatalousluonnon monimuotoisuuden ja maiseman hoitosopimus in addition to “management of biodiversity in agricultural environment and landscape”, which is used in the English translation of the Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland 2014–2020 (Appendix, glossary entry 50, page 23). For a few terms, no translation examples could be found, and my own suggestions are the only equivalents provided. Having had these assessed by a native English speaker would have been valuable, though. In the glossary, my own term suggestions are labelled with a currency symbol (¤). 70 My strategy for finding the correct equivalents for EU-wide concepts was based mainly on reading and understanding the European Commission’s documents and British support guidance material. Since the elements of the system are the same in both languages and the producer guidance materials emphasised similar things, the key was to understand the concepts and subsequently just match corresponding terms between languages. By no means would it have been possible to complete the task by randomly guessing and trying to find the right terms through concordance searches in WordSmith Tools. What I did successfully use WordSmith Tools concordance searches for, however, was to compare between multiple term variants. For example, in Finnish, decoupled direct support forms and national aids are called tuki, ‘support’, coupled direct support forms are called palkkio, ‘premium’, and rural development support forms korvaus, ‘compensation’, and this naming principle is consistent throughout. In English, however, support can be called “support”, “aid” or “payment”, and marginally and historically even “compensation” or “allowance”, and a specific support form may or may not be called a “scheme”. I was unable to find any consistent pattern in the usage of these variants, neither in the British guidance material nor in English translations of Finnish documents; therefore, variation is present also in the equivalents provided in the glossary. It is, however, worth pointing out that EU texts and producer guidance material never call producer support “subsidies”. Partial equivalence between Finnish and English concepts was only a marginal challenge in the glossary, but a few occurrences can be pointed out – for example, the pairs tilakohtainen toimenpide and ”whole farm code”, and lohkokohtaiset toimenpiteet and ”management options”. Both of the Finnish terms pertain only to crop production within the environment commitment (ympäristösitoumus). In Britain, all land-related rural development funding alternatives are called “management options” – including those which in Finland would fall under the environment contract (ympäristösopimus) or organic production commitments. The concept and term “whole farm code” appears only in the Welsh Glastir and its requirements differ from those of the Finnish tilakohtainen toimenpide, but it can be coupled with tilakohtainen toimenpide on the basis that compliance entitles to a payment. These native English terms were chosen to be presented as partial equivalents 71 alongside the loan translation equivalents found in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s and Luke’s English texts, which were “farm-level operation” and “farm-specific measure” for tilakohtainen toimenpide and “parcel-specific operations” and “parcel-specific measures” for lohkokohtaiset toimenpiteet (Appendix, glossary entries 43–44, page 21). The English Countryside Stewardship agreements include yet another similar concept, “general management conditions”, but this could not be justifiably coupled with neither tilakohtainen toimenpide, perustaso nor ympäristösitoumuksen vähimmäisvaatimukset, and thus it was left out altogether. The question whether scheme names are proper names or not (discussed already briefly in Section 5.6), came up again with English equivalents. The specific question here is whether to use capital initial letters in the names of specific support forms. In Finnish these seem to be “items”, they are used as common nouns and written with small case initial letters – perustuki (‘basic payment’), uuhipalkkio (‘ewe premium’). In Britain, agricultural support forms are referred to with proper names written with capital initial letters, for example, Basic Payment Scheme, Scottish Upland Sheep Support Scheme. However, since EU sources and texts translated from Finnish to English tend to feature small case spelling of support items in English, this was also my choice in the glossary, although a capital letter might have been equally justifiable. 5.8 Complementary sections of the glossary Having provided all term entries with definitions, notes, equivalents and their sources, and having checked that the collection of term entries matches the concept diagrams, the entries were arranged and numbered. Conventions recommend a systematic order for the entries rather than an alphabetical one (TSK 1988: 179). However, when taking a complex concept system and arranging the concepts sequentially, systematicity can be manifested only partly; the solution is to use common sense and accept an approximately systematic order. Entries can be numbered runningly or using a multilevel numbering system (TSK 1988: 161); for this project, running numbers (1–100) were the obvious choice because the irregularly complex concept system would not have made a sensible multilevel list. 72 A good glossary includes some complementary elements in addition to entries and concept diagrams. There should be an introduction or preface, a table of contents, a reference source list and indexes in all the glossary’s languages if the number of entries exceeds 20; appendices are also possible (TSK 1988: 179–183). The agricultural support glossary received a two-part introduction in Finnish. The first part, the glossary description, introduces the scope and extent of the glossary, discusses the source material briefly, touches on the possibly controversial issues of plural entries and common nouns vs. proper names, and reminds the reader not to regard the glossary as an official term guide since it has been compiled by one student instead of a team of specialists. The second part of the introduction explains the entry structure and annotation system used in the glossary. Next are the actual entries under five subheadings, which correspond to the fivepage division of the concept system. All the concept diagrams are presented one after the other after the last entry; they could just as well have been given one by one after each corresponding subset of entries, but I feel that this way it is easier to look at the whole. After this comes the list of source texts. In the term entries, source references are given as short codes combining letters and numbers, and this complete source list is arranged alphabetically according to the codes, not the actual bibliographic information. Finally, there are the indexes, first in Finnish, then in English. The alphabetical indexes include all term variants given in the entries, including established abbreviations; also some extra index terms are included as was described in Section 5.2. Finally, the glossary was equipped with a cover page and a table of contents. 73 6. Conclusion The purpose of this thesis was to present some essential terminology of the Finnish agricultural support system in Finnish and in English in the form of a terminological glossary. An equally important purpose was to shed light on the glossary compilation process. The glossary, presented as an appendix to this thesis, focuses on producer support available for Finnish farmers in 2015 and 2016. Entry terms include names of most of the different support forms and terms concerning support eligibility conditions. Some terms concerning the EU Common Agricultural Policy are also included. The glossary entries include definitions and explanatory notes in Finnish and term equivalents in English. The study opens with an introduction of the glossary topic – agricultural support in the European Union and in Finland. A description of the current situation is provided, and historical developments of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU and agricultural policy in Finland are briefly summarised. Next, in Chapter 3, terminology as an academic discipline is discussed. Focus points include the scope of terminology, terms used for the different dimensions of terminology, the relationship between terminology and language for special purposes and the connection between translation and terminology. Concepts and principles of terminology are discussed in the fourth chapter. The terminological unit is introduced – it is an entity formed by a concept, its linguistic designation (the term) and a corresponding object; this trinity is complemented by the definition of the concept, and the terminological unit can also include a discourse-related dimension. One section of the study is dedicated to explaining concept characteristics, 74 concept relations and concept systems. Term formation possibilities and norms are discussed in their own section, as well as the standardised principles for writing definitions. The rest of the study is dedicated to describing the compilation process of the agricultural support terminology glossary, with references to guidelines for terminology work found in literature. The glossary compilation process is described as a sequence of steps which follow each other, although, in practice, the steps were frequently revisited or performed intertwined with each other. Finding source material for this glossary was fairly easy, since the framework for the agricultural support system is prescribed by the EU; similar guidance material for producer support claimants is available for Finnish producers in Finnish and for British producers in English, and also EU material on the Common Agricultural policy is available in both languages. However, English material concerning specifically Finnish details of the Finnish support system was inevitably translated text. Compilation of the Finnish part of the glossary was fairly straightforward following conventions of descriptive terminology work. The main challenges, after having decided what to include in the glossary, concerned presenting the rather complex producer support system in simple concept diagrams and formulating adequate terminological definitions. The possibility of adding explanatory notes in term entries was extensively exploited in order to provide information which could not be included in definitions. Concerning English equivalents, a considerable amount of variation in term usage was found both in translated and original English sources. All the discovered variants are not presented in the glossary, and this results in the fact that the glossary is not purely descriptive but also partly, inconspicuously, prescriptive, reflecting the author’s views of most suitable equivalents. My hopes are that the value of this thesis would be a practical one. Perhaps people in need of information on the European agricultural support system and its Finnish and English terminology will find the glossary useful. Perhaps the account of the glossary compilation process can help in the planning and execution of other terminology projects. Possibilities for extending the glossary are legion, should interest arise. All details of the Finnish agricultural support system are not yet covered by the 100 entries provided in the current glossary. More languages could be added, as well as insight into producer support 75 systems of other EU member states. The glossary could also be extended to include agronomic and agritechnic terminology as well as terminology concerning animal welfare standards. The validity of the glossary may turn out temporally rather short – possible changes in the support system are bound to call for updates in the glossary, too. Possible new free trade agreements or other international situations might bring about terminology that we cannot even imagine today. This study evokes some ideas for further academic research, as well. Agricultural support terminology could be analysed in the light of reception theory – for instance, does the English rural support scheme name Countryside Stewardship have a more positive connotation than the Finnish environment payment, animal welfare payment, etc., and are possible country-specific differences in public attitudes towards agriculture and agricultural support in any way attributable to the naming principles of producer support forms? Of course, normative assessment of agricultural support terminology in the context of administrative language clarity might also be worthwhile. Furthermore, the usefulness of the so-called keyword analysis method for term harvesting (described in Section 5.4) could be assessed quantitatively – in this study, the method is dismissed without further justification. 76 References Bowker, Lynne and Jennifer Pearson 2002. Working with Specialized Language. A practical guide to using corpora. New York: Routledge. Cabré, M. Teresa 1999. Terminology. Theory, methods and applications. Translated into English by Janet DeCesaris. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. EC (= European Commission) 2012. The Common Agricultural Policy. A story to be continued. < http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/50-years-ofcap/files/history/history_book_lr_en.pdf >. Last accessed 9 May 2016. EC (= European Commission) 2013. Overview of CAP Reform 2014–2020. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief No5* / December 2013. < http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf >. Last accessed 11 November 2015. Gerd, Alexander 2009. Termijärjestelmä ja terminologinen sanakirja. Translated into Finnish by Inkeri Vehmas-Lehto. In Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 18–24. Hjulstad, Håvard 1999. International Terminology Standardization. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 126–129. Iloniemi, Stiina 2010. Key Word Analyses of Text Corpora as Interpreters’ Tools. Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis. University of Eastern Finland. Faculty of Humanities, Department of Foreign Languages and Translation Studies. Itkonen, Esa 2005. Analogy as Structure and Process. Approaches in linguistics, cognitive psychology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kalliokuusi, Virpi 1999. Määrittelyn monet kasvot. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 43–57. Kalliokuusi, Virpi 2009. Terminologinen käsiteanalyysi – käytännön systemaattisen sanastotyön perusta. In Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 25–34. Kalliokuusi, Virpi and Katri Seppälä 1999. Vastinetyö sanastoprojektissa. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 77–90. Kudashev, Igor 2009. Hyvin suunniteltu on puoliksi tehty. Metsäsanakirjan laatimissuunnitelman kehitys. In Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. 77 Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 103–111. Kudashev, Igor and Irina Kudasheva 2009(a). Suomalais-venäläisen metsäsanakirjan laatimissuunnitelma. Appendix 1 in Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 163–187. Kudashev, Igor and Irina Kudasheva 2009(b). Terminhallintaohjelma MyTerMS terminologin apuna. In Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 149–162. Kudasheva, Irina 2009. Terminologisen työn vaiheet laadittaessa Suomalais-venäläistä metsäsanakirjaa. In Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 112–124. Mavi (=Maaseutuvirasto) 2015(a). Euroopan unionin eläinpalkkiot – vuoden 2015 hakuohjeet. EU:n nautapalkkio, lypsylehmäpalkkio ja lammas- ja vuohipalkkiot. < http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/115/pdf >. Last accessed 9 November 2015. Mavi (=Maaseutuvirasto) 2015(b). Hakuopas 2015. < http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/70/pdf >. Last accessed 9 November 2015. MMM (= Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö / Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) 2016. Kansalliset maataloustuet. < http://mmm.fi/kansalliset-maataloustuet >. Last accessed 9 May 2016. Niemelä, Jari 2008. Talonpoika toimessaan. Suomen maatalouden historia. Suomen kirjallisuuden seura, Tietolipas 225. Helsinki: Hakapaino Oy. Nuopponen, Anita 1994. Begreppssystem för terminologisk analys. Acta Wasaensia No 38. Vaasa: University of Vaasa. Nuopponen, Anita 1999. Mihin terminologian teoriaa ja menetelmiä voidaan hyödyntää? In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 91–98. Nykänen, Olli 1999(a). Kuinka piirrän käsitejärjestelmän? In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 16–28. Nykänen, Olli 1999(b). Sanastoprojektin vaiheet. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 62–71. OECD (= Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2015. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015. Highlights. < http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/monitoring-evaluation-2015-highlightsjuly-2015.pdf >. Last accessed 9 May 2016. Pasanen, Päivi 2009. Merenkulun turvallisuuden koetinkiviä. Terminologisen tiedon poiminta teksteistä. Helsinki University Translation Studies Monographs 5. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. < https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/19287/merenkul.pdf?sequence=2 >. Last accessed 28.10.2015. 78 Ragonnaud, Guillaume 2016. Second Pillar of the CAP: rural development policy. Fact Sheets on the European Union. < http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_5.2.6.pdf >. Last accessed 9 May 2016. Rey, Alain 1995. Essays on Terminology. Translated into English by Juan Sager. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Rossi, Kimmo 1999. Sanastotyö Euroopan unionissa. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 106–110. Räsänen, Matti 2008. TEM. Virallinen lehti 13/2008. Edita Publishing Oy. < https://www.virallinenlehti.fi/fi/sahkoinenlehti/2008-013.pdf >. Last accessed 31 October 2015. Sager, Juan 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Stenvall, Elisa 1999. Vierassanoilla sijansa. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus / Yliopistopaino. 58–61. Suonuuti, Heidi 1997. Guide to terminology. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. Suonuuti, Heidi 1999. Käsiteanalyysi työmenetelmänä. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 29–42. Temmerman, Rita 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tiililä, Ulla 2014. Kielikäsitykset hyvän virkakielen esteenä. Kielikello 3/2014. < http://www.kielikello.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=2726 >. Last accessed 11 October 2016. Tiililä, Ulla 2015. Mitä on asiallinen, selkeä ja ymmärrettävä virkakieli? Kielikello 3/2015. < http://www.kielikello.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=2824 >. Last accessed 11 October 2016. TSK (= The Finnish Terminology Centre) (publ.) 1988. Sanastotyön käsikirja. Soveltavan terminologian periaatteet ja työmenetelmät. SFS-käsikirja 50. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. TSK (= The Finnish Terminology Centre) (publ.) 2006. Terminologian sanasto (TSK 36). Helsinki. < http://www.tsk.fi/tiedostot/pdf/TerminologianSanasto.pdf >. Last accessed 26 October 2015. TSK (= The Finnish Terminology Centre) 2016(a). Sanastokeskus TSK ry. < http://www.tsk.fi/tsk/fi/sanastokeskus_tsk_ry-29.html >. Last accessed 20 November 2016. TSK (= The Finnish Terminology Centre) 2016(b). Sanastoprojektin kustannukset. < http://www.tsk.fi/tsk/fi/sanastoprojektin_kustannukset-20.html >. Last accessed 10 May 2016. Tyysteri, Laura 2010. Yhdyssanatermien rakenne erikoiskielen erityisluonteen kuvaajana. In Nissilä, Niina & Nestori Siponkoski (eds.) Käännösteoria, ammattikielet ja monikielisyys. Publications of the Research Group for the Theory of Translation, LSP and Multilingualism at the University of Vaasa (VAKKI), N:o 37. Vaasa. 350–360. 79 < http://www.vakki.net/publications/2010/VAKKI2010_Tyysteri.pdf >. Last accessed 26 October 2015. Varantola, Krista 1999. Korpukset sanastotyön lähteinä. In Kuhmonen, Kaisa (ed.) Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta. Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus. 130–138. Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri 2009(a). Määritelmät sanakirjan toimittajan käsissä. In VehmasLehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 125–148. Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri 2009(b). Toistakymmentä vuotta sanakirjasavottaa. In VehmasLehto, Inkeri (ed.) Puusta katsoen. Metsätermit ja metsäsanakirjan laadinta. Publications of the Department of Translation Studies VII. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 91–102. Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri 2010. Termit kääntäjän näkökulmasta. In Nissilä, Niina & Nestori Siponkoski (eds.) Käännösteoria, ammattikielet ja monikielisyys. Publications of the Research Group for the Theory of Translation, LSP and Multilingualism at the University of Vaasa (VAKKI), N:o 37. Vaasa. 361–372. < http://www.vakki.net/publications/2010/VAKKI2010_Vehmas-Lehto.pdf >. Last accessed 26 October 2015. VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen and Irja Alho 2004: Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Online version. < http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk >. Last accessed 1 November 2015. Wilkinson, Michael 2005. Using a specialized corpus to improve translation quality. Accurapid, 9: 3. < http://www.translationdirectory.com/article545.htm >. Last accessed 30 October 2015. Wilkinson, Michael 2007. Corpora, Serendipity & Advanced Search Techniques. The Journal of Specialised Translation 7. < http://www.jostrans.org/issue07/art_wilkinson.php >. Last accessed 30 October 2015. Wilkinson, Michael 2010. Quick Corpora Compiling Using Web as Corpus. < http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article2243.php >. Last accessed 21 September 2016. Yli-Jokipii, Hilkka 2006. Erikoiskielten tekstilajien kääntäminen: englanti–suomi–englanti. In Tommola, Jorma (ed.) Kieli ja kulttuuri kääntäjän työvälineenä. Turun yliopisto. Englannin kielen kääntäminen ja tulkkaus. 80 Itä-Suomen yliopisto Filosofinen tiedekunta Humanistinen osasto Vieraat kielet ja käännöstiede Englannin kieli ja kääntäminen Anna Stiina Iloniemi MAATALOUSTUKIEN SANASTO Liite pro gradu -tutkielmaan Joulukuu 2016 Maataloustukien sanasto 2 Sisällysluettelo Sanaston kuvaus....................................................................................................................3 Sanaston rakenne ja merkinnät.............................................................................................5 Hakusanatietueet Yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka.......................................................................................7 Suorat tuet.................................................................................................................10 Ohjelmatuet...............................................................................................................16 Kansalliset tuet..........................................................................................................25 Maatila ja maataloustoiminta, tukiehdot....................................................................31 Käsitejärjestelmäkaaviot Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 1..........................................................................................39 Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 2..........................................................................................40 Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 3..........................................................................................41 Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 4..........................................................................................42 Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 5..........................................................................................43 Sanaston lähdeluettelo........................................................................................................44 Aakkosellinen hakemisto Suomenkieliset termit................................................................................................50 Englanninkieliset termit.............................................................................................53 Maataloustukien sanasto 3 Sanaston kuvaus Maataloustukien sanastoon on koottu suomen- ja englanninkielisiä termejä, jotka liittyvät Suomessa sanaston laadintahetkellä (vuosina 2015–2016) voimassa olleeseen maataloustukijärjestelmään. Sanaston pääpaino on viljelijätuissa. Viljelijätukien ryhmittelyn ja nimikkeistön lisäksi mukana on maataloustukien viitekehykseen eli Euroopan unionin yhteiseen maatalouspolitiikkaan liittyviä käsitteitä sekä tukiehtojen käsitteistöä. Sanastoon ei sisälly maataloustukien valvontaan eikä hakumenettelyyn liittyviä käsitteitä; valvonnan käsitteistöstä on olemassa Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön tietopalvelukeskus Tiken vuonna 2006 yhteistyössä Sanastokeskus TSK:n kanssa laatima Maataloustukien täydentävien ehtojen sanasto. (Tikeä ei enää ole olemassa, vaan sen entisiä tilastopalveluja hoitaa nykyisin Luonnonvarakeskus ja tietotekniikkapalveluja Maanmittauslaitos.) Sanasto sisältää 100 käsitetietuetta, joista osaan liittyy useampi kuin yksi termi; suomenkielisiä termejä on yhteensä 142 ja englanninkielisiä 129. Käsitteiden määritelmät ja selitteet esitetään ainoastaan suomeksi. Sanastossa on useassa kohdassa päädytty ratkaisuun, jossa käsitteen selitteessä mainitaan ja selitetään muitakin termejä kuin ne, jotka käsitetietueessa varsinaisesti on määritelty. Sanasto on pääasiassa deskriptiivinen. Suomenkieliset termit ja niihin liittyvä käsitetieto on poimittu pääosin Maaseutuviraston vuoden 2015 viljelijätukien hakuoppaista ja vähäisemmiltä osin Euroopan unionin toimielinten verkkosivuilta. Määritelmien kohdalla ei ole erikseen eritelty, onko määritelmä saatu suoraan tai lähes suoraan sen kohdalla mainitusta lähteestä vai onko se laadittu lähteiden tietoihin perustuen ns. alkutekijöistä. Englanninkieleisten termien kohdalla puhtaasta deskriptiivisyydestä on erikseen merkityissä kohdissa poikettu. Joillekin vain Suomen tukijärjestelmässä käytössä oleville tukinimikkeille ei ole löydetty tai kelpuutettu käännöslähteissä käytettyä englanninkielistä vastinetta, vaan vastineeksi on annettu sanaston laatijan oma ehdotus tai käännöslähteistä poimitun termivastineen muunnelma. On huomioitava, että englanninkielisiä lähteitä on kolmenlaisia: Euroopan unionin toimielinten tekstejä, jotka ovat mahdollisesti mutta eivät välttämättä asiantuntijakirjoittajien alun perin englanniksi laatimia Ison-Britannian alueellisten maaseutuviranomaisten sikäläisten viljelijätukien hakuoppaita, jotka varmuudella on laadittu alun perin englanniksi todennäköisimmin englantia äidinkielenään puhuvien asiantuntijakirjoittajien toimesta suomalaisten viranomaistekstien ja tutkimusraporttien englanninkielisiä käännöksiä, joissa esiintyy osittain vakiintumatonta termistöä. Osa sanaston hakutermeistä on esitetty monikkomuotoisina. Tähän sanastotyössä poikkeukselliseen (esim. eliölajien taksonomian tai kaupallisten tuotekatalogien mallin mukaiseen) ratkaisuun on päädytty ensisijaisesti viljelijätukikategorioiden erottamiseksi yksittäisistä tukinimikkeistä. Käsitetietueissa monikollisina esitetyt termit ovat monikkomuodossa myös aakkosellisessa hakemistossa ja käsitejärjestelmäkaavioissa. Sanaston kaikki suomenkieliset termit ovat yleisnimiä. Englanninkielisten vastineiden kohdalla on yleisnimi–erisnimi-jaottelussa hajontaa: Isossa-Britanniassa mm. eri tukiohjelmien nimet katsotaan erisnimiksi ja kirjoitetaan isolla alkukirjaimella, mutta EU- ja Maataloustukien sanasto käännösteksteissä tukimuodot nähdään usein yleisniminä ja kirjoitetaan pienellä alkukirjaimella. Tätä vaihtelua on jätetty myös sanaston termien kirjoitusasuun. Kokonaisuudessaan tämä sanasto on syytä nähdä pelkästään sanastoehdotuksena eikä missään nimessä virallisena termiohjeena. Sanasto ei ole minkään asiantuntijaryhmän laatima vaan osa käännöstieteen opiskelijan pro gradu -tutkielmaa ja siten ainoastaan yhden ihmisen yksi näkökulma aiheeseen. Toivottavasti sanastossa esitetyt määritelmät, selitteet ja käsitejärjestelmäkaaviot voivat kuitenkin auttaa aiheeseen perehtymättömiä ymmärtämään maataloustukijärjestelmää; ehkä siitä voi myös olla hyötyä mahdollisen virallisen sanasto- tai ontologiatyön pohjana. 4 Maataloustukien sanasto 5 Sanaston rakenne ja merkinnät Tietueet on numeroitu juoksevasti 1–100. Tietue-esityksessä on väliotsikoin eroteltu käsitteiden aihepiirit samalla jaottelulla kuin käsitejärjestelmäkaavioissakin. Sanaston tietueiden rakenne on seuraavanlainen (ilman näkyviä taulukon rajoja): tietueen numero fi suomenkielinen termi #EU tai #Fin en englanninkielinen vastine (vastineen lähde) määritelmä Mahdollinen selite. (määritelmän lähde) (selitteen lähde) @ käsitejärjestelmä kaavion numero Suomenkieliset termit ja niiden englanninkieliset vastineet on lihavoitu. Vaihtoehtoiset termit on erotettu puolipistein, mutta termien järjestyksellä ei oteta kantaa niiden suositeltavuuteen. Määritelmät alkavat pienellä alkukirjaimella, eikä niiden lopussa ole pistettä. Määritelmää täydentävät selitteet antavat lisätietoa käsitteistä tai termien käyttöyhteyksistä. Selitteet on kirjoitettu sisennettyinä ja hieman määritelmiä pienemmällä kirjasinkoolla. Määritelmissä ja selitteissä korostettu vihreällä kirjasinvärillä termit, jotka esiintyvät hakuterminä toisaalla sanastossa. Toimivia linkkejä ei kuitenkaan tietueiden välille ole tehty. Violetilla kirjasinvärillä on korostettu termit, joiden merkitys käy ilmi selitteestä; näitä ei siis ole määritelty muualla, mutta ne on katsottu olennaisiksi ja lueteltu sanaston aakkosellisessa hakemistossa. Kursivointia on käytetty viitattaessa englanninkielisiin termeihin suomenkielisessä tekstissä. Oikean yläkulman merkintä #EU tarkoittaa, että käsite on yleiseurooppalainen; #Fin tarkoittaa, että käsite kuuluu erityisesti Suomen maataloustukijärjestelmään. Joissakin tapauksissa suomalaisuus tai Euroopan-laajuisuus ei ole yksiselitteistä; selitteissä voi olla annettu asiaa koskevaa lisätietoa. Vastineiden, määritelmien ja selitteiden lähdeviiteissä viitataan lähdeteksteihin kirjainnumeroyhdistelmillä, joiden selitykset löytyvät osiosta Sanaston lähdeluettelo (s. 44). Kaksoispisteen jälkeen on merkitty lähteen sivunumero mainitussa tekstissä (mahdollisesti sivuväli ajatusviivan avulla merkittynä tai useita erillisiä sivuja pilkulla erotettuna). Sivunumeroa ei ole erikseen merkitty yhden sivun mittaisten lähdetekstien yhteyteen eikä silloin, kun lähdeteksti käsittelee kokonaisuudessaan mainittua käsitettä. Jokaiselle termivariantille ja vastineelle on pyritty osoittamaan oma lähteensä. Valuuttamerkki ¤ englanninkielisen vastineen yhteydessä on tässä sanastossa valjastettu osoittamaan sitä, että kyseessä on sanaston laatijan oma vastine-ehdotus. Kun ¤-merkkiä on käytetty vastineen lähdeviitteen yhteydessä, tarkoitetaan, että lähteessä esiintynyttä Maataloustukien sanasto 6 termiä on hieman muokattu, esim. lisäämällä määre, joka esiintyy myös vieruskäsitteessä. Asteriski * on käytössä vain yhdessä tietueessa osoittamassa yhteen vastineeseen erityisesti liittyvää huomautusta selitteessä. Tildeä ~ on käytetty sen merkkinä, että erikielisten termien käsitevastaavuus ei ole täydellinen, ja näin merkittyä eroa on tarkennettu selitekentässä. Tietueen oikeassa alanurkassa on @-merkin jälkeisellä numerolla ilmoitettu käsitejärjestelmäkaavio, jossa käsite esiintyy (muutamissa tapauksissa kaksi eri kaaviota). Numeroidut käsitejärjestelmäkaaviot (1–5) löytyvät sanastosta termitietueiden jälkeen. Käsitejärjestelmäkaavioiden merkinnät: hierarkkinen suhde koostumussuhde funktiosuhde Maataloustukien sanasto 7 Hakusanatietueet Yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka 1 fi yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka; YMP #EU en Common Agricultural Policy; CAP (EC3) Euroopan unionin maataloustukia ja maaseudun kehittämistä koskeva ohjausjärjestelmä (EP1: 1) @1 2 fi ensimmäinen pilari; I-pilari #EU en Pillar I (EC4: 3) yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan yhteistä markkinajärjestelyä ja suorien tukien järjestelmää koskeva osa (EP2: 1, EP3: 1) @1 3 fi toinen pilari; II-pilari #EU en Pillar II (EC4: 3) yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan maaseudun kehittämistä koskeva osa (EP4: 1) @1 4 fi yhteinen markkinajärjestely; YMJ #EU en Common Market Organisation; CMO (EC6) Euroopan unionin maataloustuotteita koskeva markkinoita ohjaavien toimenpiteiden kokonaisuus Yhteisen markkinajärjestelyn markkinoita ohjaavia toimenpiteitä ovat esimerkiksi vientituet, tuontitullit, tuotantokiintiöt, varastointituet ja interventio-ostot. (EP2: 1) (EP2: 2) @1 5 fi suorien tukien järjestelmä #EU en direct payments system (EC1: 2) Kaikissa Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioissa noudatettava suoria tukia ja niiden myöntämis- ja maksuperusteita koskeva järjestelmä (EP3: 1-4) @1 Maataloustukien sanasto 6 8 fi rahoituskuri #EU en Financial Discipline (EN8: 56) mekanismi, jolla suorien tukien järjestelmästä kerätään kriisirahastoa yhteisen markkinajärjestelyn toimenpiteisiin ja huolehditaan, etteivät ensimmäisen pilarin vuotuiset kulut ylitä budjetoituja määrärahoja Toisinaan rahoituskurilla tarkoitetaan myös rahoituskurileikkausta. (Mavi5: 135, EP3: 4) (Mavi3: 41, 53) @1 7 fi rahoituskurileikkaus #EU en Financial Discipline reduction (EC2: 3) suorien tukien hakijakohtaisen kokonaismäärän 2000 euroa ylittävään osaan rahoituskurin sääntöjen mukaisesti tehtävä prosenttimääräinen vähennys (Mavi5: 135) Useisiin viljelijätukiin sovelletaan tukikohtaisesti muitakin erilaisin perustein määriteltyjä enimmäismääriä ja maksujen leikkaustapoja. (Mavi7: 37 ym.) @1 8 fi maataloustuet #EU en agricultural support (OECD) maataloustoiminnalle ja maataloustuotteiden kaupalle, jalostukselle ja jakelulle julkisista varoista maksettavat tuet Maataloustukien tarkoituksena on mm. maataloustuotannon ja maataloustuotemarkkinoiden ohjailu ja maataloustuottajien tulojen täydentäminen. (MTT: 9, Mavi21) (MTT: 10, 15, 18) @1 9 fi markkinatuet #EU en market support (EC3) maataloustuet, joilla rahoitetaan yhteisen markkinajärjestelyn mukaisia markkinoita ohjaavia toimenpiteitä Markkinatukien tavoitteena on maatalouselintarvikkeiden hintatason vakauttaminen. #EU (VM) (Mavi21) @1 Maataloustukien sanasto 10 fi en viljelijätuet producer support; schemes for farmers; rural payments maataloustuet, jotka maksetaan suoraan maataloustuottajille Viljelijätuilla pyritään turvaamaan maataloustuotannon kannattavuus ja jatkuvuus sekä vaikuttamaan tuotteiden laatuun, ympäristön tilaan ja tuotantoeläinten hyvinvointiin. Viljelijätuet voivat olla tulo- tai rahoitustukia. EU:n puitteissa ne voivat olla suoria tukia, maaseudun kehittämistukia tai kansallisia tukia. Englanninkielisistä termeistä producer support viittaa viljelijätukeen yhteiskunnan näkökulmasta, schemes for farmers erillisiin viljelijätukiohjelmiin ja rural payments tuenhakijalle maksettavaan rahaan. 9 #EU (EC4: 4) (EN1) (EN7: 5) (Mavi24) (Mavi20, Mavi24) (EC4: 4, EN1, EN7: 5) @1, 2 11 fi maaseudun kehittämisohjelma #EU en Rural Development Programme; RDP (EC5) EU:n jäsenvaltiota tai sen osaa YMP:n toisen pilarin perusteella koskeva monivuotinen suunnitelma Euroopan maaseuturahastosta (EAFRD) osoitettujen sekä kansallisten varojen käytöstä maaseutualueiden kestävää kehitystä edistäviin toimiin Maaseudun kehittämistä ovat tässä yhteydessä mm. maaseudun elinkeinojen ja niiden toimintaedellytysten sekä asukkaiden, ympäristön ja tuotantoeläinten hyvinvoinnin edistäminen. (EP4: 1, EC4: 9) (EP4: 1–2) @1 12 fi maaseudun kehittämistuet #EU en Rural Development schemes (EN7: 22) EU:n hyväksymän alueellisen maaseudun kehittämisohjelman perusteella maksettavat tuet Maaseudun kehittämistuet voivat olla viljelijätukia (kts. ohjelmatuet), julkistai yksityisoikeudellisille yhteisöille maksettavia hanketukia tai muiden toimialojen kuin maatalouden pienyrityksille maksettavia yritystukia. (EP4) (Mavi12, Mavi21) @1 Maataloustukien sanasto 10 Suorat tuet 13 fi suorat tuet; EU:n kokonaan rahoittamat tuet #EU en direct payments (EC8) Euroopan unionin maataloustukirahastosta (EAGF) rahoitettavat YMP:ssa määritellyt viljelijätuet Suorista tuista on joissain yhteyksissä käytetty myös termiä CAP-tuet, joka voi olla harhaanjohtava, koska myös ohjelmatuet perustuvat osaltaan CAP-järjestelmään eli yhteiseen maatalouspolitiikkaan. Englanninkieliset muotovastineet CAP payments tai CAP (aid) schemes tarkoittavat yleisesti sekä suoria tukia että ohjelmatukia. (EP2: 4, EP3: 4) (MTT: 17) (WA1: 13, 42, EN1) @2 14 fi tuotannosta irrotetut suorat tuet #EU en decoupled direct payments (EC4: 4) suorat tuet, joiden maksuperuste ei ole tuotettujen maataloustuotteiden tai omistettujen eläinten laji eikä määrä Tuotannosta irrotettujen suorien tukien maksuperusteita ovat tuenhakijan hallinnassa olevan maatalousmaan ala ja tukioikeuksien määrä. (EC3) (Mavi5: 47) @2 15 fi perustuki #EU en basic payment (EC4: 7) suora tuki, jota voidaan maksaa aktiiviviljelijälle lähes kaikesta hänen hallinnassaan olevasta maatalousmaasta Perustukea ei makseta tilapäisesti viljelemättömälle alalle, pysyvien kasvien kasvihuonealalle (esim. leikkoruusuviljelmät) eikä Suomessa alalle, joka on 1995–1999 alkaneen 20-vuotisen ympäristötuen erityistukisopimuksen piirissä. Vuonna 2016 perustuen piiristä poistuu myös kaikki sellainen viljely, jossa kasvin juuret eivät ole yhteydessä maaperään. Perustuki korvasi vuonna 2015 aiemmin käytössä olleen tilatuen (englanniksi Single Farm Payment). Mm. Isossa-Britanniassa perustuki nähdään useammin kokonaisuutena (Basic Payment Scheme, BPS), johon viherryttämistuki ja nuoren viljelijän tuki kuuluvat sen sisäisinä osina; tuen hakemisen ja maksamisen kannalta näkökulmaeroilla ei ole merkitystä. (Mavi5: 47, 50) (Mavi5: 47, 143, Mavi6: 3) (NI2: 7) (EN8) @2 Maataloustukien sanasto 16 11 fi viherryttämistuki #EU en greening payment (EN8: 5) suora tuki, jota maksetaan samalle alalle kuin perustukea, jos maatilalla täytetään viherryttämistuen vaatimukset (Mavi5: 53–54) @2 17 fi nuoren viljelijän tuki #EU en young farmer payment (EN8: 54) suora tuki, jota voidaan maksaa aktiiviviljelijälle, joka on korkeintaan 40vuotias hakiessaan perustukea ensimmäisen kerran Nuoren viljelijän tukea varten tukikelpoisia ovat samat alat kuin perustukeakin, mutta sitä voidaan maksaa korkeintaan 90 hehtaarista/hakija. Hakija voi saada nuoren viljelijän tukea korkeintaan viitenä vuotena. (Mavi5: 64) (Mavi5: 68) @2 18 fi viherryttämistuen vaatimukset; viherryttämisvaatimukset #EU en greening requirements; greening rules (NI2: 46, EN8: 31) joukko ympäristön kannalta suotuisiksi määriteltyjä maatalouskäytäntöjä, joiden toteuttaminen on yksi viherryttämistuen saamisen ehdoista Viherryttämistuen vaatimukset vaihtelevat maatilojen välillä riippuen maatilan sijainnista, koosta ja viljellyistä kasveista. Luomutuotannossa olevat alat voidaan vapauttaa viherryttämistuen vaatimuksista. Viherryttämistuen vaatimusten yksittäisiä osia voidaan kutsua viherryttämistoimenpiteiksi (engl. greening measures). (Mavi5: 53, Mavi13: 7) (Mavi5: 53–54) (Mavi5: 127, NI2: 47) @2 19 fi viljelyn monipuolistaminen #EU en crop diversification (EN8: 33) vähintään kahden tai kolmen eri viljelykasvin viljeleminen maatilalla satokauden aikana osana viherryttämistuen vaatimuksia Kolmen eri viljelykasvin vaatimus koskee vain AB-tukialueella sijaitsevia maatiloja, joiden peltoala on yli 30 ha. Viljelyn monipuolistamisesta ovat vapautettuja kaikki alle 10 ha:n maatilat sekä mm. maatilat, joilla viljely on tietyin kriteerein nurmivaltaista. Viljelykasveilla tarkoitetaan tässä yhteydessä tukioppaissa erikseen lueteltuja kasvilajeja tai kasvilajiryhmiä; esimerkiksi syysvehnä on viljelyn monipuolistamisen toteuttamisessa eri viljelykasvi kuin kevätvehnä, ja viljojen seoskasvustot ovat viljalajeista riippumatta yksi viljelykasvi. (Mavi5: 55–57) (Mavi5: 55–57, 63) @2 Maataloustukien sanasto 20 12 fi pysyvän nurmen säilyttäminen #EU en maintaining permanent grassland (EC8: 7) maatilalla viljellyn pysyvän nurmen tai sitä vastaavan pinta-alan säilyttäminen nurmiviljelyssä osana viherryttämistuen vaatimuksia, mikäli koko maan tasolla pysyvän nurmen osuus maatalousmaasta pienenee yli viisi prosenttia vuoden 2015 viljelyalojen perusteella vahvistettavasta viiteosuudesta (Mavi5: 58) Pysyvän nurmen mahdollista palauttamisvaatimusta kutsutaan pysyvän nurmen ennallistamismenettelyksi. (Mavi5: 60) @2 21 fi ekologisen alan vaatimus; efa-velvoite #EU en maintaining an ecological focus area; Ecological Focus Area requirement (EC8: 7) (SC1: 2) kesannon tai täydentävien ehtojen mukaisten suojeltujen maisemapiirteiden ylläpito tai typensitojakasvien tai lyhytkiertoisen energiapuun viljely osana viherryttämistuen vaatimuksia pinta-alalla, joka vastaa vähintään viittä prosenttia maatilan peltoalasta Suomessa ekologisen alan vaatimus koskee maatiloja, jotka sijaitsevat Uudenmaan, Varsinais-Suomen ja Ahvenanmaan maakunnissa ja joilla on yli 15 ha peltoalaa. Ekologisesta alasta käytetään Suomessakin toisinaan englanninkielisestä termistä Ecological Focus Area muodostettua lyhennettä EFA. (Mavi5: 53, 60) (Mavi5: 60) @2 22 fi tuotantoon sidotut tuet #EU en coupled support; voluntary coupled support (EC4: 8, EC9) suorat tuet, joita maksetaan vain määrättyjen viljelykasvien tuotantoaloille tai joiden maksuperusteena on tuenhakijan omistuksessa oleva määrättyjen tuotantoeläinlajien eläinmäärä Jokainen EU:n jäsenvaltio on itsenäisesti saanut määrättyjen rajojen puitteissa päättää, mille maataloustoiminnalle se maksaa tuotantoon sidottuja tukia vai maksaako ollenkaan; tämän takia englanninkieliseen termiin sisältyy määre voluntary, 'vapaaehtoinen'. Suomessa useimmat kansalliset kotieläintuet ovat myös vastaavalla tavalla tuotantoon sidottuja, mutta niitä ei tällä termillä yleensä tarkoiteta. (EP3: 3, Mavi13: 19–20) (EC9:2) (Mavi7: 6) @2 Maataloustukien sanasto 23 fi peltokasvipalkkio en arable crops premium ¤ määrättyjen valkuaiskasvien ja avomaanvihannesten, rukiin sekä sokerijuurikkaan ja tärkkelysperunan viljelylle maksettava pintaalaperusteinen tuotantoon sidottu tuki Avomaanvihannesten peltokasvipalkkiota voidaan maksaa vain ABtukialueella ja vain ihmisravinnoksi viljeltävistä avomaanvihanneksista. Eräät yleiset öljysiemenkasvit luetaan peltokasvipalkkion yhteydessä valkuaiskasveiksi. Sokerijuurikkaan ja tärkkelysperunan osalta tukiehtona on lisäksi viljelysopimus teollisuuden kanssa. 13 #Fin (Mavi5: 121–122) (Mavi5: 121–122) @2 24 fi EU:n eläinpalkkiot #Fin en animal premia (Mavi19) aktiiviviljelijän hallinnassa olevien nautojen, lampaiden ja vuohien lukumäärän perusteella maksettavat tuotantoon sidotut tuet Useita EU:n eläinpalkkiota maksetaan vain AB-tukialueella, ja useimmat myös ovat Ahvenanmaalla ja ulkosaaristossa korkeampia kuin mantereella. (Mavi3: 5) (Mavi3) @2 25 fi EU:n nautaeläinpalkkiot #Fin en bovine premia (EC9: 6) nautapalkkio ja EU:n lypsylehmäpalkkio (Mavi3: 8) @2 26 fi nautapalkkio en beef cattle premium ¤ koko Suomessa lihantuotannon naudoista ja AB-tukialueen ulkosaaristossa myös maidontuotantoon kasvatettavista hiehoista maksettava EU:n eläinpalkkio Nautapalkkiota voi saada aktiiviviljelijä hallinnassaan olevista vähintään 50-prosenttisesti liharotuisista emolehmistä ja emolehmähiehoista; teuraaksi kasvatettavista hiehoista, sonneista ja häristä rodusta riippumatta; maitorotuisesta tai simmental-rotuisesta maidontuotantoon kasvatettavasta hiehosta AB-tukialueen ulkosaaristossa (ns. saaristohieho). #Fin (Mavi3: 12–17) (Mavi3: 12–17) @2 Maataloustukien sanasto 27 14 fi EU:n lypsylehmäpalkkio #Fin en dairy cow premium (Mavi19) AB-tukialueella maidontuotantoon käytettävistä lehmistä maksettava EU:n eläinpalkkio EU:n lypsylehmäpalkkiota voi saada aktiiviviljelijä hallinnassaan olevista vähintään 50-prosenttisesti maitorotuisista säännöllisesti poikineista lehmistä, joiden käyttötavaksi on nautarekisteriin merkitty maidontuotanto. (Mavi3: 18–19) (Mavi3: 18–19) @2 28 fi EU:n lammas- ja vuohipalkkiot #Fin en sheep and goat premia (EC9: 9) uuhipalkkio, kuttupalkkio ja teuraskaritsa- ja kilipalkkio (Mavi3: 42) @2 29 fi uuhipalkkio en ewe premium AB-tukialueella yli vuoden ikäisistä uuhista maksettava EU:n eläinpalkkio Uuhipalkkiota voi saada aktiiviviljelijä, jolla on vähintään 20 palkkiokelpoista uuhta, mutta korkeintaan niin monesta hallinnassaan olevasta uuhesta kuin tilalla on tuenhakuvuonna syntynyt karitsoita. #Fin (EC9: 9) (Mavi3: 46) (Mavi3: 46) @2 30 fi kuttupalkkio #Fin en doe premium (Luke: 96) AB-tukialueella yli vuoden ikäisistä kutuista maksettava EU:n eläinpalkkio Kuttupalkkiota voi saada aktiiviviljelijä, jolla on hallinnassaan vähintään 20 palkkiokelpoista kuttua ja joka toimittaa vuohenmaitoa tai siitä valmistettuja tuotteita myyntiin. Tukea maksetaan korkeintaan siitä määrästä palkkiokelpoisia kuttuja, joka on tuottanut määrättyihin tarkoituksiin käytettyä vuohenmaitoa keskimäärin vähintään 400 litraa/kuttu/vuosi. (Mavi3: 48–49) (Mavi3: 48–49) @2 Maataloustukien sanasto 31 15 fi teuraskaritsa- ja kilipalkkio #Fin en fattening lamb and kid premium (EC9: 9) Maaseutuvirastolle ilmoittautuneessa teurastamossa teurastetuista karitsoista ja kileistä koko Suomessa maksettava EU:n eläinpalkkio Aktiiviviljelijä voi saada teuraskaritsa- ja kilipalkkiota korkeintaan vuoden ikäisenä teurastetusta poikimattomasta lampaasta, jonka ruhopaino on vähintään 18 kg, ja korkeintaan 1,5 vuoden ikäisestä poikimattomasta vuohesta, jonka ruhopaino on vähintään 15 kg. (Mavi3: 50–51) (Mavi3: 50–51) @2 Maataloustukien sanasto 16 Ohjelmatuet 32 fi en ohjelmatuet; ohjelmaperusteiset tuet; EU-osarahoitteiset tuet #EU rural development schemes (EN3: 80) viljelijätuet, jotka perustuvat EU:n jäsenvaltion tai sen alueen maaseudun kehittämisohjelmaan RDP = Rural Development Programme, 'maaseudun kehittämisohjelma'; Suomessa Manner-Suomen maaseudun kehittämisohjelma sekä Landbygdsutvecklingsprogrammet för Åland. Tämän sanaston hakusanoiksi on Manner-Suomen ohjelmatuista otettu korvaustyyppiset tuet, joita voidaan hakea vuosittain viljelijätukien päätukihaussa tai sen yhteydessä. Manner-Suomen maaseudun kehittämisohjelman puitteissa maataloustuottajille suunnattuja tukia ovat myös maatilan investointituet ja nuoren viljelijän aloitustuki sekä maatilojen neuvonnan asiakasmaksutuki; maaseudun muut toimijat voivat hakea maaseudun yritystukia sekä tukia maaseudun kehittämishankkeille. Jokainen EU-jäsenvaltio tai sen alue on valmistellut oman ohjelmatukijärjestelmänsä EU:n maaseudun kehittämispolitiikan puitteissa; järjestelmät ovat samantapaisia mutta eivät yhteneväisiä, ja tukimuotojen nimeämiskäytännöt ovat myös kirjavia. Esimerkiksi Isossa-Britanniassa Englannin Countryside Stewardship (Mid Tier ja Higher Tier), Walesin Glastir (Entry ja Advanced) ja Skotlannin Agri-Environmental Scheme tarjoavat haettavaksi samantyyppisiä tukia kuin Suomen ympäristökorvaus- ja luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvauksen järjestelmät. Lisäksi esim. Englannin Countryside Productivity Scheme tarjoaa viljelijöille rahoitusta monenlaisiin kasvi- ja eläintuotannon kehittämisratkaisuihin ml. eläinten hyvinvoinnin parantamisen investoinnit. (Mavi5: 11, 18, 43, 130) (Maa3, Maa4, Maa5, Maa6, Ål) (EN3, EN4, WA1, WA2, SC3, EN2) @2, 3 Maataloustukien sanasto 33 17 fi luonnonhaittakorvaus; LHK #Fin en natural constraint payment; natural constraint support (MMM2: 111) (EC4: 8) pinta-alaperusteinen ohjelmatuki, jota voidaan maksaa useimpien peltoviljelykasvien korvauskelpoisille lohkoille koko Suomessa Luonnonhaittakorvauksen tarkoituksena on maataloustuotannon jatkumisen turvaaminen alueilla, joiden olosuhteet ovat ilmaston, maaperän, pinnanmuotojen tai vesivarojen kannalta epäsuotuisia. Luonnonhaittakorvaus on tukimuotona käytössä muissakin, joskaan ei kaikissa, EU-jäsenvaltioissa. Jäsenvaltio on voinut järjestää luonnonhaittakorvauksen maksettavaksi ohjelmatuen sijasta suorana tukena. Luonnonhaitta-alueen aiempi englanninkielinen lyhenne LFA (Less Favoured Area) poistuu käytöstä. Näin ollen luonnonhaittakorvauksesta ei Suomessa käytetä enää aiempaa LFA-tuki-nimitystä, ja myös esim. Pohjois-Irlannin aiempi LFA Compensatory Allowance ja Skotlannin LFA Support Scheme vaihtuvat Areas of Natural Constraint (ANC) -tukiohjelmiksi. (Mavi5: 112–113) (Mavi5: 112, NI1: 2) (EC8: 5, EP3: 3) (Mavi10, Mavi4: 73, NI2: 7, SC6: 2) @3 34 fi luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvaus #Fin en payment for organic production (MMM2: 484) pinta-alaperusteinen ohjelmatuki, jota voidaan maksaa koko Suomessa luonnonmukaisen tuotannon sitoumuksen tai luonnonmukaisen kotieläintuotannon sitoumuksen tehneelle aktiiviviljelijälle Luonnonmukaisen tuotannon ja luonnonmukaisen kotieläintuotannon sitoumukset tehdään pääsääntöisesti maatilan kaikesta maatalousmaasta, mutta esim. avomaanvihannesten viljelijät voivat tehdä sitoumuksen pelkästään niistä peruslohkoista, joilla viljelevät avomaanvihanneksia sitoumuskauden aikana. (Mavi5: 118, Mavi13: 17) (Mavi5: 118–119) @3 35 fi luonnonmukaisen tuotannon sitoumus #Fin en commitment on organic production (MMM2: 485) sitoumus, jolla aktiiviviljelijä sitoutuu viideksi vuodeksi toteuttamaan maatilallaan luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvauksen ehtoja Luonnonmukaisen tuotannon sitoumukseen kuuluu luonnonmukaisten tuotantomenetelmien noudattamisen ja luomuvalvontajärjestelmään kuulumisen lisäksi mm. velvoite tuottaa erikseen määriteltyjä myyntikasveja vähintään 30 prosentilla sitoumusalasta. (Mavi11: 2) (Mavi11: 4, 9) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 36 18 fi luonnonmukaisen kotieläintuotannon sitoumus #Fin en commitment on organic livestock production (MMM2: 485) sitoumus, jolla aktiiviviljelijä, jonka maatilalla on luonnonmukaisesti kasvatettuja nautoja, sikoja, vuohia, lampaita tai siipikarjaa vähintään 0,3 eläinyksikköä/ha, sitoutuu viideksi vuodeksi toteuttamaan luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvauksen ehtoja Luonnonmukaista kotieläintuotantoa koskevan sitoumuksen tekemisen edellytyksenä on kuuluminen luomuvalvontajärjestelmään paitsi peltokasvituotannon osalta, myös niiden eläinlajien osalta, joista sitoumus tehdään. (Mavi11: 9, Mavi5: 118) (Mavi11: 4) @3 37 fi eläinten hyvinvointikorvaus #Fin en animal welfare payment (MMM2: 540) ohjelmatuki, jota voidaan koko Suomessa maksaa nautoja, sikoja, lampaita, vuohia tai siipikarjaa kasvattavalle aktiiviviljelijälle, joka on tehnyt eläinten hyvinvointikorvaussitoumuksen Eläinten hyvinvointikorvauksen tarkoituksena on kattaa kustannuksia, joita aiheutuu lakisääteiset vähimmäisvaatimukset ylittävästä panostuksesta tuotantoeläinten hyvinvointiin. (Mavi2: 1) (Mavi1: 6–28) @3 38 fi eläinten hyvinvointikorvaussitoumus #Fin en animal welfare commitment (MMM2: 540) sitoumus, jolla aktiiviviljelijä sitoutuu toteuttamaan määrätyistä vaihtoehdoista määrättyjen rajoitusten puitteissa valitsemiaan eläinten hyvinvointikorvaukseen oikeuttavia tuotantosuuntaansa sopivia toimenpiteitä sitoumuskauden ajan Vuonna 2015 eläinten hyvinvointikorvaussitoumus tehdään ajalle 1.5.2015–31.12.2016, jatkossa kalenterivuodeksi kerrallaan. Valittavat toimenpiteet ovat eläinlajikohtaisia mm. ruokintaan, pitopaikan olosuhteisiin, liikkuma-alaan ja virikkeisiin liittyviä asioita. (Mavi1: 2) (Mavi2: 1, Mavi1: 6– 28) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 39 19 fi ympäristökorvaus #Fin en environment payment; agri-environment-climate payment (MMM2: 325) (Luke: 97) ohjelmatuki, jota voidaan maksaa ympäristösitoumuksen tai ympäristösopimuksen tehneelle hakijalle Ympäristökorvausta voidaan maksaa pelto- ja puutarhakasvien viljelyksessä olevista ympäristösitoumukseen sisältyvistä korvauskelpoisista aloista ja ympäristösopimukseen sisältyvistä sopimusaloista. Korvauksen tarkoituksena on kattaa kustannuksia, joita aiheutuu lakisääteiset vähimmäisvaatimukset ylittävästä panostuksesta mm. ympäristön tilan parantamiseen, luonnon monimuotoisuuden edistämiseen tai alueen kulttuuriarvojen säilyttämiseen. (Mavi5: 69, 90) (Mavi25: 30, Mavi5: 102, 43) @3 40 fi ympäristösitoumus #Fin en environment commitment (MMM2: 322) sitoumus, jolla aktiiviviljelijä sitoutuu viideksi vuodeksi noudattamaan maatilallaan ympäristökorvauksen vähimmäisvaatimuksia sekä toteuttamaan tilakohtaista toimenpidettä ja valinnaisia lohkokohtaisia toimenpiteitä Ympäristösitoumuksen toimenpiteet liittyvät pääasiassa ympäristöystävällisiksi määriteltyihin viljelykäytäntöihin. Huom.: ympäristösitoumus ja ympäristösopimus ovat Suomen tukijärjestelmässä eri käsitteitä. Esim. Isossa-Britanniassa maatalouden ympäristötukiohjelman sitoumuksen/sopimuksen nimitykset vaihtelevat alueittain: Englannissa Mid Tier / Higher Tier agreement, Walesissa Glastir Contract, Skotlannissa agri-environment commitment tai contract (synonyymisesti); kts. ohjelmatuet. (Mavi25: 4) (Mavi25: 7–26) (EN3: 5, WA1: 4, SC1) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 41 fi en toimenpide management option; measure; operation * erikseen määritelty maataloustuotantoon tai maankäyttöön liittyvä toimintatapa tai menettely tai näiden muodostama kokonaisuus, jonka toteuttamisvelvollisuus ei perustu voimassa olevaan lainsäädäntöön mutta jonka toteuttaminen on eräiden viljelijätukien maksuperuste Suomen tukijärjestelmän kontekstissa toimenpiteellä tarkoitetaan useimmiten eläinten hyvinvointikorvauksen ja ympäristösitoumuksen toimenpiteitä, mutta myös mm. luonnonmukaista tuotantoa, ympäristösopimuksen sopimuskohteita ja viherryttämistuen vaatimuksia voidaan kutsua toimenpiteiksi. * Englanninkielinen termivariantti operation esiintyy tässä erikoistuneessa merkityksessä vain suomesta käännetyissä lähteissä; esim. Skotlannin ohjelmatukien hakuohjeissa operation viittaa terminomaisesti toimiin, joiden toteuttamiseen haetaan kertaluonteista rahoitusavustusta. Yleisesti maatalouden kontekstissa operation voi myös tarkoittaa viljelytoimenpiteitä ylipäänsä tai maatilaa yhdessä tuotantosuuntamääreen kanssa (arable operation, livestock operation) 20 #EU (SC2, EN4) (NI2: 47, 81) (MMM2: 323) (Mavi5: 43) (Mavi5: 69, 94– 101, 118, 127 Mavi25: 7–26) (SC7: 6– 23) @3 42 fi ympäristösitoumuksen vähimmäisvaatimukset en minimum requirements for fertiliser use and plant protection; primary requirements in the environment commitment ¤ ympäristösitoumukseen sisältyvät lannoitteiden ja kasvinsuojeluaineiden käyttöä koskevat täydentäviä ehtoja tiukemmat rajoitukset ja velvoitteet, joita sitoumuksen antaneen viljelijän on noudatettava koko maatilallaan Samasta käsitteestä käytetään yleisesti myös termiä ympäristökorvauksen vähimmäisvaatimukset. #Fin (MMM2: 328) (Mavi5: 70–74) (Mavi25: 7–10) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 43 fi tilakohtainen toimenpide en farm-level operation; farm-specific measure; ~ whole farm code ympäristösitoumukseen sisältyvä lannoitusta koskeva toimenpide, jota sitoumuksen antaneen viljelijän on toteutettava koko maatilallaan ja joka oikeuttaa ympäristökorvaukseen Tilakohtaisessa toimenpiteessä ei ole samanlaista valinnaisuutta kuin lohkokohtaisissa toimenpiteissä, vaan ainoa ja pakollinen vaihtoehto on "ravinteiden tasapainoinen käyttö", johon kuuluu mm. viljelysuunnitelmien tekoa, suojakaistojen ylläpitoa ja koulutukseen osallistumista. Tilakohtaisesta toimenpiteestä maksettava korvaus riippuu viljeltävästä kasvilajista. Tilakohtaisen toimenpiteen toteuttaminen on paitsi korvausperuste, myös lohkokohtaisten toimenpiteiden korvauksen saamisen ehto. Engl. lähivastine whole farm code on esimerkinomainen; se on käytössä Walesin ympäristötukiohjelmassa (kts. ohjelmatuet) ja sen määräykset ovat erilaisia kuin tässä määritellyn tilakohtaisen toimenpiteen, mutta sen käytännön merkitys tuenhakijan kannalta on samanlainen. 