Dr. Jadwiga Ziolkowska Humboldt University of Berlin Chair for Agricultural Policy

1. Evaluation and decision support for sustainable development in rural areas: case study for agri-environmental measures Dr. Jadwiga Ziolkowska Humboldt University of Berlin Chair for Agricultural Policy Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo, Egypt

2. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Content 1. Introduction 1.1 Problem setting and research objectives 1.2 Agri-environmental issues in Poland 2. Methodology 2.1 Methods and data 2.2 Case study in the region Subcarpathia 2.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) 2.4 Linear Programming (LP) 3. Results 3.1 Synthesized priorities for agri-environmental measures (AHP) 3.2 Objective-oriented financing of agri-environmental measures (LP) 4. Conclusions Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

3. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Problem issues Little experience with evaluation of the agri-environmental policy in Poland => new since the EU accession in May 2004 80% co-financing from the EAGGF (2004-2006) Descriptive evaluation => statistical data Problem setting and research objectives Research objectives 1. How to support decision-making and evaluation of agri-environ-mental policies with quantitative and qualitative approaches? 2. How to allocate the available budget to best meet environmental and sustainable development objectives in rural areas? 3. How important is involving different stakeholders in evaluationand policy design? Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

4. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Agri-environmental issues in Poland 1990 „National Environmental Policy“ 1997 Project „Green Lungs of Poland“ 1999 SAPARD and Phare‘99 2004-2006 National Agri-Environmental Programme (348,9 Mio. €) 2007-2013 Agri-environmental programmes supported from European Agricultural Fund for Development of Rural Areas (2,3 Mrd. €) Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

5. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Plan for Development of Rural Areas (PROW) 2004 - 2006 ... ... ... ... National Agri-Environmental Programme National Agri-Environmental Programme in Poland Sustainable Agriculture Organic Farming Extensive meadow farming Extensive pasture farming Soil and water protection Buffer zones Domestic farm animal species Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

6. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Methods and data • Employment rate in agriculture: ca. 47% • Farm size on average: 3,5 ha • Differentiated natural conditions, protected areas => „Carpathian Euro-region“ 1. Primary data: case study in the voivodship Subcarpathia Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

7. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Methods and data 1. Primary data: case study in the voivodship Subcarpathia => Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) according to Saaty - 8 agricultural administration experts - 26 agri-environmental advisors - 100 farmers 2. Secondary data: MRiRW, ARiMR 3. Linear Programming approach according to Kirschke and Jechlitschka (2002) => objective-oriented budget allocation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

8. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions AHP-approach according to Saaty Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

9. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Objective function: Constraints: + Negativity constraint: Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

10. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Synthesized priorities for agri-environmental measures (AHP) Agricultural experts Agri-environmental advisors Farmers Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

11. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programminig for the voivodship Subcarpathia Model-Inputmatrix Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

12. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Optimal budget allocation Source: Author’s calculation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

13. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Difference to the current allocation Source: Author’s calculation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

14. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Agricultural experts Source: Author’s calculation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

15. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Agri-environmental advisors Source: Author’s calculation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

16. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Farmers Source: Author’s calculation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

17. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Environmental benefit subject to income losses Source: Author’s calculation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

18. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia Changes of environmental benefit subject to income losses Source: Author’s calculation Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

19. 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions Conclusions and outlook • - The optimal budget allocation differs between the actor groups => reallocation of the available budget necessary • The budget allocation is highly dependent on the estimated priorities • Weighting objectives only slightly influences budget expenditures on the agri-environmental measures • Consideration of different stakeholders and different priorities necessary for more objective-oriented financing and planning • The AHP and LP are proved as useful tolls in an interactive decision-making process Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo

20. Thank you! Thank you ! Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo