1 / 18

TAIEX Worskshop on Agricultural Extension Services in EU

TAIEX Worskshop on Agricultural Extension Services in EU Pecualiarities of legal regulation of the advisory services in EU Member States - Italy 25-26 February 2016 Kiev-Ukraine. Sonia Marongiu

mbergman
Télécharger la présentation

TAIEX Worskshop on Agricultural Extension Services in EU

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. TAIEX Worskshop on Agricultural Extension Services in EU Pecualiarities of legalregulation of the advisoryservices in EU MemberStates - Italy 25-26 February 2016 Kiev-Ukraine Sonia Marongiu CREA – Council for AgriculturalResearch and AgriculturalEconomics Analysis Rome Unit: Policies and Bioeconomy

  2. INEA National Institute of AgriculturalEconomics CRA Council for AgriculturalResearch • CREA – Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economics Analysis born in 2015 as a merge of CRA and INEA, two agencies that operated under the supervision of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies. • The objective of the reorganization is to have a better coordination and optimization of administrative, economic and organizational efforts done to promote the Italian agriculture and agri-food industry. CREA consists of 12 centres: • 6 related to specific areas: genomics and bioinformatics; agriculture and environment; protection and certification; agricultural engineering and processing; food and nutrition; policies and bioeconomy • 6 related to the supply chain: crops and industrial crops; arboriculture; viticulture and enology; horticulture and floriculture; animal husbandry and aquaculture; forests and wood products. • http://sito.entecra.it/portale/index2.php

  3. Structuralcharacteristics of Agricultural Sector in Italy (1) • AgricultureCensus 2010 • 17.1 millions ha = totalagricultural area • 12.9 millions ha=utilizedagricultural area • 1.6 millions of agriculturalholdings • 1.2 ha under organicagricultural management (40,146 holdings) • Average farm size : 7.9 ha • 14.4 ha North; 5,1 ha in South • DifferencesCensus 2000-2010 • - Farm numbers • + Farm size • Italyischaracterized by a high diversity in farmingsystems: • Heterogeneity of climatic and soilconditions (hillyland 41.6%; mountainous 35,2%; lowland 23,2%) • Differences in localinstitutionalarrangements (agriculturemanagedat a Regionallevel) • Different market opportunities: traditionalagriculturalcommodities + non agriculturalcommodities (agritourism, education, green energy, pluriactivity, etc.); public goods. • Socio-economicfactors • Differences in performance and profitability (net incomeranges from 41,000 € in NW to 15,000 € in South) • High percentage of non-enterprisefarms (36%) producing for self-consumption. 96% of farms are individual or family farms.

  4. Structuralcharacteristics of Agricultural Sector in Italy (2) • Problem: ageing farm population • 10% of totalholdershavelessthan 40 years • 60% above 55 years • 38% above 65 years • Environmentalindicators: • 15% of Italianfarms and 24% of total UAA are consideredas High Nature Value Farming Systems (OECD classification) • High multifunctionality of agriculture • Itisbecomingcrucial to promotesustainablelocaldevelopmentwithin a new conception of the rural-urbanrelationships (the traditionaldefinitions do notcapture the complexity of land use in Italy). • Arablecrops (54.5% of total UAA) • Permanentgrassland and pastures (26,7%) • Permanentcrops: olive, vines, fruit (18,5%) Objectives of regionalagricultural policy and the needs of agriculturaladvisoryservices are differentiated in the wholeterritory

  5. Characteristics of the ItalianAdvisory Services System Asstated, Italyis a verycomplex country, with differentterritorialcharacteristics and governance. More specifically, following the decentralizationprocess (DPR 616/77 and 617/77), agricultureissubject to the jurisdiction of 19 Regions and 2 AutonomousProvinces (Trento and Bolzano). EveryRegionhas a Department of Agriculture itsownorganization of Advisory Services  itsownspecificAgricultural Knowledge System (AKS) • AKS organization and competences • R&D policies: State and Regions • Highereducation: State • VocationalEducation: Regions • Extension and Advisory Services: Regions • In everyRegion the AS systemincludes 3 components: • Public • Private • Farmersassociations

  6. FAS Regulations in Italy Reg. (EEC) 270/79 co-financedinitiativeaimed to trainexperts to carry out agriculturaladvisory service Multi Regional Operative Programmes: Reg. (EEC) 2052/88 and followed: promotion of new AS proceduresaimingatconnectinginnovation and knowledge with localneeds of training and advice Decentralizedorganizational model: everyRegionhasits law. Differente service’s providers. Research, advisory, training, disseminationhavenot a single legislative frameworkbutallismanaged by RegionalAgencies and bodies. Rarely the AS wereused for the implementation of developmentpolicies. Somethingischangingsince FAS isincluded in RDP. Decreasing of funds for advisoryservices (onehalfcomparing to the previousyears): first attempt to restructure the sector (more competitions) and making the farmerspay a part of the costs. CAP Reform: Reg. (EC) 1782/2003 and 1783/2003 Reg. (EC) 1698/2005: FAS realized in RDP (Measures 114 and 115) Reg.(UE) 1305/2013 and 1306/2013 in the next RD programmingperiod 2014-2020 (Measure 2)