21 #Fin (MMM2: 323) (Luke 97) (WA1: 7, 9) (Mavi25: 11) (Mavi25: 11–14, 29) (WA1: 7, 9) @3 44 fi lohkokohtaiset toimenpiteet en parcel-specific operations; parcel-specific measures; ~ management options ympäristösitoumuksessa tarjotut vaihtoehdot peltoviljelyä koskeviksi toimenpiteiksi, joiden joukosta sitoumuksen antanut viljelijä voi määrätyin alueellisin ja tuotantosuuntakohtaisin rajoituksin valita maatilalleen sopivat ja saada niiden toteuttamisesta ympäristökorvausta Lohkokohtaisten toimenpiteiden vaihtoehdot ovat "lietelannan sijoittaminen peltoon", "ravinteiden ja orgaanisten aineiden kierrättäminen", "valumavesien hallinta", "ympäristönhoitonurmet", "orgaanisen katteen käyttö puutarhakasveilla ja siemenperunalla", "peltojen talviaikainen kasvipeitteisyys", "peltoluonnon monimuotoisuus" ja "puutarhakasvien vaihtoehtoinen kasvinsuojelu", ja niiden toteuttamiselle on täsmälliset toimenpidekohtaiset ohjeet ja ehdot. Englanninkielisestä lähivastineesta management options on huomioitava, että maatalouden ympäristötukiohjelmat, joiden yhteydessä termiä IsossaBritanniassa käytetään, ovat laajuudeltaan erilaisia kokonaisuuksia kuin Suomen ympäristösitoumukset (kts. ohjelmatuet). Englannissa joihinkin management option -toimenpiteisiin on lisäksi yhdistettävissä lisäosia, supplements. #Fin (MMM2: 323) (Luke 97) (WA2: 5, SC3: 1)) (Mavi25: 15–27) (Mavi25: 15) (EN4) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 45 22 fi perustaso #Fin en baseline requirements (MMM2: 330) ympäristösitoumuksen tilakohtaiseen toimenpiteeseen ja lohkokohtaisiin toimenpiteisiin toimenpidekohtaisesti kuuluvien vaatimusten kokonaisuus, joiden noudattaminen koko tilalla on ympäristökorvauksen saamisen edellytys Perustason vaatimukset ovat poimintoja täydentävistä ehdoista, joita maatilalla on joka tapauksessa noudatettava kaikkien suorien tukien ja ohjelmatukien saamisen edellytyksenä. Perustaso on kuitenkin määritelty erikseen tukiehtojen noudattamatta jättämisen seuraamuksiin liittyvistä syistä. (Mavi25: 4) (Mavi25: 53–60, Mavi16: 123–130) @3 46 fi kohdentamisalue en target area; target region jokin Suomen sisäisestä kolmesta alueesta, jotka on määritelty siinä tarkoituksessa, että ympäristötuen lohkokohtaisten toimenpiteiden valintamahdollisuudet, vaatimukset tai korvaustasot voivat olla näillä alueilla erilaiset kuin niiden ulkopuolella Kohdentamisalue I:een kuuluu Länsi- ja Lounais-Suomen kuntia, II:een Etelä-Suomen kuntia ja Itämeren saaristoa, III:een sekä Etelä- että LänsiSuomen kuntia. #Fin (MMM2: 324, WA1: 36) (Mavi5: 70) (Mavi25: 62–63) @3 47 fi ympäristösopimus #Fin en environment contract (MMM2: 326) sopimus, jonka tekijä sitoutuu viideksi vuodeksi toteuttamaan siinä tarkoitettua maaseudun luonto- tai kulttuuriarvoja vaalivaa tai ympäristönhoidollista toimintaa erikseen määritellyssä sopimuskohteessa Maankäyttöön liittyviä ympäristösopimuksia varten hakijan on esitettävä perusteltu hoitosuunnitelma, joka hyväksytään vain, jos sen vaikuttavuus sopimuskohteeseen arvioidaan sopimustyypin tavoitteiden mukaiseksi ja riittäväksi. Ympäristösopimuksen voimassa pitämiseksi sen toteuttamisen perusteella saatavan ympäristökorvauksen maksua on haettava vuosittain erikseen. Huom. ympäristösopimus on eri asia kuin ympäristösitoumus. (Mavi5: 90–91) (Mavi5: 91–102) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 48 fi kurki-, hanhi- ja joutsenpeltosopimus en crane, goose and swan fields; crane, goose and swan field management ¤ ympäristösopimus lintujen ravinnoksi soveltuvan siemensatoa tuottavan kasvuston viljelystä niiden massaesiintymisalueilla Kurki-, hanhi ja joutsenpeltosopimuksen voi tehdä aktiiviviljelijä. Sopimuksia tehdään ensisijaisesti alueille, joilla linnut ovat aiheuttaneet satovahinkoja ja joiden läheisyydessä on niille sopivia vesielementtejä. 23 #Fin (MMM2: 326) (Mavi5: 99) (Mavi5: 91, 99) @3 49 fi kosteikon hoitosopimus en management of wetlands; wetland management ¤ ympäristösopimus kosteikon, tulva-alueen tai luonnonmukaistetun uoman sellaisesta hoidosta, joka pienentää maatalouden aiheuttamaa vesistökuormitusta tai lisää maatalousalueiden luonnon monimuotoisuutta Kosteikon hoitosopimuksen voi tehdä aktiiviviljelijä, rekisteröity yhdistys tai vesilain mukainen vesioikeudellinen yhteisö. #Fin (MMM2: 326) (Mavi5: 95) (Mavi5: 91) @3 50 fi maatalousluonnon monimuotoisuuden ja maiseman hoitosopimus #Fin en management of biodiversity in agricultural environment and landscape; farmland habitat and feature management ¤ (MMM2: 326) ympäristösopimus hoitoa vaativien elinympäristöjen ja niiden lajiston tilan sekä maisema-arvojen suunnitelmallisesta edistämisestä maatalousalueilla Maatalousluonnon monimuotoisuuden ja maiseman hoitosopimuksen voi tehdä aktiiviviljelijä ja rekisteröitynyt yhdistys. Sopimukseen hyväksyttäviä alueita ovat mm. niitty- ja metsälaiduntyyppiset perinnebiotoopit sekä maaseudun muinaismuisto- ja kulttuuriperintökohteet. (Mavi5: 96) (Mavi5: 91, 96) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 51 fi alkuperäisrotujen kasvattamissopimus en rearing of local breeds; raising heritage livestock breeds ¤ ympäristösopimus itä-, länsi- ja pohjoissuomenkarjan, suomenvuohien, suomenlampaiden, ahvenanmaanlampaiden, kainuunharmaslampaiden, suomenhevosten ja maatiaiskanojen kasvattamisesta kyseisen rodun lisäämiseksi Alkuperäisrotujen kasvattamissopimuksen voi tehdä aktiiviviljelijä. Sopimustoiminnan tavoitteena on turvata taloudellisesti, tieteellisesti ja kulttuurihistoriallisesti arvokkaiden paikallisten rotujen geneettisen perimän säilyminen. 24 #Fin (MMM2: 326) (Mavi5: 101) (Mavi5: 100–101) @3 52 fi geenipankkisäilytystoimenpide #Fin en conservation in gene banks (MMM2: 327) ympäristökorvaukseen oikeuttava suomalaisten alkuperäiskasvilajikkeiden ja alkuperäisrotujen säilyttämistä edistävä toimenpide (Mavi5: 102, Maa1, Maa2) @3 53 fi alkuperäiskasvien ylläpitosopimus en keeping of local crop varieties; preserving heritage crop cultivars ¤ geenipankkisäilytystoimenpide, jonka tarkoituksena suomalaisten alkuperäiskasvilajikkeiden säilymisen edistäminen jatkuvan siementuotannon avulla Muita geenipankkisäilytystoimenpiteitä ovat "alkuperäisrotujen perimän säilytys" ja "alkuperäiskasvien varmuuskokoelmat" -sopimus, jotka ovat luonteeltaan hanketukia, ei viljelijätukia. #Fin (MMM2: 327) (Mavi5: 101–102) (Maa1, Maa2) @3 Maataloustukien sanasto 25 Kansalliset tuet 55 fi kansalliset tuet #EU en state aids; national aids (EC7) (EC2: 2) viljelijätuet, jotka eivät kuulu YMP:n kehykseen ja joita EU:n jäsenvaltio maksaa kansallisista varoistaan EU sallii kansalliset tuet toistaiseksi tiettyjen määrällisten ja laadullisten rajoitusten puitteissa. Suomen maatalouden kansalliset tuet voidaan jaotella pohjoiseen tukeen (jota maksetaan Suomen EU-liittymissopimuksen artiklan 141 perusteella) aja Etelä-Suomen kansalliseen tukeen (joka perustuu ohjelmakauden 2014–2020 artiklaan 149a); tämän sanaston käsitejärjestelmissä tätä jaottelua ei kuitenkaan ole varsinaisesti esitetty. (Mavi5: 12, 29) (EC7) (MTT: 19– 20) @2, 4 56 fi luonnonhaittakorvauksen kotieläinkorotus en livestock top-up for natural constraint payments ¤ kansallinen tuki, jota voidaan myöntää luonnonhaittakorvausta hakeneelle viljelijälle, jolla on tuotantoeläimiä vähintään 0,35 eläinyksikköä / korvauskelpoinen peltohehtaari #Fin (Mavi5: 112, 114) @4 57 fi kansalliset kotieläintuet #Fin en national aids for animal husbandry (Luke: 98 ¤) lihanaudoista, uuhista, kutuista, sioista ja siipikarjasta myönnettävät kansalliset tuet Kansallisia kotieläintukia maksetaan pääasiassa C-tukialueella eli siellä, missä EU:n eläinpalkkioita ei makseta. (Mavi7: 6) (Mavi7: 6) @4 58 fi pohjoiset nautatuet #Fin en northern aids for animal husbandry (Luke: 98 ¤) nautojen eläinyksikkötuki ja teurasnautojen tuki (Mavi7: 22) @4 Maataloustukien sanasto 59 26 fi nautojen eläinyksikkötuki #Fin en aid for suckler cows and male bovines (Luke: 98 ¤) viljelijän hallinnassa olevista emolehmistä, emolehmähiehoista, sonneista ja häristä C-tukialueella maksettava kansallinen kotieläintuki (Mavi7: 22) @4 60 fi teurasnautojen tuki #Fin en northern aid paid for slaughtered animals (Luke: 99) hyväksytyssä teurastamossa teurastetuista hiehoista, sonneista ja häristä Ctukialueella maksettava kansallinen kotieläintuki (Mavi7: 3, 22–23) @4 61 fi pohjoinen uuhituki #Fin en northern aid for ewes (Luke: 98 ¤) C-tukialueella viljelijän hallinnassa olevista uuhista maksettava kansallinen kotieläintuki Pohjoista uuhitukea voi 2015 saada viljelijä, jolla on vuoden aikana ollut keskimäärin vähintään 10 tukikelpoista uuhta, mutta määrätyin poikkeuksin korkeintaan niin monesta hallinnassaan olevasta uuhesta kuin tilalla on tuenhakua edeltävänä vuonna syntynyt karitsoita. Vuonna 2016 uuhien vähimmäismäärä on 4 ja karitsointiehtoa tarkastellaan tuenhakuvuodelta. (Mavi7: 24) (Mavi7: 24–25, Mavi8: 3) @4 62 fi pohjoinen kuttutuki #Fin en northern aid for goats (Luke: 98 ¤) C-tukialueella viljelijän hallinnassa olevista kutuista maksettava kansallinen kotieläintuki Pohjoista kuttutukea voi 2015 saada viljelijä, jolla on vuoden aikana ollut keskimäärin vähintään 5 (vuonna 2016 väh. 4) tukikelpoista kuttua, korkeintaan siitä määrästä tukikelpoisia kuttuja, joka on tuottanut määrättyihin tarkoituksiin käytettyä vuohenmaitoa keskimäärin vähintään 400 litraa/kuttu/vuosi. (Mavi7: 26) (Mavi7: 26–27) @4 Maataloustukien sanasto 63 fi pohjoinen hevostuki en northern aid for horses ¤ rekisteröidystä hevosesta sen haltijalle maksettava kansallinen kotieläintuki Pohjoista hevostukea maksettiin vuonna 2015 mutta ei vuonna 2016. 27 #Fin (Mavi7: 34–36) (Mavi8: 2) @4 64 fi sika- ja siipikarjatalouden tuotannosta irrotettu tuki #Fin en decoupled aid for pigs and poultry (Luke: 98) sika- ja siipikarjatalouden harjoittajalle vahvistetun viitemäärän perusteella koko Suomen alueella maksettava kansallinen kotieläintuki Sika- ja siipikarjan tuotannosta irrotettua tukea maksetaan vain, jos maatilan eläintiheys on vähintään 0,35 eläinyksikköä / tukikelpoinen peltohehtaari. Viitemäärä on lähtökohtaisesti muodostettu tukivuodelta 2007 maksettujen sikojen ja siipikarjan kansallisten tukien maksuperusteista. (Mavi7: 31) (Mavi7: 31, Mavi16: 45) @4 65 fi sikatalouden kriisituki en crisis aid for pig farmers ¤ sikatalouden harjoittajille tuotantosuunnan heikon kannattavuuden takia koko Suomessa maksettava kansallinen kotieläintuki Vuonna 2015 sikatalouden kriisituen tilakohtainen määrä määräytyi porrastetusti tuensaajan hallinnassa määrättyinä laskentapäivinä olleiden sikojen määrän perusteella. Vuonna 2016 sikatalouden kriisitukea ei makseta. #Fin (Mavi7: 32) (Mavi7: 32, Mavi8: 2) @4 66 fi maidon tuotantotuki #Fin en production aid for milk (Luke 99) kansallinen tuki, jota maksetaan meijeriin toimitetusta tai kuluttajille suoraan maatilalta myydystä maidosta Maidon tuotantotukea maksetaan C-tukialueella eli siellä, missä EU:n lypsylehmäpalkkiota ei makseta. (Mavi14: 3) (Mavi14: 3) @4 Maataloustukien sanasto 67 28 fi mehiläistalouden tuki #Fin en support for apiculture (MMM1) mehiläistalouden harjoittajille myönnettävä kansallinen tuki Mehiläistalouden tuen peruste on mehiläisyhdyskuntien määrä; tuensaajalla on oltava vähintään 15 ammattimaisesti hoidettua pesää. (Mavi15) (Mavi15) @4 68 fi kansalliset peltotuet en national crop production aids ¤ pohjoiset peltotuet ja sokerijuurikkaan tuki #Fin (Mavi5: 124–126) @4 69 fi sokerijuurikkaan tuki #Fin en national aid for sugar beet (Luke: 100) sokerintuotantoon käytettävän sokerijuurikkaan viljelyalalle maksettava kansallinen tuki Sokerijuurikkaan tukea voidaan maksaa koko Suomessa. (Mavi5: 125) (Mavi5: 125) @4 70 fi sokerijuurikkaan kuljetustuki en haulage aid for sugar beet ¤ sokerijuurikkaan tuen lisäosa, joka kohdistuu kuljetuskustannuksiin hakijan edellisen vuoden sokerijuurikkaan sopimustuotantomäärän mukaisesti #Fin (Mavi5: 125) @4 71 fi pohjoiset peltotuet en northern crop production aids ¤ pohjoinen hehtaarituki, yleinen hehtaarituki ja nuorten viljelijöiden tuki Pohjoisia peltotukia voidaan maksaa vain korvauskelpoisilla peruslohkoilla sijaitseville kasvulohkoille. #Fin (Mavi5: 124) (Mavi5: 124) @4 Maataloustukien sanasto 72 fi pohjoinen hehtaarituki en northern aid for arable crops ¤ kansallinen tuki, jota voidaan maksaa tietyille peltokasveille C-tukialueella Pohjoiseen hehtaaritukeen oikeuttavat viljelykasvit ovat vehnä, ruis, sokerijuurikas, tärkkelysperuna, ihmisravinnoksi käytettävät avomaanvihannekset, öljy- ja valkuaiskasvit, öljy- ja kuitupellava, tattari, maissi ja tiettyjen lajikkeiden hamppukasvustot. 