RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAP POST 2013

1. RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAP POST 2013 Attila JAMBOR Assistant Professor Corvinus University of Budapest Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

2. Outline • Introduction • General reflections on the EC Communication • Challenges and objectives • Consistency between the challenges and the proposals • The role of rural development in the future CAP • Future priorities • Evaluation of rural development policies • Budgetary concerns • Conclusions Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

3. Introduction • The CAP under debate • New challenges • Next financial period • The role of the Commission • April, June and November of 2010 • The official Communication (18/11/2010) • The complex policy environment Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

4. Future challenges and proposals of the CAP • Challenges • Economic (food security, market stability, food chains) • Environmental (GHG emissions, soil depletion, water/air quality, habitats and biodiversity) • Socio-territorial (vitality of rural areas, diversity of EU agriculture) • Objectives • Viable food production • Sustainable management of natural resources and climate action • Balanced territorial development Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

5. Consistency of proposals to meet economic challenges • Food security • Adjusted direct payments – economic or social issue? • Possible overlaps between the pillars • Market stability • The place of the risk management toolkit is doubtful • Further details on specific markets are unclear • Fragmentation of food supply chains • Specific measures of competitiveness enhancement are missing • Silence on the links between competitiveness and trade policy Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

6. Consistency of proposals to meet environmental challenges • Majority of proposals are dealing with the provision of environmental public goods • Social public goods are not mentioned • Insufficiency of measurement methods • Institutional and administrative constraints • Doubtful coherence with agri-environmental programmes • What about green growth and climate change mitigation? Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

7. Consistency of proposals to meet socio-territorial challenges • Rural development proposals are vague • Three main objectives • Rural employment support • Enhance rural economy and diversification • Improve conditions for small farms • Characteristics of NMS do not seem to be recognised • Details are missing • Priorities, evaluation, budgetary concerns Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

8. The role of rural development in the future CAP • Disappointing lack of signals regarding rural development • Its role in the second pillar seems to be downgraded • New themes • Innovation and risk management • Better targeted and evaluated programmes • Budgetary reallocations between pillars • Potential introduction of a common strategic framework • Main issues • Future priorities • Evaluation of rural development policies • Budgetary concerns Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

9. Future priorities • Headlines • Promote competitiveness • Enhance the sustainable management of natural resources • Create a balanced development of rural areas • Doubts on possible future overlaps between pillars • Especially concerning ”handicapped” payments and public goods • Rural poverty should be a leading issue • Local employment enhancement • Decrease the urban/rural income gap Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

10. Evaluation of rural development policies • Critiques of the current system • Proper indicators, baseline values, policy goals, the ineffectiveness of measuring causality and timing • A shift towards a more outcome based evaluation is needed • Assessment against clear and measurable objectives • Feedback of results to policy makers • EU and programme level targets are envisaged • Decision on what growth to measure is of utmost importance • Duality of targets and measurement methods is recommended • Possible set of incentives to respect successful programmes Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

11. Proposed future RDP evaluation system Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

12. Budgetary concerns • The CAP Budget seems likely to be cut in the future • Restructuring resources by pillars and Member States • Reconfiguration of the pillars appears to affect their respective budgetary allocations • The possible role of rural development inside the first pillar is unclear • Reallocation by Member States by objective criteria, linked to quantifiable targets, is highly recommended • Agricultural area • NATURA 2000 • GDP/capita Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

13. Place of rural development in the EU policy framework • Both agricultural and cohesion policies have strong links to rural development • People are seeking an overall improvement, irrespective of sector-related policies • Integration of all rural related policies by establishing a new fund is highly recommended • Efficiency growth • Decrease of overlaps • Better coordination Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

14. Conclusions • Communication proposals lack details and are partially consistent with challenges • The future CAP will be determined by several institutional factors • The role of rural development seems to be downgraded in the second pillar • No major changes in priorities are envisaged, though poverty is one of the most pressing issues • Innovation and risk management toolkit seem to strengthen current priorities Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

15. Conclusions (continued) • Evaluation of RDPs should focus on an outcome based approach, containing a duality of targets and measurement methods • Restructuring of budget resources should be based on objective criteria • Integration of all rural related policies under a common umbrella is needed by establishing a new fund • The future CAP should recognise the diversity of EU agriculture as well as the inappropriateness of the ”one-size-fits-all” approach Rural Development in the CAP post 2013

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Rural Development in the CAP post 2013