  7. Regional law, tipology and organizational model of Advisory in Italy

  8. CouncilRegulation (EEC) 270/79: the milestone (1) • The actualstructure of FAS in Italyisinfluenced by the CouncilRegulation (EEC) 270/79 of 6 February 1979 on the development of agriculturaladvisoryservices in Italy: • Includedwithin the so-calledMediterranean Package • Sustained the development of FAS in Italythanks to 66 millionsECUsdistributed over 12 years. • Regulation 270/79 intended to train and employ 3,000 extension agents (60% in South and Island). Common frameworkdefined by the implementationplan of the national CIDA (InterregionalCommittee for AgriculturalAdvisory). 5 Centres for agricultural training: CIFDA (Interregional Training Center for AgriculturalAdvisory) EveryRegionhad to establishitsownregional law on advisoryserviceswhichdefinedtheirorganisations, actors and subjects. 21 Regionallaws

  9. CouncilRegulation (EEC) 270/79: the milestone (2) Regulation 270/79 intendedtrainprofessionalexperts with the right competences in the field of specializedagriculturebutalsodiversification. The mainconcernwasrecognizing the importance of innovation in agriculture in the framework of Common Agricultural Policy. • Avisors are trained in 5 CIFDA • 1 in northItaly • 1 in Centre Italy • 2 in South Italy • 1 in Island National Plan for Advisory Services Managed by the CIDA Over the years, eachRegionhasfolloweditsownpath in the organization of agriculturaladvisoryservices. The resultis a territorialheterogeneity in the delivery of services (quantitative and qualitative) whichleaves open the debateabout the realeffectiveness of the governancemechanismsassociated to decentralization. EuropeanCommissiongave funds for the management of CIDA, to train the advisors and to provideadvisoryservices to farms. Regulation 270/79 endedat the end of 90s.

  10. Whathappenedafter Reg. 270/79? • After Reg. 270/79, the agriculturaladvisoryserviceshavebeensupported by the Multiregional Operating Programmes (EEC Regulation 2052/88 and followed1989-1993, 1994-1999). • In 2000s, the advisoryservices in Italywheresupplied by • Private bodies (50%) and public institutions (50%) in Northern and Central Regions • Private bodies (36%) and public institutions (64%) in Southern Regions. From 2000 to 2006 therehasbeen a strong reduction of the investment in extensionservices (and advisoryservices) due to the cut of European Funds. Some projectswerecarried out at a National Level as the InterregionalProgramme for agricultural and ruraldevelopmentadvisoryservicescoordinated by INEA Aims: Promote networking and share debatesaboutadvisoryservices (especialycontents and methods), to test new tools and approaches, to disseminate the best practices. • New trends in the Italian AAS: • Pluralism and privatizations: other farm basedorganization and private advisorsincreasedtheirimportancethanks to the adoption of public procedures of selection • Partecipation of farmers in funding and planning the public advisoryservices

  11. Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 and Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 (1) Farm Advisory Services in Italyexperienced a new attention in the contest of the MidTermReview of CAP in 2003 (keyinnovations: decoupling and cross-compliance) and in the RD plans 2007-2013. Artt. 13-16 of Reg. (EC) 1782/2003 (establishing common rules for directsupportschemepayments) asked to MemeberStates to create a FAS as a support to the implementation of cross compliance, thatisfewrulesconsistent in «statutory management requirements» (SMR) and some «goodagricultural and environmentalconditions» (GAEC). Measuresto support FAS havebeenintroduced in the Reg. (EC) 1698/2005 on support for RD and included in Axis 1 (improvingcompetitiveness) • Measure 114 – Use of agricultural and forestadvisoryservices • Measure 115 – Setting up of farm advisoryservices (in fewRegions) • Measure 111 - Vocational training and information actions (consideredcomplementary: in some ItalianRegionsithasbeenappliedtogether with Measure 114) •  Vocational training, information and advisory to improve the farmer’sknowledge and satisfythe agricultural/forestry farm needs. Concering M114, therewere 17+1 differentschemes with differentcombinations of Measures and interventions. 3 Regions (Trento, Bolzano and Friuli Venezia Giulia) didnotapply for M114.

  12. Measure 114 - Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 (s) • Measure 114 – Use of agricultural and forestadvisoryservices • Cross complianceis the compulsoryrequirementwhile the improvement of the whole performance is an optional action* • Beneficiaries: agricultural and forestfarmers (some regionsadoptingpriorities)** • Total amount: until 80% of expenses (maximum 1,500 € for adviceexcept in Sicily) and 20% payd by the farmers • Advisors: authorities and private bodiesbutnot single people(except in Emilia Romagna). The bodieshave to receivedqualification by demonstratingtheircompetence and reliability. • Ithasbeenactivated in 18 Regions (no in the Autonomous Province of Trento , Friuli Venezia Giulia and Valle d’Aosta). **ManyRegionshaveadoptedpriorities for the choice of farmers: the farm is set in Nitrate vulnerablezones; the farmershavefinalizedprogramsasenvironmentalissues, animalpathologies, cultivationmethods and breeding for animalhealth and werlfare, etc.. * 2 levels of advisory Basic advisoryservices: cross compliance and work safety Advanced advisoryservices: cross compliance, work safety, farm management, marketing, associationism, innovation.