29 #Fin (Mavi5: 124) (Mavi5: 124–125) @4 73 fi yleinen hehtaarituki #Fin en general area payment C2–C4 (Luke 100) kansallinen tuki, jota voidaan maksaa maatalous-, puutarha- ja energiakasvien aloille tukialueilla C2–C4 Yleistä hehtaaritukea ei makseta esim. kesantoaloille eikä tukialueilla C3– C4 muille pohjoiseen hehtaaritukeen oikeutetuille aloille kuin avomaanvihannesten viljelyaloille. (Mavi5: 125) (Mavi5: 125) @4 74 fi nuorten viljelijöiden tuki #Fin en general area payment for young farmers C1–C4 (Luke: 100) kansallinen tuki, jota voidaan maksaa alle 40-vuotiaiden uusien viljelijöiden maatalous-, puutarha- ja energiakasvien aloille C-tukialueella Tuensaajan hakukelpoisuuden ehdot ovat samat kuin nuoren viljelijän tuessa. (Mavi5: 125) (Mavi5: 125) @4 75 fi kasvihuonetuotannon tuki #Fin en aid for greenhouse products (Luke 100) kasvihuonetuotannolle maksettava kansallinen tuki Kasvihuonetuotannon tukea voidaan maksaa koko Suomessa mutta vain erikseen määrättyjen kasvien viljelypinta-aloille; tuen taso riippuu tukialueesta, jolla kasvihuone sijaitsee, sekä viljelyjakson pituudesta. (Mavi9) (Mavi9) @4 Maataloustukien sanasto 76 30 fi puutarhatuotteiden varastointituki #Fin en storage aid for horticulture products (Luke: 100 ¤) tiettyjen vihannesten, juurikasvien ja omenoiden varastomäärien perusteella tuottajille maksettava kansallinen tuki (Mavi17) Puutarhatuotteiden varastointitukea voidaan maksaa koko Suomessa; sen taso riippuu tukialueesta, jolla sato on tuotettu, sekä varaston teknisestä tasosta. (Mavi17) @4 Maataloustukien sanasto 31 Maatila ja maataloustoiminta, tukiehdot 77 fi maatila #EU en holding (EN8: 7) viljelijän omistuksen tai vuokrauksen perusteella hallitsema yhden tai useamman kiinteistön tai kiinteistön osan tai tuotantorakennuksen ja sen maapohjan muodostama, maataloustoimintaan käytettävä toiminnallisesti ja taloudellisesti itsenäinen tuotantoyksikkö EU:n säädösten kontekstissa kaikki saman viljelijän yhden jäsenvaltion alueella sijaitsevat maataloustoimintaan käytettävät yksiköt katsotaan yhdeksi maatilaksi. Suomessa maatilat yksilöidään tilatunnuksen avulla; esim. IsossaBritanniassa vastaava yksilöintitunnus on CPH number (County Parish Holding number). (Mavi5: 15) (Mavi5: 15, 138; EN5) @5 78 fi maataloustoiminta #EU en agricultural activity (EN8: 7) maataloustuotteiden tuottaminen viljelykasvien kasvatuksen ja sadonkorjuun tai tuotantoeläinten pidon avulla tai maatalousmaan säilyttäminen viljelykelpoisena (Mavi5: 22) @5 79 fi aktiiviviljelijä #EU en active farmer (EN8: 7) hallinnassaan olevalla maatilalla maataloustoimintaa harjoittava luonnollinen tai oikeushenkilö tai näiden ryhmä, joka ei hallinnoi kieltolistalle johtavia toimintoja Suoria tukia ja useimpia ohjelmatukia voidaan myöntää vain aktiiviviljelijälle. Kieltolistalle (engl. negative list) johtavia toimintoja ovat lentoasemien, rautatieyhtiöiden, vesiyhtiöiden, kiinteistöyhtiöiden, pysyvien urheilukenttien tai vapaa-ajan alueiden hallinnointi silloin, kun hakija on vuonna 2014 saanut suoria tukia yli 5000 euroa. Yksittäiset jäsenmaat ovat halutessaan voineet lisätä muitakin toimialoja jäsenmaassa kieltolistalle johtaviksi toiminnoiksi. Tuenhakija voi vapautua kieltolistalta todistamalla, että hänen maataloustoimintansa täyttää määrätyt kriteerit, joiden perusteella se voidaan katsoa merkitykselliseksi. Aktiiviviljelijyyden toteamiseen liittyviä läheisiä termejä ovat mm. aktiiviviljelijäehto ja aktiiviviljelijätarkastelu (engl. active farmer test). (Mavi5: 18) (Mavi5: 18–23, NI2: 44) (Mavi5: 18, NI1:10) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto 80 32 fi tukioikeus #EU en entitlement (EN8: 28) aineeton hyödyke, jonka hallinnan perusteella aktiiviviljelijä on siihen kohdistetun hallinnassaan olevan maatalousmaan osalta oikeutettu perustukeen Tukioikeuksien laskentayksikkö on hehtaari. Tukioikeudet kohdistetaan tukialueittain, mikä myös määrittää niiden ns. tasaosan arvon. Tukioikeuksissa voi olla myös vuonna 2006 vahvistettuja tuotantomuotoon perustuvia lisäosia, jolloin ne oikeuttavat tasaosaa korkeampaan hehtaarikohtaiseen tukeen, joskin lisäosista vähitellen luovutaan. Vuoden 2015 tukijärjestelmämuutoksen yhteydessä vuoden 2015 perustukihakemukset aktivoivat vuoteen 2014 asti sovelletusta tilatukijärjestelmästä peräisin olevat tukioikeudet; samalla mitätöityvät tukioikeudet, joita vastaavaa maatalousmaa-alaa viljelijällä ei tuenhakuhetkellä ole hallinnassaan. Tukioikeuksien hallinta on siirrettävissä paitsi perintö- ja sukupolvenvaihdostilanteissa, myös esim. myymällä tai vuokraamalla aktiiviviljelijälle. (Mavi5: 47) (Mavi5: 47–52; Mavi4: 50, Mavi6: 3) @5 81 fi kansallinen varanto #EU en national reserve; regional reserve (EN8: 5; NI2: 12) viljelijätukihallinnon väline, johon on rahastoitu osa alueellista perustukipottia varten varatuista rahoista jaettavaksi tukioikeuksina erikseen määritellyissä tapauksissa Kansallisesta varannosta voivat nuoret ja aloittavat viljelijät sekä viljelijät, joilla tiettyjen erityistilanteiden johdosta on maatalousmaa-aloja ilman niitä vastaavia tukioikeuksia, hakea tukioikeuksia hallinnassaan olevalle maatalousmaa-alalle vuosittaisessa varantohaussa. Varantoon siirretään sellaiset tukioikeudet, joita vastaan ei ole haettu perustukea kahtena peräkkäisenä vuotena. Kansallinen varanto voi kattaa yhden jäsenmaan tukioikeusvarannon, kuten Suomessa, tai jäsenmaalla voi olla erillisiä alueellisia varantoja, kuten Isossa-Britanniassa (Englannin, Skotlannin, Walesin ja PohjoisIrlannin varannot). (Mavi5: 48, 51) (Mavi5: 50–51, Mavi22, EN8: 5, SC4: 1, WA3: 8, NI2: 12) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto 82 33 fi täydentävät ehdot #EU en cross compliance; cross-compliance (EN9: 3, EC1: 14) maatalousmaan hoitoon ja käyttöön, kansanterveyteen, eläinten ja kasvien terveyteen sekä eläinten hyvinvointiin liittyvät perusvaatimukset, joiden noudattaminen maataloustoiminnassa on suorien tukien sekä useimpien muidenkin viljelijätukien saamisen ehtona Täydentävät ehdot perustuvat voimassa olevaan kansalliseen ja EU:n lainsäädäntöön. Näin ollen eri jäsenmaissa voi olla sisällöltään erilaiset täydentävien ehtojen kokonaisuudet. (Mavi23: 5–6) (Mavi23: 82–84) @5 83 fi hyvän maatalouden ja ympäristön vaatimukset #EU en Good Agricultural and Environment Conditions (GAECs) (EN9: 4) se osa täydentäviä ehtoja, joka koskee kasvinviljelyn toteuttamista niin, että pyrkimyksenä on sadon tuottaminen, maan kasvukunnon ylläpito, vesistöjen suojelu ja maisema-arvojen ylläpito (Mavi23: 8–22) @5 84 fi lakisääteiset hoitovaatimukset #EU en Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) (EN9: 4) se osa täydentäviä ehtoja, jolla pyritään turvaamaan ympäristö- ja elintarviketurvallisuus, kansanterveys ja eläinsuojelu maataloustoiminnan yhteydessä (Mavi23: 23–78) @5 85 fi maatalousmaa #EU en agricultural land (EN8: 13) maatilaan kuuluva viljely- tai laidunkäyttöön tarkoitettu viljelykelpoinen maa Maatalousmaa voi olla peltoalaa, pysyvää nurmea, pysyvien kasvien alaa tai kasvihuonealaa (= pysyvän kasvihuoneen viljelyalaa pois lukien varasto- ja pakkaustilat). (Mavi5: 33) (Mavi5: 33–34) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto 86 34 fi muu ala; viljelemätön ala #EU en non-agricultural area (EN7: 7) maatilaan kuuluva ala, joka ei ole maatalousmaata Esimerkiksi rakennuspaikat (pl. kasvihuoneiden viljelyalat), tiet, metsät, kivi- ja kantokasat sekä vesakoituneet alueet ovat muuta alaa. Erikseen on kuitenkin määritelty tilapäisesti viljelemätön ala, joka on maatalousmaata. (Mavi5: 35) (Mavi5: 33, 35) @5 87 fi viljelykelpoisuus #EU en state suitable for grazing or cultivation (EN8: 17) maatalousmaan ominaisuus, joka kuvaa mahdollisuutta pystyä kasvattamaan alalla tavanomainen sato tarvitsematta valmistella sitä muutoin kuin tavanomaisilla maatalousmenetelmillä ja -koneilla Viljelykelpoinen maatalousmaa on ojitettua, peruskalkittua ja avointa; tietty määrä yksittäisiä puita tai niiden taimia sallitaan. Maatalousmaa katsotaan avoimeksi myös kasvatettaessa esim. marjapensaita, hedelmäpuita tai lyhytkiertoisia energiapuita; kts. pysyvien kasvien ala. (Mavi5: 33) (Mavi5: 33) @5 88 fi peruslohko #EU en land parcel (EN6: 5) maatalousmaan koostumusosa, joka on maantieteellisesti yhtenäinen kunnan rajaan, omistusoikeuden rajaan, tuki- tai sopimusalueen rajaan, vesistöön, piiri- tai valtaojaan, tiehen, metsään tai muuhun vastaavaan rajautuva viljelyalue Pääsääntöisesti peruslohko on yhden viljelijän hallinnassa. Peruslohko voi kuitenkin olla myös yhteiskäyttölohko, jolloin useammalla kuin yhdellä viljelijällä on kasvulohkoja samalla peruslohkolla, tai yhteislaidun, johon usealla käyttäjällä on laidunnusoikeus. Suomessa peruslohkot yksilöidään peruslohkotunnuksen avulla; esim. Isossa-Britanniassa vastaava yksilöintitunnus on field number. (Mavi5: 35) (Mavi5: 34, 35, 37) (Mavi5: 39, NI2: 58) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto 89 35 fi kasvulohko #EU en part field; land use area (EN6: 6) peruslohkon koostumusosa, jota rajaa kasvatettavan kasvilajin tai lajiseoksen, lohkon käyttötavan tai erityisolosuhteiden ääri Peruslohkolla voi olla yksi tai useampia kasvulohkoja. Kasvulohko ei voi jatkua peruslohkon rajan yli. Tukihakemuksessa kasvulohkon käyttötapa ilmoitetaan kasvikoodin (engl. land use code) avulla. (Mavi5: 39) (Mavi5: 39) @5 90 fi tukialue #EU en payment region (SC5) jokin muutamasta alueesta, joihin EU:n jäsenvaltio tai sen itsehallinnollinen osa on jaettu siinä tarkoituksessa, että näillä alueilla sijaitseville peruslohkoille tai harjoitetulle maataloustuotannolle voidaan maksaa viljelijätukia eri suuruisina tai eri perustein Suomi on suoria tukia varten jaettu kahteen alueeseen; Etelä-Suomi noin Pori–Imatra-linjan eteläpuolella on AB-aluetta, loput Suomesta C-aluetta. Eräitä tukia varten on lisäksi määritelty erikseen sisä- ja ulkosaaristoalueet ja C-alue jaettu edelleen osiin. (Mavi3: 12, Mavi13: 6) (Mavi3: 12, Mavi5: 124, Mavi13: 6) @5 91 fi korvauskelpoisuus #Fin en ~ land eligibility (WA1: 11) peruslohkoa koskeva rekisterimerkintä, joka on edellytyksenä luonnonhaittakorvauksen, ympäristösitoumuksen korvauksen, kurki-, hanhija joutsenpeltoja koskevan ympäristösopimuksen korvauksen, luomukorvauksen sekä pohjoisten peltotukien maksamiselle Aiemmin peruslohkojen tukikelpoisuudeksi kutsuttu asia on vuodesta 2015 alkaen nimeltään korvauskelpoisuus. Toistaiseksi pysyvän korvauskelpoisuuden saavat mm. lohkot, jotka ovat aiemmin olleet tukikelpoisia ympäristötuessa ja luonnonhaittakorvauksessa. Korvauskelvottomiksi jäävät lohkot, jotka on raivattu tai ilmoitettu ensimmäisen kerran vuonna 2005 tai myöhemmin. Vuonna 2014 pysyviksi laitumiksi (kts. pysyvä nurmi) ilmoitetut lohkot ovat jatkossa vain LHK-korvauskelpoisia, eli niille voidaan maksaa korvauskelpoisuutta edellyttävistä tuista vain luonnonhaittakorvausta. Englanninkielisen lähivastineen land eligibility käyttö ei rajoitu pelkästään tässä määriteltyyn ohjelmatukia koskevaan korvauskelpoisuuteen vaan sillä voidaan tarkoittaa myös muiden tukien, esim. perustuen, yhteydessä tarkasteltua alan tukikelpoisuutta. (Mavi5: 43) (Mavi5: 43–45) (NI2: 18, 80, SC6: 3) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto 92 36 fi peltoala #EU en arable land (EN8: 17) maatalousmaa, jota käytetään vähintään viiden vuoden välein uudistettavien peltokasvien tuotantoon tai joka on kesantoa (Mavi5: 53) Peltoalaksi lasketaan mm. seuraavien kasvien viljelyalat: viljat, öljykasvit, valkuaiskasvit, peruna, avomaanvihannekset, mansikka, saneerauskasvit; heinäkasvien ja muiden nurmirehukasvien kasvustot ovat peltoalaa kasvaessaan samalla lohkolla enintään viidettä vuotta eli kunnes ne muuttuvat pysyväksi nurmeksi. Pysyvät kasvit, joiden kasvustoja ei lasketa peltoalaksi, on lueteltu tukioppaissa erikseen. (Mavi5: 53, 54, 59, 63) @5 93 fi hoidettu viljelemätön pelto; kesanto #EU en fallow land (EN8: 17) peltoala, jota ei käytetä tuotantoon mutta hoidetaan täydentävien ehtojen mukaisesti ja joka on viherkesanto, sänkikesanto tai avokesanto Kesannot on säilytettävä maatalouskäytön kannalta hyvässä kunnossa. Kesannoksi ilmoitettua alaa ei saa käyttää kasvukauden aikana varastoalueena. (Mavi 20: 15) (Mavi23: 15) @5 94 fi viherkesanto en fallow land with vegetative cover ¤ kesanto, joka on kylvetty nurmi-, riista-, maisema- tai niittykasveilla Viherkesantoalaa saa Suomen viljelijätukiehtojen puitteissa käyttää laitumena, paitsi silloin, kun kesantoalaa käytetään efa-velvoitteen täyttämiseen. Viherkesantoa saa lannoittaa rajoitetusti kasvustoa perustettaessa. Samalla lohkolla jatkuvasti pidetty viherkesantoala voi kuudentena vuotenaan muuttua statukseltaan pysyväksi nurmeksi. #EU (Mavi23: 15) (Mavi23: 15–16, Mavi5: 62, 59) @5 95 fi sänkikesanto en fallow land with stubble cover ¤ kesanto, joka on aiemman kasvukauden viljan, öljykasvien, kuitukasvien, palkokasvien tai siemenmaustekasvien sängen peittämä ja muokkaamaton #EU (Mavi23: 15) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto 96 fi avokesanto en fallow land with bare soil ¤ kesanto, joka on kasvukaudella ilman kasvipeitettä tai sänkeä Kesanto saa olla kasvipeitteetön vain torjuttaessa vaikeasti hävitettäviä rikkakasveja, tehtäessä lyhytaikaisia kunnostustoimenpiteitä kuten salaojitusta, kalkitusta, ojien kaivua tai perkausta, tai kun poikkeamiseen on jokin muu erityinen syy. 37 #EU (Mavi23: 15) (Mavi23: 15–16) @5 97 fi pysyvä nurmi #EU en permanent grassland (EN8: 18) maatalousmaa, jota käytetään heinäkasvien tai muiden nurmirehukasvien kasvattamiseen yli viitenä peräkkäisenä vuotena, erikseen määriteltyjä poikkeuksia lukuun ottamatta Nurmi luokitellaan määritelmän mukaisesti "pysyväksi" riippumatta siitä, uudistetaanko kasvustoa tarkastelujakson aikana. Pysyviksi nurmiksi ei lohkon aiemmasta viljelykasvista riippumatta kuitenkaan katsota tiettyjä ympäristösitoumuksen toimenpiteinä toteutettuja nurmialoja, esim. suojavyöhykkeitä ja monimuotoisuuspeltoja. Pysyvän nurmen erottamisella viljelykiertoon kuuluvista nurmista on merkitystä maatilaa koskevien viherryttämistuen vaatimusten kannalta. Pysyvän nurmen statuksella on joidenkin viljelijätukien kannalta merkitystä myös siinä mielessä, että pysyvät nurmet eivät ole peltoalaa. Vuodesta 2016 alkaen pysyvien nurmien määritelmän puitteissa tarkastellaan myös aloja, jotka vuoden 2014 lopussa lakkautetussa tilatukijärjestelmässä luokiteltiin pysyviksi laitumiksi eli maatalousmaaksi, jota on käytetty heinä- tai muiden nurmirehukasvien kasvattamiseen vähintään viitenä peräkkäisenä vuotena kasvustoa uudistamatta. Vuonna 2015 pysyvän laitumen nimike oli vielä käytössä aiemmilta vuosilta periytyneen pysyvien laitumien säilyttämisen velvoitteen vuoksi. (Mavi5: 53) (Mavi5: 58–62, 78–80, 86) (Mavi4: 52, Mavi5: 33, 50, Mavi18) @5 98 fi Natura-nurmi #EU en Environmentally Sensitive Permanent Grassland (EC1: 15) Natura 2000 -verkostoon kuuluvalla alueella kokonaan tai osittain sijaitseva pysyvän nurmen ala Pysyvän nurmen säilyttämisen puitteissa Natura-nurmia ei saa lainkaan kyntää eikä ottaa muuhun käyttöön. (Mavi5: 59) (Mavi5: 59) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto 99 38 fi pysyvien kasvien ala #EU en land planted with permanent crops (EN8: 20) maatalousmaa, jolla kasvatetaan monivuotisia kasveja, joista saadaan toistuvia satoja Pysyviksi kasveiksi luokitellut kasvit on lueteltu tukioppaissa erikseen; niitä ovat esimerkiksi hedelmäpuut, marjapensaat, ruokohelpi ja lyhytkiertoinen energiapuu. (Mavi5: 53) (Mavi5: 53–54) @5 100 fi tilapäisesti viljelemätön ala #EU en land temporarily out of agricultural use (NI2: 24) maatalousmaa, jota jonain vuonna ei tilapäisesti käytetä maataloustoimintaan mutta säilytetään sellaisessa kunnossa, että se on uudelleen otettavissa maatalouskäyttöön Tilapäisesti viljelemättömäksi katsotaan esim. ala, jolla säilytetään säilörehupaaleja pitkäaikaisesti tai tehdään yhdyskuntatekniikan vaatimaa kaivamista kasvukaudella. Tietyissä tapauksissa myös esim. peltoalojen nurmipeitteettömät viljelytekniset päisteet ja pientareineen yli kolme metriä leveät sarkaojat luokitellaan tilapäisesti viljelemättömiksi aloiksi. Tukihakemuksessa tilapäisesti viljelemättömät alat ilmoitetaan erillisinä