1 / 18

Dirk Schubert nova-Institut; 18 June 2007

The four axis of the EAFRD. A comparison of national strategies and the objectives contained therein in 11 Member States. Dirk Schubert nova-Institut; 18 June 2007. The four axis of the EAFRD. A comparison of national strategies and the objectives contained therein in 11 Member States.

seth-hughes
Download Presentation

Dirk Schubert nova-Institut; 18 June 2007

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. The four axis of the EAFRD A comparison of national strategies and the objectives contained therein in 11 Member States Dirk Schubert nova-Institut; 18 June 2007

  2. The four axis of the EAFRD A comparison of national strategies and the objectives contained therein in 11 Member States • Structure • Introductory remarks • Context for designing national strategies • Process of designing national strategies • Strategic objectives and axes • (preliminary) Conclusions • Questions and ideas for the future

  3. Introductory remarks • Basis is a two phase study on Rural Development carried out by critica in 11 countries: France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Germany, Scotland (UK), Ireland, Finland, Poland and Bulgaria • Commissioned in 2006 by CNASEA (France) and INEA (Italy) • Phase I: National Strategic Plans for rural development (NSP) (Interim report in March 2007) • Phase II: innovatory features in the Rural development programmes (RDP) • Programmes are still moving targets • Findings are preliminary >> project is not finished yet • especially financial figures have to be treated carefully

  4. Context for designing NSP • Financial: Budget reductions in many Member States(COM proposal 88,75 >> finally 78,6 billion €). Existing long-term financial commitments further reduces room for manoeuvre. • New Tasks: i.e. Natura 2000, Water Framework Directive, Climate change, biofuels and extended tasks like accomp. CAP-Reform • Objectives and priorities: predefined on European level through regulation (three core objectives) and EU Strategy (six guidelines) • Diversity: Institutional settings (centralised / federal) and situation of rural areas (declining <> prospering) • Challenges: demographic changes, unemployment, structural change, environment (biodiversity / urbanisation ...) • NSP as new instrument: what is rural? vision and objectives for rural areas; strategic level; quantified targets and indicators;participation; national network; learning processes

  5. Breakdown by MS of EU-Funds for RD 2007 – 2013 in Billion €

  6. Process of designing NSP • Analysis followed the EU-Guidelines: strenghts and weaknesses of the 1) agro-food sector, 2) environment, 3) rural areas • Mainly farmer and (agri-)environmentalists participated; weakness in the representation of non-agricultural actors • At the centre of the debates: • financial weight given to each axis • Interaction between NSP and RDP (especially in federal systems) • centralisation versus regionalisation • how much money is going to farmers and to which • financing of Natura 2000 • role of LEADER • Biofules • Need for more: time for discussion, transparency / acess to information, process know-how and management in the administration

  7. Strategic objectives and axes (I)The overall picture

  8. Strategic objectives and axes (II)Group 1: „competition agri-food“ • Improve the position of the agro-food and non-food sector to catch up with other EU Member States and / or compete on world market • This group spends 40 – 55 % of the budget on axis 1 (EU average 38 %) • most new Member States (without Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia) • Southern European countries like Spain (53 %), Greece (50 %), Portugal (46 %) and Italy (42 %) >> France spends EU average (38 %)

  9. Strategic objectives and axes (III)Group 2: „sustainable agri-forestry“ • Primary objective is to maintain a sustainable agriculture and forestry • This group spends between 50 – 80 % on axis 2 (EU average 44 %) • Mostly wealthier northern countries (in some cases competitive agriculture gets funded outside EARDF) • From the new Member States Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia follow this strategy

  10. Strategic objectives and axes (IV)Group 3: „wider rural“ • Central objectives are: to improve rural infrastructure and the quality of life in rural areas and economic diversification / development • This group spends 20 – 35 % on Axis 3 (EU average is 19 %) • Many new Member States and Germany (new Länder) and ?? Netherlands

  11. Strategic objectives and axes (V)Axis 4: „LEADER“ • Mainstreaming of LEADER: One of the most important innovations • Minimum 5 % of the Funds, maximum 15 % Andalucia, Saarland • >> 88 % more than in the last period, final budget could be higher • Budget per group varies enormously from less then 2 Mio. in NRW up to 10,9 Mio. € in Ireland • In some MS / regions all rural areas will be covered by LEADER:Austria, Finland, Ireland, Andalucia and Schleswig-Holstein • LEADER is mainly focused on Axis 3 measures, in some countries open to all axis (Finland) or parts of other axis (Andalucia, Germany) • Different forms of mainstreaming:- „Innovatory niche specialist“: Austria - „Full Mainstreaming“: Finland, Ireland, Andalucia- „Local Customization“: Greece, Northern Ireland, Portugal, ? Poland

  12. Conclusion I:Insufficient priority to create new jobs • 81 % of the funds (axis 1+2) are directed towards the agri-food sector;beneficiaries outside the farming and food sector < 15 %>> hardly new jobs through axis 1 / axis 2 measures (!! safeguarding jobs) • less then 20 % of the funds (?? 10 %) are used to fight central problems>> unemployment>> demographic changes

  13. With the words of the Commissioner • „However, the low funding of axis 3 suggests that the majority of the Member States are still reluctant to promote innovative investments outside agricultural sector - to move from a narrow agricultural to a wider rural perspective. • Axis 3 is crucial in a long-term policy perspective because it aims at improving working and living conditions for farming Households and the rural community, at strengthening the link between agriculture and the other sectors of rural economy as well as narrowing the gap between rural and urban areas. • ...although Rural development is deeply-rooted in agriculture it has to open to other sectors to be sustainable.“ Mariann Fischer Boel „The Future of Rural Regions“ at the informal agricultural council. Mainz, 22 May 2007

  14. Conclusion II • A tendency to focus on rationalisation and intensification to ensure competitiveness instead of quality • An emphasis on isolated investments in agro-food instead of value chains • Lack of differentiation between different types of rural areas and different types of farming and food industry • A defensive attitude towards natural resources instead of an integrative and proactive approach to valorising rural amenities • Weak governance, inadeaquate capacity building and social capital; barely efficient coordination mechanism with ERDF and ESF; mainly „negative coordination“ • Barely participation at the local level (beside LEADER)

  15. Conclusion IIIPositive changes and innovations • Development of integrated approaches (i.e. Territorial Land Contracts) that bring together measures from various axis (Scotland, Italy, Portugal and Poland) • The development of certain new or relatively new measures such as biofuels and Natura 2000 (Austria, France …) • New advice services for farmers • New mechanisms of participatory planning and coordination (Planning Partnerships in Scotland, LA 21 in Austria). • Extension / mainstreaming of the LEADER method • Network for rural development as instrument for cooperation and learning • More strategic (instead of measure) orientated planning process • Quantified targets and indicators as learning tool

  16. Conclusion IV: Comparison with the new rural paradigma of the OECD • In general NSP`s are a gradual evolution of the existing policies • The regulation / strategic guidelines at the EU level offer opportunities to move towards a new rural paradigma • In the NSP and financially the old approach is dominant, but the situation varies from MS to MS

  17. Some questions and ideas for the future • What are the objectives of Rural Development? • A more targeted approach for- different types of rural areas- job creation- high nature value farming, less favour area payment • How to ensure adeaquate financial resources for RD? • Better coordination with regional (ERDF) and social policy (ESF) • Stronger focus on rural-urban linkages • New ways to finance rural development (grant >> loans, ppp ...) • Learning through evaluation and networking • Further evolution in the direction of the new rural paradigma and building on the LEADER-method / governance mode

  18. Thank you for your attention

More Related