  13. Measure 114 - Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 (s)

  14. Measure 114 - Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 • The methodsused to provideadvice to livestockfarmers are the classicalmethodsapplied for extensionservices: • One to one on the farm (mainly) • Small groupadvice on the farm • Small groupadviceoutside the farm • Publications • Problemsfacedduring the organisation and management of FAS • Need of empowering the network of the differentadvisorybodies and training advisors • High costsconcerningbureaucracy and controls • Difficulties in monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of FAS implementation • Exclusion of private entities: legalproblemsat the beginning of programmingperiod • Limitation in the contents of advice: following the EU indication, FAS have to cover mainly cross compliancewhile the farmersrequiredadvices for a broadspectrum of activities (improvement of global output, innovation, farm diversification, etc.).

  15. Measure 114 - Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 Results of a research made during 2007-2013 period on a sample of advisors in allItaly Cross compliance, foodsafety, HACCP, agronomicpractices and the standards to be met to obtain the prize CAP are still the mostrequested by the farmers.

  16. Regulation (EU) 1306/2013 and the Rural Development Plan 2014-2020 • Title III (artt.12-14) of Regulation (EU) 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of Common Agricultural Policy establishes in all the MemberStates a system for advisingbeneficiaries on land management and farm management (FAS). • FAS shall be operated by designated public bodies or selected private bodies. • Advisoryservicesshall cover the followingarguments: • Obligationsresulting from the statutory management requirementsand the standards for foodagricultural and environmentalcondition of land • Agriculturalpracticesbeneficial for climate and environment and maintenance of agriculturalareas • Farm modernization, competitiveness, building, sectoralintegration, innovation, market orientation, promotion of entrepreneurship • Promotion of conversions of farms, diversification, risk management . Climatechangemitigation and adaptation, biodiversity and protection of water. • A verybroadspectrum of activities can be included in FAS in the nextprogrammingperiod. Art.15 Regulation (UE) 1305/2013 Advisory Services, farm management and farm reliefservices

  17. Advisory Services in the Rural Development Plan 2014-2020 What’s news? • During 2007-2013 programmingperiod the use and setting up of advisoryserviceswerealreadysupportedbut under twodifferentMeasures (114 and 115). The new regulationintroduced a simplificationmergingthem in a single one. • The new Measureincludes the training of advisors to ensure the quality and the relevance to the adviceprovided. • The beneficiariesshall be chosenthroughcalls for tenders, governed by public procurement law, open to public and private bodies. • The limitation on the frequency of use of the advisoryserviceshasbeenremoved in order to allowfarmers to use the service according to theirneeds. Objectives: improvethe sustainablemanagement and the economic and environmentalpermormance of farm, forestholdingsansSMEsoperating in ruralareas. Itcontributes to Priority 1 «Fosteringinnovation, cooperation and the development of the knowledge base in ruralareas» butit can be considered a horizontalmeasure, relevant for all of priorities for RD. As in the past, in Italythere are differentapplications in everyRegion. All the Rural Development Planshaveimplemented the new Measurefor the nextprogrammingperiodfollowing the indication of the Measure fiche. Guidelineshavebeenissued by Mipaaf to coordinate the interventionatnationallevel.

  18. Conclusions • The funds for FAS provided by the Regulation 1698/2005 supportedfarmers to implement cross-compliance (reducingenvironmental impact and soilerosion, improving the animalwell-being, the foodsafety and the laboursafety). FAS  linked to a specificpoliticalaim. • Following EU Reg. 1698/2005, funds must help farmers and forestholder to meetcostsarising from the use of AS to improve the overall performance. FAS  linked to activities and instrumentsimproving the competitiveness. • Definingspecificmeasures on FAS in the RDP couldassureaccess to advisors and knowledges for all the farmers and subjectsoperating in ruralareas. This can be more effective and efficient. • The source of information and the knowledgeneeds of farmers are increasedduring the time, became more complex. • The committment of the public institutionisnotcontinuoussinceitisconditioned by the availability of European Funds, especially the Rural Development Funds. For example: in 2000-2006 the EU policy neglected the advisoryservices and manyRegionsdidnotreplacethese funds, assuringonly the functioning of the public structures and basicservices. • Thereisnot a regular flow of resources to the system, especially with regard the management and the organizationof the specializedadvisors • The decentralizationhasdispersedadministrative and politicalresponsabilitiesamongdifferentlevels of authorities and thisisresulted in a fragmentedsystem. • FAS couldhavepoint of viewbroaderrespect to thoserequired by the RD policies (2007-2013 period)

More Related