1 / 12

Territorial Impacts of the CAPESPON Project 2.1.3

This project aims to study the impact of EU agricultural policies on rural development at the territorial level, utilizing statistical analysis and case studies across EU member states.

janicewhite
Télécharger la présentation

Territorial Impacts of the CAPESPON Project 2.1.3

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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)

  5. Total Pillar 1 Support per AWU

  6. 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)

  7. 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.

  8. LFA support per AWU

  9. Agri-environmental subsidies per AWU

  10. Percentage change in Farm Incomes resulting from MTR Proposals

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

More Related