1 / 17

An evaluation on 3 schemes in the 2 nd Pillar of the rural Development Programme:

RURAL'HAVAS Assessing Transformations in Rural Areas 11-13 August 2011. An evaluation on 3 schemes in the 2 nd Pillar of the rural Development Programme: from small farming to Rural, Non-agriculutral work in Romania:. Marie-Luce Ghib 1,2 Marielle Berriet-Solliec 1

sakina
Download Presentation

An evaluation on 3 schemes in the 2 nd Pillar of the rural Development Programme:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RURAL'HAVAS Assessing Transformations in Rural Areas 11-13 August 2011 • An evaluation on 3 schemes in the 2nd Pillar of the rural Development Programme: • from small farming to Rural, Non-agriculutral work in Romania: Marie-Luce Ghib 1,2 Marielle Berriet-Solliec 1 1CESAER, UMR 1041 INRA-AgroSup Dijon, Centre d'Economie et de Sociologie appliquées à l'Agriculture et aux Espaces Ruraux26 Boulevard du Dr Petit Jean - BP 87999, F-21079 Dijon Cedex, France 2 FCPR, AgroParistech, Site Maine, Paris, France marie-luce.ghib@dijon.inra.fr, berriet@dijon.inra.fr

  2. Romanian rural areas context: larger and larger discrepancy • An evaluation approach • From agriculture trap to rural employment: evaluation of the implementation under the second pillar in Romania

  3. INTRODUCTION

  4. Country with the highest level of agricultural workers in the EU: 30% • Enhancing the rural non-agricultural employment the main priority of the National Strategy Plan (and NRDP) • Focus on tertiary sector as industry remains small and dependant of FDI • How can public intervention facilitate a transition from the agricultural sector to the non-agricultural sector in the current context? • What kinds of policies would aid this transition? • Which populations should be specifically targeted and which implementation direct or indirect?

  5. 1. Romanian rural areas context: larger and larger discrepancy

  6. An important area of the national territory but low standard of living Source : Conditiile de viata ale populatiei, INS, 2005a

  7. Employment and crystallisation in rural areas of national socio-economical issues ...only recently covered by public policies

  8. 2. An evaluation approach

  9. From institutionalism framework to evaluation as scientific approach: contextualisation Evaluation methodology and its mobilisation in this paper: - combining field works and different data sources - analysing all the level of the implementation - compare and cross verification of the data/survey --> drawing the expected and non expected effects

  10. 3. From agriculture trap to rural employment: evaluation of the implementation under the second pillar in Romania

  11. Source : Alboiu and al., 2011 (data july 2010)

  12. Implementation of the 141 measure on semi-subsistence farms: sectoral and regional disparities Incentive lever: allocation of a simplified and annually fixed rate subsidy to stimulate investment in small farms

  13. 2009 2010* Cumulated * for 2010 it is question of applications before verification Figure2. Maps of the distribution of applications to the 141 measure: absolute measure value and percentage of total eligible farms accessing the programme

  14. Sectoral disparity Occurrence of sectoral orientation of the project among 6262 projects validated for the semi-subsistence measure in 2009. Source: author from on-line data on the MADR site: www.madr.ro Coherence Age threshold versus farm holder definition (Ghib, 2009): under-estimation of potential beneficiaries (76 000)

  15. The micro-enterprise and tourism measures: a real way to escape from the agricultural trap? Incentive lever: Investment in small firms and tourism activity in rural areas

  16. Conclusion Gap between absorption and penetration of European funds The target population will benefit only indirectly from the susbisdies Question of risk-taking, hardky answered by the present schemes (micro-credit, 311 scheme to be developped) Paradoxes of senior citizen activity: everything but agriculture Bridges between research and evaluation pratices

  17. Bibliography ALBOIU C., KULIESIS G., SALENGAITE D., The impact of rural development program on agriculture and buisiness/ rural development in Lithuania and Romania : a mirror situation. Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, New Series, Year VIII, no. 1, p. 77–90, 2011 GHIB, M.L. ; BERRIET-SOLLIEC, M. From small farming to rural, non‐agricultural work in Romania: an evaluation on 3 measures of the rural development programme. 118. EAAE Seminar Rural development: governance, policy design and delivery. 2010/08/25-25 ; Ljubjana (SVN)

More Related