kasvulohkoina. (Mavi5: 34) (Mavi5: 35, 41, 42) @5 Maataloustukien sanasto Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 1. Yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka I-pilari II-pilari yhteinen markkinajärjestely suorien tukien järjestelmä rahoituskuri maaseudun kehittämisohjelma rahoituskurileikkaus maataloustuet markkinatuet viljelijätuet (→ käs.järj. 2) maaseudun kehittämistuet hanketuet yritystuet 39 Maataloustukien sanasto Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 2. Suorat tuet viljelijätuet suorat tuet tuotannosta irrotetut tuet perustuki viherryttämistuki pysyvän nurmen säilyttäminen ohjelmatuet (→ käs.järj. 3) kansalliset tuet (→ käs.järj. 4) tuotantoon sidotut tuet nuoren viljelijän tuki peltokasvipalkkio EU:n eläinpalkkiot EU:n nautaeläinpalkkiot viherryttämistuen vaatimukset viljelyn monipuolistaminen 40 ekologisen alan vaatimus nautapalkkio EU:n lypsylehmäpalkkio EU:n lammasja vuohipalkkiot uuhipalkkio kuttupalkkio teuraskaritsaja kilipalkkio Maataloustukien sanasto Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 3. Ohjelmatuet luonnonhaittakorvaus 41 ohjelmatuet luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvaus eläinten hyvinvointikorvaus ympäristökorvaus ei-tuotannollisten investointien korvaus ympäristösopimus geenipankkisäilytystoimenpide toimenpide luonnonmukaisen tuotannon sitoumus ympäristösitoumuksen vähimmäisvaatimukset luonnonmukaisen kotieläintuotannon sitoumus eläinten hyvinvointikorvaussitoumus tilakohtainen toimenpide lohkokohtaiset toimenpiteet perustaso kohdentamisalue kurki-, hanhi- ja joutsenpeltosopimus ympäristösitoumus kosteikon hoitosopimus maatalousluonnon monimuotoisuuden ja maiseman hoitosopimus alkuperäisrotujen kasvattamissopimus alkuperäiskasvien varmuuskokoelmat -sopimus Maataloustukien sanasto Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 4. Kansalliset tuet luonnonhaittakorvauksen kotieläinkorotus kansalliset kotieläintuet 42 kansalliset tuet maidon tuotantotuki mehiläistalouden tuki kansalliset peltotuet kasvihuonetuotannon tuki sokerijuurikkaan tuki pohjoiset peltotuet pohjoinen hehtaarituki yleinen hehtaarituki puutarhatuotteiden varastointituki sokerijuurikkaan kuljetustuki pohjoiset nautatuet pohjoinen uuhituki nautojen eläinyksikkötuki teurasnautojen tuki pohjoinen kuttutuki pohjoinen hevostuki sika- ja siipikarjatalouden tuotannosta irrotettu tuki sikatalouden kriisituki nuorten viljelijöiden tuki Maataloustukien sanasto Käsitejärjestelmäkaavio 5. 43 täydentävät ehdot kansallinen varanto maataloustoiminta tukioikeus aktiiviviljelijä viljelykelpoisuus maatila hyvän maatalouden ja ympäristön vaatimukset muu ala maatalousmaa peltoala (viljelty peltoala) viherkesanto pysyvä nurmi kesanto sänkikesanto peruslohko tukialue kasvulohko korvauskelpoisuus pysyvien kasvien ala Naturanurmi avokesanto lakisääteiset hoitovaatimukset tilapäisesti viljelemätön ala Maataloustukien sanasto 44 Sanaston lähdeluettelo EC1 = Euroopan komissio. Direct payments post 2014. Decisions taken by Member States by 1 August 2014 – State of play on 07.05.2015. Information note. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments/docs/implementationdecisions-ms_en.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EC2 = Euroopan komissio. Direct payments schemes. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/directsupport/direct-payments/docs/direct-payments-schemes_en.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EC3 = Euroopan komissio. Funding opportunities under the Common Agricultural Policy. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/funding-opportunities/index_en.htm>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EC4 = Euroopan komissio. Overview of CAP Reform 2014–2020. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief No5* / December 2013. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policybriefs/05_en.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EC5 = Euroopan komissio. Rural development 2014–2020. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ruraldevelopment-2014-2020/index_en.htm>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EC6 = Euroopan komissio. Simplification of the CAP. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/simplification/index_en.htm>. Noudettu 23.3.2016. EC7 = Euroopan komissio. State aid in general. State aids in the agricultural sector. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/stateaid/gl-chapters-1-and-2_en.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EC8 = Euroopan komissio. The CAP towards 2020. Implementation of the new system of direct payments. MS notifications. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/directpayments/docs/implementation-ms-notifications-slides_en.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EC9 = Euroopan komissio. Voluntary coupled support – Sectors mostly supported. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments/docs/voluntary-coupledsupport-note_en.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. EN1 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform. <https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/commonagricultural-policy-reform>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. EN2 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. Countryside Productivity Scheme. <https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/countryside-productivity-scheme>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. EN3 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. Countryside Stewardship Manual. Published October 2015. <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/466285/csmanual-print-version.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. EN4 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. Countryside Stewardship: Options and Supplements (revised 4 December 2015) <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/468785/csoptions-supplements.pdf>. Noudettu 16.3.2015. Maataloustukien sanasto 45 EN5 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. Get a CPH number from the Rural Payments Agency. <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-a-cphnumber-from-the-rural-payments-agency>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. EN6 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. How to claim BPS online in 2016. <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509140/Ho w_to_apply_online_-_GOV.UK_version.pdf>. Noudettu 21.3.2016. EN7 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. Rural Land and Entitlements (RLE1) guidance 2015. <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/424004/RL E_Guidance_2015_v1.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. EN8 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. The Basic Payment Scheme in England 2015. <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406452/BP S_Handbook_-_final_v1.0.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. EN9 = UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs / Rural Payments Agency. The guide to cross compliance in England 2015. <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397044/Cr oss_compliance_handbook_v2_web.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. EP1 = Euroopan parlamentti. Yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka (YMP) ja perussopimus. <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/fi/FTU_5.2.1.pdf>. Noudettu 16.11.2015. EP2 = Euroopan parlamentti. YMP:n ensimmäinen pilari: I – maataloustuotteiden yhteinen markkinajärjestely. <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/fi/FTU_5.2.4.pdf>. Noudettu 16.11.2015. EP3 = Euroopan parlamentti. YMP:n ensimmäinen pilari: II – suora tuki viljelijöille. <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/fi/FTU_5.2.5.pdf>. Noudettu 16.11.2015. EP4 = Euroopan parlamentti. YMP:n toinen pilari: maaseudun kehittämispolitiikka. <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/fi/FTU_5.2.6.pdf>. Noudettu 16.11.2015. Luke = Niemi, Jyrki ja Jaana Ahlsted (toim.) 2015. Finnish Agriculture and Rural Industries 2015. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 26/2015. <http://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/519301/luke-luobio26_2015.pdf? sequence=3>. Noudettu 2.2.2016. Maa1 = Maaseutuverkosto. Alkuperäiskasvien varmuuskokoelmat sopimus, uusi korvausmuoto. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-jalomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/Geenivaratukien_esittely__alkuperaiskasvien_varmuuskoko elmat.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Maa2 = Maaseutuverkosto. Alkuperäisrotujen perimän säilytys, uusi korvausmuoto. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-jalomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/Geenivaratukien_esittely__alkuperaisrotujen_periman_sailyt ys.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Maa3 = Maaseutuverkosto. Alueen viihtyisyys ja palvelut. <https://www.maaseutu.fi/fi/tuemmenaita/Sivut/asuinalueen-viihtyisyys-ja-palvelut.aspx>. Noudettu 1.12.2015. Maataloustukien sanasto 46 Maa4 = Maaseutuverkosto. Maatilan kehittäminen. <https://www.maaseutu.fi/fi/tuemmenaita/Sivut/maatilan-kehittaminen.aspx>. Noudettu 1.12.2015. Maa5 = Maaseutuverkosto. Ympäristön tilan parantaminen ja eläinten hyvinvointi. <https://www.maaseutu.fi/fi/tuemme-naita/Sivut/ympariston-tilan-parantaminen-ja-elaintenhyvinvoinnin-edistaminen.aspx>. Noudettu 1.12.2015. Maa6 = Maaseutuverkosto. Yrittäjyys ja elinkeinot. <https://www.maaseutu.fi/fi/tuemmenaita/Sivut/yrittajyys-ja-elinkeinojen-kehittaminen.aspx>. Noudettu 1.12.2015. Mavi1 = Maaseutuvirasto. Eläinten hyvinvointikorvauksen sitoumusehdot 2015–2016. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-ja-lomakkeet/Documents/El %c3%a4inten_hyvinvointikorvauksen_sitoumusehdot_vuosina_2015-2016%20v3.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi2 = Maaseutuvirasto. Eläinten hyvinvointikorvaus. Eläinten hyvinvointikorvauksen hakeminen. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-ja-lomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/EHT %20sitoumusehdot/EHK-hakuohje%202015.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi3 = Maaseutuvirasto. Euroopan unionin eläinpalkkiot – vuoden 2015 hakuohjeet. EU:n nautapalkkio, lypsylehmäpalkkio ja lammas- ja vuohipalkkiot. <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/115/pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi4 = Maaseutuvirasto. Hakuopas 2014. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-jalomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/Hakuoppaat/Hakuopas%202014.pdf>. Noudettu 13.1.2016. Mavi5 = Maaseutuvirasto. Hakuopas 2015. <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/70/pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi6 = Maaseutuvirasto. Hakuopas 2016. Päätukihaun tuet 2016. <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/192/pdf>. Noudettu 17.4.2016. Mavi7 = Maaseutuvirasto. Kansalliset kotieläintuet – vuoden 2015 hakuohjeet. <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/77/pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi8 = Maaseutuvirasto. Kansalliset kotieläintuet – vuoden 2016 hakuohjeet. <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/223/pdf>. Noudettu 17.4.2016. Mavi9 = Maaseutuvirasto. Kasvihuonetuotannon tuki. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tuet-japalvelut/viljelija/Sivut/kasvihuonetuotannon_tuki.aspx>. Noudettu 12.11.2015. Mavi10 = Maaseutuvirasto. Luonnonhaittakorvaus. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tuet-japalvelut/viljelija/Sivut/luonnonhaittakorvaus.aspx>. Noudettu 1.12.2015. Mavi11 = Maaseutuvirasto. Luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvauksen sitoumusehdot 2015. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-jalomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/luomu_sitoumusehdot_2015.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi12 = Maaseutuvirasto. Maaseudun hanketuet. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tuet-japalvelut/hanketoimija/Sivut/maaseudun_hanketuet.aspx>. Noudettu 17.11.2015. Mavi13 = Maaseutuvirasto. Maataloustuet uudistuvat vuonna 2015 – mikä muuttuu? <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-ja-lomakkeet/vipu/Documents/Maataloustuet-muuttuvat2015_web.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Maataloustukien sanasto 47 Mavi14 = Maaseutuvirasto. Maidon tuotantotuki 2015. <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/79/pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi15 = Maaseutuvirasto. Mehiläistalouden tuki. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tuet-japalvelut/viljelija/Sivut/mehilaistalouden_tuki.aspx>. Noudettu 12.11.2015 Mavi16 = Maaseutuvirasto. Peltovalvontaohje 2015. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-jalomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/peltovalvontaohje.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi17 = Maaseutuvirasto. Puutarhatuotteiden varastointituki vuodelle 2015 haettavissa 26.10. saakka. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tietoa-meista/tiedotteet/2013/Sivut/Puutarhatuotteidenvarastointituki-vuodelle-2015-haettavissa-26.10.-saakka.aspx>. Noudettu 15.12.2015. Mavi18 = Maaseutuvirasto. Pysyvien laitumien ennakkolupa vuonna 2015. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-jalomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/Pysyvien_laitumien_ennakkolupa_2015_hakuohje.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi19 = Maaseutuvirasto. Support forms in Finland. <http://www.mavi.fi/en/support-andservices/farmer/Pages/Support-forms-in-Finland.aspx>. Noudettu 17.2.2016. Mavi20 = Maaseutuvirasto. Tietoa meistä. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tietoa-meista/Sivut/default.aspx>. Noudettu 16.11.2015. Mavi21 = Maaseutuvirasto. Tuet ja palvelut. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tuet-japalvelut/Sivut/default.aspx>. Noudettu 16.11.2015. Mavi22 = Maaseutuvirasto. Tukioikeuksien haku kansallisesta varannosta. Hakuehdot ja -ohjeet vuonna 2015. <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/oppaat-ja-lomakkeet/viljelija/Documents/Varanto-opas %202015.