1 / 11

Workshop D

Workshop D. 1.3.2 Natural heritage 2.1.3 CAP impact. General remark. Many links between the two projects (e.g. CAP policy influences nat. heritage). 1) Analytical findings. both projects missed new CORINE-Data (to measure land-use change and to compare it with policy measures)

burrowsm
Télécharger la présentation

Workshop D

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. Workshop D 1.3.2 Natural heritage 2.1.3 CAP impact

  2. General remark • Many links between the two projects (e.g. CAP policy influences nat. heritage)

  3. 1) Analytical findings • both projects missed new CORINE-Data (to measure land-use change and to compare it with policy measures) • lack of time series made development of typologies difficult • Natural heritage should be promoted as an asset • -good starting study

  4. 2) Methods, Innovation CAP -impact of policy changes -case studies (impact of selected measures) -Literature (especially evaluation of LEADER II) -comparing agric. with Polycentrism/ESDP = new -data on expenditures etc. were transformed to NUTS 3 (= basis for correlation and regression analysis), this allocation of higher level data to NUTS 3 was new

  5. 2) Methods, Innovation Natural heritage -patterns (because there were no time series) -land cover mapping -very general data = case studies are important -all 3 scales were related to spatial patterns = new -urban pressure was developed as a composed variable

  6. 2) Methods, Innovation -concept of natural heritage: (not just) based on biodiversity -„territorial“ does not mean the same to DG Agri as it does to DG Regio => agricultural policy is just starting to get more „spatially oriented“

  7. 3) Integration of ESDP goals and concepts -it was expected that 3.1 would deliver an operationalisation to all TPGs -how was Polycentrism integrated? Interlinkages between urban, transport networks and nat. heritage?

  8. 4) Policy recommendations -general question: what means polycentrism for rural areas (for urban areas we know it; ESDP says, at least implicitly, that p. is basically good for rural areas, too) -Policy rec. should be distributed to sector policies

  9. 4) Policy recommendations • -complementarities to 1.1.2. do exist • -the importance of regional development plans was stressed • Generally it was felt that the project was maybe too early as there will be much more data soon

  10. 4) Policy recommendations • Coastal zones under pressure – possibility do implement european law to protect? = very difficult because of subsidiarity and diversity of shoreline • Pessimistic outlook (as regards CAP): „it‘s time to turn around an oil tanker“

  11. 5) Further research • -CORINE data (development of land cover) • look on new results of CAPRI model • Focus on new Member States • Promoting Nat. heritage as an asset (to come out of the defensive attitude) • Networking: LP-Seminars were positive • Timing of the projects should be improved (data availability)

More Related