CAP Second Pillar: From structural policies to rural development Lecture 15. Economics of Food...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
0
Transcript of CAP Second Pillar: From structural policies to rural development Lecture 15. Economics of Food...
CAP Second Pillar:From structural policies to rural
developmentLecture 15.
Economics of Food Markets
Alan Matthews
Lecture objectives
• To understand the background to and functioning of the Second Pillar of the CAP
• To trace the (slow) transformation from sectoral policies focused on agriculture to more integrated rural development focus
• Questions to think about in next two lectures:– Is there a need for an EU rural development policy?– What should its objectives be?– Should it be funded by EU or national budgets?– Has RD funding been well spent?
Origins in policies to promote agricultural restructuring
• Why EU involvement?• The Mansholt Plan 1968
three socio-structural directives– farm modernisation, early retirement, vocation training
• Less favoured areas directive 1975• Mid-1980s – Integrated Mediterranean
Programmes
Beginning of EU rural policy
• 1988 “Future of Rural Society” report
• 1988 Reform of the EU structural funds– Regional, Social, Guidance and Fisheries– Five objectives– Principles of geographical concentration,
programming, additionality and partnership
• 1991 LEADER programme– Bottom up approach to rural development
MacSharry reforms 1992
• Introduction of accompanying measures– Agri-environment scheme– Afforestation– Early retirement– [Less favoured areas]
• Increasing attempt to push rural development up the policy agenda
Agenda 2000
• Introduction of Second Pillar concept
• Basic principles
• Rural Development Regulation 1999– Menu of 22 measures in three groups
• Restructuring/competitiveness• Environment/land management• Rural economy/rural communities
• Complex funding arrangements
Mid Term Review
• New Rural Development Regulation– Expanded menu of measures in three Axes
• Improving competitiveness of agricultural and forestry sector• Land management (including environmental measures and
animal welfare)• Diversification of the rural economy and improving quality of
life in rural areas• LEADER• Minimum spending thresholds on each axis
• New single Rural Development Fund– European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
Extended Impact Assessment of the Commission’s RDR proposal 2004
• Option 1: Improved status quo– MS free to draw up RD programmes choosing any
combination of measures from the three thematic axes.
• Option 2: A more strategic approach– Community would first outline RD priorities– Set minimum levels of spending under each Axis
• Option 3: A more territorial approach– As for Option 2, but with territorial targeting in each
policy axis– Maximum limit set on Axis 2 agricultural
competitiveness
Rural Development Policy 2007-2013
• One single rural development fund
• One single programming system
• One single set of financial rules
• One single control system
• For all rural areas in the EU
Rural Development Policy 2007-2013: Foundations
Rural Development
2007-2013
« LEADER » Axis
Axis 1 Competi-tiveness
Axis 2Environment
+Land
Management
Axis 3Economic
Divers.+
Quality of Life
Single set of programming, financing, monitoring, auditing rules
Single Rural Development Fund
Programme balance
• Competitiveness objective: total programme funding at least 10% (Commission proposal 15%)
• Environment/land management: at least 25%
• Quality of life and diversification: 10% (Commission proposed 15%)
• Leader approach: at least 5% (Commission proposed 7%)
Programming steps
• EU strategy document setting out the EU priorities for the priority axes
• National strategy plans translating the EU priorities to the member state situation and ensuring complementarity with Cohesion policy
• National or regional rural development programmes articulating the four axes through measures
Community strategic guidelines for rural development
• RDR sets out objectives and measures• Guidelines set out priorities and key actions• Six strategic guidelines, three addressed to the
thematic axes– Emphasise innovation, R&D, training,
entrepreneurship in Axis 1– Biodiversity and landscape, water and climate change
in axis 2– Capacity building for local strategy development and
support for small scale investments in Axis 3
Resources available for Pillar 2 2007-2013
• Despite the rhetoric favouring an expansion of Pillar 2 policies, less funding will be available in the next Financial Perspective for RD policies, particularly in the EU-15
• Compulsory modulation introduced as part of the Luxembourg compromise will contribute relatively small amounts of additional funding (estimated at €1.2 billion per year)
Rural development spendingFinancial Perspective 2007-13
€ billion 2004 prices TOTAL
Commission proposal
Final outcome
Dec 2005
EU-15 50.2 36.7
EU-10 + 2 38.5 33.1
Total 88.7 69.8
Before compulsory modulation.
Voluntary modulation without co-funding requirement for up to 20% of direct payments agreed. Source: Agra Europe
Rural development spendingFinancial Perspective 2007-13
Million € 2006 budget
2013 proposed
Total 2007-2013
EU-15 8,000 5,167 36.7 bn
10 NMS + 2 2,902 4,890 33.1bn
Total 10,544 10,057 69.8 bn
Timetable
N (2007)
EU RD strategy proposal
EU strategy approval
Elaboration and
discussion of national strategy
National/ regional
programme preparation
Programme approval
N-2 (2005) N-1 (2006)
complementarity with other EU policies
(cohesion)
strengths and weaknesses at EU
programming at national or regional level
definition of priorities for each thematic area
core impact indicators to measure progress
core result indicators
in line with national and EU RD stategy
translation of EU priorities to national situation
Programme Implement.