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi23 = Maaseutuvirasto. Täydentävät ehdot (2015). <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/41/pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. Mavi24 = Maaseutuvirasto. Viljelijä. (Tuet ja palvelut.) <http://www.mavi.fi/fi/tuet-japalvelut/viljelija/Sivut/default.aspx>. Noudettu 17.11.2015. Mavi25 = Maaseutuvirasto. Ympäristökorvauksen sitoumusehdot 2015. <http://maaseutuvirasto.mobiezine.fi/zine/82/pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. MMM1 = Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö. National agricultural aid. <http://mmm.fi/en/food-andagriculture/support-and-aid/national-agricultural-aid>. Noudettu 17.2.2016. MMM2 = Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö. Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland 2014–2020. Unofficial translation. <https://www.maaseutu.fi/fi/maaseutuohjelma/Documents/Maaseutuohjelma_hyv_12.12.20 14_EN_nettiin_final_27.8.2015_pieni.pdf>. Noudettu 9.11.2015. MTT = Niemi, Jyrki, Petri Liesivaara, Heikki Lehtonen, Ellen Huan-Niemi, Lauri Kettunen, Pellervo Kässi ja Heini Toikkanen 2014. EU:n yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka vuosina 2014–2020 ja Suomen maatalous. MTT raportti 130. <http://jukuri.mtt.fi/handle/10024/482044>. Noudettu 16.11.2015. NI1 = Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland. CAP Pillar I Direct Payments – Summary of Decisions. <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/cap-pillar-i-direct-payments- Maataloustukien sanasto 48 summary-of-decisions-250215.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. NI2 = Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland. Guide to Area-based Schemes 2015. Version 2.0. <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/guide-to-area-based-schemes2015.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. OECD = Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Data. Agricultural policy. Agricultural support. <https://data.oecd.org/agrpolicy/agricultural-support.htm>. Noudettu 23.3.2016. SC1 = Scottish Government Rural Payments and Services. Agri-Environmental Climate Scheme. Double funding and option incompatibility. <https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsiterest/fscontent/repository/portalsystem/mediadata/media/en_1/topics/all_schemes/agri_environment/agri_environment_cli mate_scheme_full_guidance_menu/double_funding_and_option_incompatibility_/double_f unding_and_option_incompatibility_.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. SC2 = Scottish Government Rural Payments and Services. Agri-Environment Climate Scheme. Funding under this scheme. <https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsiterest/fscontent/repository/portalsystem/mediadata/media/en_1/topics/all_schemes/agri_environment/agri_environment_cli mate_scheme_full_guidance_menu/funding_under_the_scheme/funding_under_the_sche me.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. SC3 = Scottish Government Rural Payments and Services. Agri-Environmental Climate Scheme. Management options and capital items. <https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsiterest/fscontent/repository/portalsystem/mediadata/media/en_1/topics/all_schemes/agri_environment/management_option s_and_capital_items_2_jzrzb78jrb7v/management_options_and_capital_items_2.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. SC4 = Scottish Government Rural Payments and Services. How payments work. Allocation of entitlements. Route three – the National Reserve. <https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsite-rest/fscontent/repository/portalsystem/mediadata/media/en_1/topics/direct_payments_2/entitlements_eligibility/route_thre e___the_national_reserve/route_three_-_the_national_reserve.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. SC5 = Scottish Government Rural Payments and Services. Regionalisation of payments. <https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsite/futures/topics/how-paymentswork/regionalisation-of-payments/>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. SC6 = Scottish Government Rural Payments and Services. Rural Development: Less Favoured Area Support Scheme full guidance. <https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsiterest/fscontent/repository/portalsystem/mediadata/media/en_1/topics/all_schemes/lfass/less_favoured_area_support_sch eme_full_guidance/less_favoured_area_support_scheme_full_guidance.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. SC7 = Scottish Government Rural Payments and Services. Rural Development: Small Farms Grant Scheme and New Entrants Capital Grant Scheme full guidance. <https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsite-rest/fscontent/repository/portalsystem/mediadata/media/en_1/topics/all_schemes/small_farms_agricultural_grants_sche me/small_farms_agricultural_grant_scheme_full_guidance/small_farms_agricultural_grant _scheme_full_guidance.pdf>. Noudettu 11.11.2015. Maataloustukien sanasto 49 VM = Valtiovarainministeriö. Valtion talousarvioesitykset. Talousarvioesitys 2015. 41. EU-tulotuki ja EU-markkinatuki (arviomääräraha). <http://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/sisalto.jsp? year=2015&lang=fi&maindoc=/2015/tae/hallituksenEsitys/hallituksenEsitys.xml&id=/2015/t ae/hallituksenEsitys/YksityiskohtaisetPerustelut/30/20/41/41.html>. Noudettu 16.3.2016. WA1 = Welsh Government. Environment and Countryside. Glastir Entry Booklet 1: General Guidance 2015. <http://gov.wales/docs/drah/publications/140114geguidancebooklet1en.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. WA2 = Welsh Government. Environment and Countryside. Glastir Entry Booklet 2: Technical Guidance 2015. <http://gov.wales/docs/drah/publications/140121gebooklet2techguidance2015en.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. WA3 = Welsh Government. Environment and Countryside. The Common Agricultural Policy Reform. Direct Payments to Farmers: Decisions. <http://gov.wales/docs/drah/publications/140114directpaymentstofarmersdecisionsen.pdf>. Noudettu 10.11.2015. Ål = Ålands landskapsregeringen. Landsbygdsutvecklingsprogrammet. <http://www.regeringen.ax/naringsliv-foretagande/lantbruk/landsbygdsutvecklingsprogrammet>. Noudettu 1.12.2015. Maataloustukien sanasto Aakkosellinen hakemisto Hakusanan jälkeinen numero viittaa termitietueeseen, jossa termi on määritelty. Hakemistossa on varsinaisten hakutermien lisäksi mukana sellaisia sanoja, joille ei ole laadittu omaa tietuetta mutta joiden merkitys tai käyttöyhteys ilmenee jonkin hakutermin selitteestä. Tällöinkin numero viittaa termitietueeseen. Rivien taustavärin ainoa tarkoitus on hakemiston lukemisen helpottaminen. Suomenkieliset termit aktiiviviljelijä aktiiviviljelijäehto aktiiviviljelijätarkastelu alkuperäiskasvien ylläpitosopimus alkuperäisrotujen kasvattamissopimus avokesanto CAP-tuet efa-velvoite ei-tuotannollisten investointien korvaus ekologisen alan vaatimus eläinten hyvinvointikorvaus eläinten hyvinvointikorvaussitoumus ensimmäinen pilari Etelä-Suomen kansallinen tuki EU-osarahoitteiset tuet EU:n eläinpalkkiot EU:n kokonaan rahoittamat tuet EU:n lammas- ja vuohipalkkiot EU:n lypsylehmäpalkkio EU:n nautaeläinpalkkiot geenipankkisäilytystoimenpide hanketuet hoidettu viljelemätön pelto hyvän maatalouden ja ympäristön vaatimukset I-pilari II-pilari kansallinen varanto kansalliset kotieläintuet kansalliset peltotuet kansalliset tuet kasvihuoneala kasvihuonetuotannon tuki kasvikoodi kasvulohko kesanto kieltolista kohdentamisalue korvauskelpoisuus 79 79 79 53 51 96 13 21 54 21 37 38 2 55 32 24 13 28 27 25 52 12 93 83 2 3 81 57 68 55 85 75 89 89 93 79 46 91 50 Maataloustukien sanasto kosteikon hoitosopimus kurki-, hanhi- ja joutsenpeltosopimus kuttupalkkio lakisääteiset hoitovaatimukset LFA-tuki LHK LHK-korvauskelpoisuus lisäosa lohkokohtaiset toimenpiteet luonnonhaittakorvauksen kotieläinkorotus luonnonhaittakorvaus luonnonmukaisen kotieläintuotannon sitoumus luonnonmukaisen tuotannon korvaus luonnonmukaisen tuotannon sitoumus maaseudun kehittämisohjelma maaseudun kehittämistuet maatalousluonnon monimuotoisuuden ja maiseman hoitosopimus maatalousmaa maataloustoiminta maataloustuet maatila maatilan investointituet maatilojen neuvonnan asiakasmaksutuki maidon tuotantotuki markkinatuet mehiläistalouden tuki muu ala Natura-nurmi nautapalkkio nautojen eläinyksikkötuki nuoren viljelijän aloitustuki nuoren viljelijän tuki nuorten viljelijöiden tuki ohjelmaperusteiset tuet ohjelmatuet peltoala peltokasvipalkkio peruslohko peruslohkotunnus perustaso perustuki pohjoinen hehtaarituki pohjoinen hevostuki pohjoinen kuttutuki pohjoinen tuki pohjoinen uuhituki pohjoiset nautatuet pohjoiset peltotuet 49 48 30 84 33 33 91 80 44 56 33 36 34 35 11 12 50 85 78 8 77 32 32 66 9 67 86 98 26 59 32 17 74 32 32 92 23 88 88 45 15 72 63 62 55 61 58 71 51 Maataloustukien sanasto puutarhatuotteiden varastointituki pysyvien kasvien ala pysyvä laidun pysyvä nurmi pysyvän nurmen ennallistamismenettely pysyvän nurmen säilyttäminen rahoituskuri rahoituskurileikkaus saaristohieho sika- ja siipikarjatalouden tuotannosta irrotettu tuki sikatalouden kriisituki sokerijuurikkaan kuljetustuki sokerijuurikkaan tuki suorat tuet suorien tukien järjestelmä sänkikesanto tasaosa teuraskaritsa- ja kilipalkkio teurasnautojen tuki tilakohtainen toimenpide tilapäisesti viljelemätön ala tilatuki tilatunnus toimenpide toinen pilari tukialue tukikelpoisuus tukioikeus tuotannosta irrotetut suorat tuet tuotantoon sidotut tuet täydentävät ehdot uuhipalkkio varantohaku viherkesanto viherryttämistoimenpide viherryttämistuen vaatimukset viherryttämistuki viherryttämisvaatimukset viljelemätön ala viljelijätuet viljelykasvi viljelykelpoisuus viljelyn monipuolistaminen yhteinen maatalouspolitiikka yhteinen markkinajärjestely yhteiskäyttölohko yhteislaidun yleinen hehtaarituki 76 99 97 97 20 20 6 7 26 64 65 70 69 13 5 95 80 31 60 43 100 15 77 41 3 90 91 80 14 22 82 29 81 94 18 18 16 18 86 10 19 87 19 1 4 88 88 73 52 Maataloustukien sanasto YMJ YMP ympäristökorvauksen vähimmäisvaatimukset ympäristökorvaus ympäristösitoumuksen vähimmäisvaatimukset ympäristösitoumus ympäristösopimus yritystuet 4 1 42 39 42 40 47 12 Englanninkieliset termit active farmer active farmer test agri-environment-climate payment agricultural activity agricultural land agricultural support aid for greenhouse products aid for suckler cows and male bovines animal premia animal welfare commitment animal welfare payment arable crops premium arable land baseline requirements basic payment Basic Payment Scheme beef cattle premium bovine premia BPS CAP capital grants for non-productive investments CMO commitment on organic livestock production commitment on organic production Common Agricultural Policy Common Market Organisation conservation in gene banks coupled support crane, goose and swan field management crane, goose and swan fields crisis aid for pig farmers crop diversification cross compliance; cross-compliance dairy cow premium decoupled aid for pigs and poultry decoupled direct payments direct payments 79 79 39 78 85 8 75 59 24 38 37 23 92 45 15 15 26 25 15 1 54 4 36 35 1 4 52 22 48 48 65 19 82 27 64 14 13 53 Maataloustukien sanasto direct payments system doe premium Ecological Focus Area requirement EFA entitlement environment commitment environment contract environment payment Environmentally Sensitive Permanent Grassland ewe premium fallow land fallow land with bare soil fallow land with stubble cover fallow land with vegetative cover farmland habitat and feature management farm-level operation farm-specific measure fattening lamb and kid premium field number Financial Discipline Financial Discipline reduction GAECs general area payment C2–C4 general area payment for young farmers C1–C4 Good Agricultural and Environment Conditions greening payment greening requirements greening rules haulage aid for sugar beet holding keeping of local crop varieties land eligibility land parcel land planted with permanent crops land termporarily out of agricultural use land use area land use code livestock top-up for natural constraint payments maintaining an ecological focus area maintaining permanent grassland management of biodiversity in agricultural environment and landscape management of wetlands management option management options market support measure minimum requirements for fertiliser use and plant protection national aid for sugar beet 5 30 21 21 80 40 47 39 98 29 93 96 95 94 50 43 43 31 88 6 7 83 73 74 83 16 18 18 70 77 53 91 88 99 100 89 89 56 21 20 50 49 41 44 9 41 42 69 54 Maataloustukien sanasto national aids national aids crop production aids national aids for animal husbandry national reserve natural constraint payment natural constraint support negative list non-agricultural area northern aid for arable crops northern aid for ewes northern aid for goats northern aid for horses northern aid paid for slaughtered animals northern aids for animal husbandry northern crop production aids operation parcel-specific measures parcel-specific operations part field payment for organic production payment region permanent grassland Pillar I Pillar II preserving heritage crop cultivars primary requirements in the environment commitment producer support production aid for milk raising heritage livestock breeds RDP rearing of local breeds regional reserve Rural Development Programme Rural Development schemes, rural development schemes rural payments schemes for farmers sheep and goat premia Single Farm Payment SMRs state aids state suitable for grazing or cultivation Statutory Management Requirements storage aid for horticulture products support for apiculture target area target region voluntary coupled support wetland management whole farm code young farmer payment 55 68 57 81 33 33 79 86 72 61 62 63 60 58 71 41 44 44 89 34 90 97 2 3 53 42 10 66 51 11 51 81 11 12, 32 10 10 28 15 84 55 87 84 76 67 46 46 22 49 43 17 55
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz