janet_Puglia

Document Sample
janet_Puglia Powered By Docstoc
					    Changing EU frameworks, the
   Common Agricultural Policy and
        rural development

                   Dr Janet Dwyer,
Reader in Rural Studies, University of Gloucestershire
            Outline
• Changing EU policy frameworks:
  Cohesion policy and CAP
• The New CAP: first and second pillars
• EU Rural Development: what are we trying
  to do? and lessons from Salzburg
• Where next? – future challenges and
  opportunities
Cohesion Policy and Rural
Development
• Focus upon helping to promote economic
  convergence and reduce disparities across
  the EU
• To date, principally delivered through joint-
  funded, territorially based, multiannual
  programmes (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF)
• Rural element of varying importance, by
  territory and classification
• Very important influence in some MS, much
  less in others
The Changing Cohesion Agenda
• Enlargement shifts both average EU levels of
  economic performance and range of situations:
  accession states become the clear priority
• Multi-annual territorial programme funds (ERDF
  dominated) will mainly move east, 2007-
• More widespread funds for ‘competition’ but
  mainly urban focus, smaller budget
• ‘New deal’ for second pillar of CAP to pick up
  rural development policy – whole territory scope,
  agriculture / forestry link remains, but funds can
  go beyond the farm gate
The Changing Policy Agenda for CAP

Changing rationale for support:

•From specialised food production to
                          ‘multifunctionality’

•From ‘logique de guichet’ to ‘logique de
                                 contrat’
The New CAP (from 2004)
 • Market support increasingly decoupled
   and limited / targeted to special needs
 • New environmental conditions on all
   decoupled payments – may require
   regional definition
 • Rural Development as the second pillar,
   gradually strengthening through
   modulation
 • Future delivery of all, through a single
   fund
  CAP: The New First Pillar
• Increasing share of support given as ‘single
  farm payment’ (SFP) – regardless of what is
  produced
• National and regional variations on the basic
  model (coverage of SFP, basis of payment,
  targeted envelopes)
• Variable, tailored environmental conditions
• Divergent and less predictable outcomes

- this pillar is becoming more nationalised /
   regionalised
CAP: the New Second Pillar
 Three themes –

   1. Improving competitiveness in
      agriculture – investment, diversification,
      training, processing and marketing, quality
   2. Environmental land management –
      environmental schemes, LFA support,
      forestry and forest management
   3. Support for the broader rural economy
      – rural infrastructure, services, tourism and
      crafts, IRD partnerships, village renewal,
      (? training and marketing)
CAP: The New Second Pillar

• Simplified structure – fewer chapters
  and measures, broader scope than
  RDR (1257/1999)
• More scope for flexibility
• Mainstreaming of LEADER
• Modest budget increase for 2007-13
EU Rural Development: What are we
trying to do?
Address rural market imperfections, linked
 to:
• High transaction costs, lack of information,
  fragmented knowledge/resources
• Human capacity barriers – lack of skills,
  confidence, averse attitudes to risk
• Lack of access to capital

Provide public goods - environmental and socio-
  cultural, not reflected in markets

Stimulate rural economies through public
  investment – helping rural areas to help
  themselves
EU Rural Development: Lessons
from Salzburg
 Competitiveness: Many second pillar policies
   remain farm-focused, centralised, capitalised

 Environment: need to clarify outcomes, increase
   flexibility of measures, develop better monitoring
   and demonstrate success, integrate with
   sustainable development

 Rural economy: the measures offer great
   potential to strengthen links between land-based
   and other sectors and promote enhanced human
   and social capital in rural areas, but they are
   under-used
EU Rural Development: Lessons
from Salzburg (cont)
Bottom-up approaches, involving different actors
and expertise (economy, environment, community)
in planning and delivery, can produce
popularity, flexibility and innovation
Essential ingredients:
  - partnership
  - ownership
  - accessibility
  - developing human and social capital
  - integration of measures
 Lessons from Salzburg (cont)
We urgently need simplification
….. But Also
• We need the ability to articulate EU, national and
  regional priorities, and to ensure financial probity
  through the system – this means transparency at
  both ends, timeliness, trust and support
• The dialogue between levels needs to focus on
  agreeing and measuring outcomes (essentials
  and ambitions), principles and processes, not
  details of ‘tools’ and ‘rules’
 Where next? – future challenges and
 opportunities
• Encourage more bottom-up approaches
  through pilots, or mainstreaming LEADER,
  and bringing cohesion experience into the
  new second pillar
  (eg PRODER, NRDP Ireland, Regionen Aktiv,
  Danish Art 33, PITs and RIPs)
• Shift more resources into developing human
  and social capital – training, advice, farmer and
  community-centred group learning
Where next? – future challenges and
opportunities
• Integrate options within local packages –
  don’t be preoccupied with differences
  between measures, incentivise farmers and
  non-farmers to work together, consider new
  and emerging groups and their needs


• Create a climate of active investigation
  with trust - promote regional and
  international exchange of experience, enable
  some risk-taking

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:3
posted:3/4/2010
language:English
pages:15