120 likes | 251 Views
Territorial Impacts of the CAP ESPON Project 2.1.3. Deborah Roberts Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research University of Aberdeen, Scotland Partners: Federal Institute for Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas, Austria Institute of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Germany
E N D
Territorial Impacts of the CAPESPON Project 2.1.3 Deborah Roberts Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research University of Aberdeen, Scotland Partners: Federal Institute for Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas, Austria Institute of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Germany National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis, Ireland
Aim of Project: To provide new knowledge, concepts and indicators of the territorial impact of agricultural and rural development policy (across EU27 at NUTS3) Background • CAP is a key sectoral policy • Gradual CAP reform (from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2) • Assessed against higher level EU objectives • Networking with other TPGs and Common Platform
Methods Stage 1: Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA) method • Development of hypotheses • Statistical analysis of incidence of support • Initial statistical analysis of impact • Literature search • Apportionment and analysis of output from CAPRI model of MTR proposals • Case studies plus…. Stage 2: Data sources and coverage • EU sources • National sources for apportionment data • Policy data from OECD, FADN, RDP budgets
CAP and cohesion (Pillar 1) Single variable regression analysis: • Pillar 1 support works strongly against cohesion • Distribution of direct income payments more consistent with cohesion objectives (esp. crops) • Level of Pillar 1 support favours core as against periphery (EU level)
CAP and cohesion (Pillar 2) Single variable regression analysis: • At EU level, pillar 2 support does not seem to be consistent with cohesion objectives • Distribution of Pillar 2 support positively associated with peripherality (EU level)
Differences in territorial application of Pillar 2 • Very uneven allocation of RDR funds • Difficulties of co-financing in poorer regions • Richer regions use Pillar 2 to promote environmental land management, while poorer regions seek to modernise agriculture. Dwyer et al analysed use of Pillar 2 measures across EU15 and SAPARD in CEECs.
Percentage change in Farm Incomes resulting from MTR Proposals
Policy implications • Increase switch from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 and broaden focus of RD policies. • Allocate RDF according to criteria of relative needs for rural development and environmental management. • Need for a coherent framework for horizontal and vertical integration of policies. • Polycentricity: the RDF could be used to offset centralising forces at regional level, targeting rural hinterlands. • Database should be improved so as to enable comparable European wide analysis.
Main challenges for next phase • Development of TIA method • Further statistical analysis of Nuts 3 database • CAP and Polycentricity • CAP and environmental sustainability • Panel data analysis • Micro-scale analysis based on FADN • Case studies in farm household adaptation and good practice in territorial rural development • Cluster analysis to help inform choice of case studies.