Transcript TOP MARD Towards a Policy Model of Multifunctional Agriculture

European Commission, TAIEX/Local Administration Facility
Seminar on Rural Development
Brussels, 18-20 September 2014
Challenges of EU Rural Development Policy
in Western Balkan Countries
– Implications for Local Governance
Luka Juvančič
University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty
1
Contents





Rural Development: motives, objectives
and policy tools
EU RD policy toolkit: Rules of the game
EU Rural Development Policy –
modalities of
policy design and delivery
EU Rural development policy –
implications for your countries/regions
Successful RD projects – what do they
tell?
2
I.
Rural Development :
motives, objectives and policy tools
Ilustration: Significance of Rural areas in the EU
EU 27:
91% of total area
(57+34)
59% of total
population
(24+35)
49% of total GVA
(17+32)
57% of total
employment
(22+34)
eg. Croatia:
92% of total area
48% of total
population
Ilustration: demography (change in net migration rate 2003-08)
Trends:
Outmigration
from rural areas
-
to the capital
regions
-
abroad
All rural areas?
-
No!
-
Vibrant rural
communities in
peri-urban
areas!
Ilustration: labour market conditions, EU 25
Rural areas:
high agricultural
employment
- What can we infer
from high
agricultural
employment of a
region?
-
Under the line: Which features are common to
our rural areas? Where do they differ?
Exceptional diversity:



Natural and spatial attributes
Demography (structure, trends), social capital
Structure of rural economies, economic growth, living standard


EU-28: 10 economically worst performing regions (NUTS-3) – all rural!
BUT: 7 od 10 regions experiencing the fastest economic growth – also
rural!
Common features:


Lower density of economic activities (higher dependence from agriculture)
Local/Regional businesses weakly integrated  limited spillovers





within the sectors (horizontal)
…and along the supply chains (vertical)
Growing social inequality and/or rural poverty
BUT: Strongly connected communities – resilience !
ALSO: Agriculture, forestry  management of public goods!
7
Development potentials – Are rural areas really
unique?

Social and economic challenges: +/- same for all
−
−
−
+
stagnation of economic growth, tightened fiscal conditions, decreasing
demand
market volatility (both, products & services, and inputs)
internationalization of trade flows, assymmetries along the supply chains
expansion of niche markets
+
+

higher quality; health products&services, environmental awareness, ethical trade
New approaches in marketing: patriotic consumers; regions as brands
…in addition to this, rural communities are characteristic for…

deagrarisation, functional transformation of rural areas



Before: areas of production; today: areas of consumption
‘comparative advantages of rural areas

Price and availability of resources (land, labour)

Distance as an advantage (ICT workers less mobile, quality of life)
post-modern (urban) consumer: experience economy (leisure&recreation,
gastronomy)
8
Rural development policy - motives and tools
Development disparities:


…often take part on the relation rural – urban
…but also some of the fastest growing regions in EU28 are rural!
Motives for policy action:

Regions lagging in development
Affected social groups (ageing/out-migration, long-term uneployment)

Poor linkages between economic actors within the region (low regional

multipliers)

Policy mechanisms:




social security policy
development of human resources
EU: Cohesion policy)
regional development policy
sectoral policies: (inter alia) agricultural structural policy

EU: Rural Development Policy)
II.
EU Rural Development Policy toolkit:
Rules of the Game
The new Framework of the EU
(source: EC, 2013)
The new framework of the EU's
development Policy
policy
Rural rural
Development
Viable food production
Common
Agricultural
Policy
Sustainable management of
natural resources and climate
action
Territorial balance and diversity
of rural areas
Europe 2020
Strategy for Smart,
Sustainable and
Inclusive Growth
Horizon
2020
European
Innovation
Partnership
11
European
Structural
and
Investment
Funds
Pillar 1
Pillar 2:
EU Rural Development
policy
6 Union priorities
11 Thematic Objectives
Agricultural research
Agricultural Productivity and
Sustainability
EU priorities for rural development 2014-20
(Source: EC, 2013)
1. Knowledge transfer / innovation in agriculture, forestry, rural areas
2. Viability of all types of farming in all regions; innovative farm technologies;
Sustainable management of forests
3. Food chain organisation, animal welfare, risk management in agriculture
4. Ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry
5. Resource efficiency, low-carbon / climate-resilient economy in
agriculture, food and forestry sectors
6. Social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas
12
12
EU Rural Development policy: key planning
& implementing principles

Multiannual planning


One fund for Rural development policy




European Agricultural Rural Development Fund (EARDF)
one financial regulatory system
national envelope (objective criteria and negotiating process)
Common strategic framework & programming system




(coincides with MFF EU, now 2014-2020)
stable financial framework (predictability!)
strategic platform: Europe 2020
partnership Agreement (PA): ALIGNMENT OF PRIORITIES – NATIONAL LEVEL!
rural Development Program/s : ALIGNMENT OF PRIORITIES – EC
Common legal framework



common ‚shopping list‘ of measures
General implementing provisions (Details: national/regional level!)
Monitoring and evaluation
13
… and its financing principles…

Co-financing of supported activities (shared responsibility)



If you don’t spend, you lose


financing (most common: grants to reimburse of the costs; principle
‚n+3‘)
Critical point: absorption!




Co-financing from national budgets; 20-25% for less-developed regions,
50+% for developed ones
Final recipients: co-financing of supported activities (eg. investments)
Ability of own co-financing; pre-financing of supported action
Administrative capacities; role of Local Administration!
Reporting, control
Same logic for all Community Structural Policies

Cohesion Fund, ERDF, ESF, EMFF, pre-accession mechanisms
EU Rural Development policy: the budget
CAP budget 1980–2020 (current prices)
70
EU10
EU12
EU15
60
EU27
EU25
EU28
million EUR – current prices
50
40
30
20
10
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
0
Export refunds
Other market support
Market-related expenditure
Decoupled direct aids
Direct aids
Rural development
16
Coupled direct aids
Source: EC, DG Agri (2013)
Budgetary stability - Cross-country comparison
Source: FAO/SWG, 2014
Evolution of total budgetary support to agriculture (2012=100)
140
140
AL
120
120
BA
140
120
XK
140
120
100
100
100
100
80
80
80
80
60
60
60
60
40
40
40
40
20
20
20
20
0
0
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
140
120
ME
0
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
140
RS
0
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
140
HR
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
140
120
120
120
100
100
100
100
80
80
80
80
60
60
60
60
40
40
40
40
20
20
20
20
0
0
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Source: FAO/SWG, 2014
0
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
MK
EU27
0
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Stability in the scope & structure of support
Rural Development; cross-country comparison (source: FAO/SWG, 2014)
Rural Development support, by types
EUR/ha UAA
Miscellaneous rural development
measures
Supporting rural economy and
population
2012
EU15
SK
SI
Improving the competitiveness of the
agricultural sector
1999
Breakdown
Miscellaneous rural development
measures
Supporting rural economy and
population
2012
Source: FAO/SWG, 2014
1999
EU15
SK
SI
PL
HU
EST
CZ
EU27
HR
RS
ME
MK
XK
BA
Improving the environment and the
countryside
AL
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
PL
HU
EST
CZ
EU27
HR
RS
ME
MK
XK
BA
Improving the environment and the
countryside
AL
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Improving the competitiveness of the
agricultural sector
Illustration: whereabouts of public expenditure on rural
development measures in Serbia (source: Bogdanov, 2014)
III.
EU Rural Development Policy
– modalities of
policy design and delivery
20
the ‘forgotten middle’ of the EU RD
Policy
Changes & Challenges
EU - RD
Programmes
Objectives
Measures
Funding
Policy Process
Design
Delivery
Evaluation
Impact
CMEF Assessment of Impacts
21
Countries have different perspectives in
mind about the needs/priorities
Agricultural perspective:

RD policy is about supporting the farm (and agri-food) sector;
agricultural development is at the heart of / synonymous with rural
development
Liberal view:

CAP RD policy is about paying for public goods & adjusting the
sector to compete on the global markets
Instrumental:

a broader vision for RD is recognised, but RD policy is explicitly
targeted to support part(s) closely linked to agriculture/forestry
Broad-based:

Rural development is an important source of rural funding and
significant RD needs / opportunities go beyond the farm and forestry
sectors
22
23
IV.
EU Rural development policy
– implications for your
countries/regions
24
Rural areas in EU NMS after the EU Accession
- implications for your rural areas

Effects of the accession (+and -)

Agriculture: price convergence, access to DP, RD expenditure



Small producers leaving the sector on the account of larger ones




CAP: hidden bias against small-scale producers
subsistence producers & landless caught in rural poverty trap: CAP
rather part of the problem than solution to the problem
RD measures can merely mitigate social hardships
Market consolidation: retail revolution


retarding farmers’ incentive to adapt?
modernisation, productivity increase, market orientation; but not
accessible to all !
Small-scale producers and rural economies in general are particularly
vulnerable in this process
Economic and social Convergence of rural regions


key policy challenge: rural (non-farm) jobs
can EU RD policy alone tackle this challenge?
25
EU RD policy – merely an abstraction, not suitable
for the needs of your rural areas?
…not necessarily!

Main emphases of RD policy are the same (but taking into
account differences in scale of the problems):
 Competitiveness of primary sector
 Concern about impacts on environment and countryside
 Alternative employment sources and quality of life considerations in rural
areas

Principles worthwile following:




Sistematic approach, multiannual programming (stability / continuity!)
Partnership principles in policy programming
Relative importance (including the budget!)
CAP Rural development policy – useful tool, not an ideal
(objective per se!


Measures, rules, eligibility criteria: adapting the tools to the local needs;
there are no one-size-fits-all approaches!
What matters is developing own potentials through a committed action!
V.
Successful RD projects –
what do they tell?
3 illustrative case studies
27
Case study 1: Evrosad
Agrokombinat Krško d.o.o.


From a typical
‚transition case‘;
MBO, 1996
To a success story:
major regional
producer; 1/3 of
fruit sales in
Slovenia, exporting
from UK to UAE
http://www.evrosad.si/
28
Development, modernisation, quality
standards
Continuous renovation: cold
storage, protective nets, new
sorts, training of staff
2010: sorting &
packaging line
Investing in
quality standards
29
Expansion, cooperation, impacts for local
economy
Evrosad Group
(2007) Evrosad
technical service
(1996) Evrosad
d.o.o. 10,000t
(250ha)
(2000) Sadjarstvo
Blanca d.o.o.
3,500t (120ha)
(2011) Sadjarstvo
Ormož d.o.o.
4,000t (140ha)
(2002) Private
farms – contractors
3,500t (120ha)
Spillovers for local economy:
Gradual integration of local producers
 Ambition to establish a producer group
30
Case study 2:
Diši po Prekmurju
(‚Scent of Prekmurje‘)
http://www.disi-po-prekmurju.si/
Project in brief:

The Beginnings:




Initiator: local entrepreneur – Kodila (meat processing)

ambition to protect and promote quality food products and crafts of the
region

Improved image of regional products → improved sales → recognition of
the region → tourist visits
Local tourism renowned for spa, local gastronomy weakly included in local
tourist products;
Certification of two leading regional specialties - Prekmurska gibanica,
Prekmurska šunka AND inclusion of other, less renowned local products
(food&wine)
Objective:
Common promotion platform for local food products

Promotion of the region – within and abroad
(tourist and gastronomic destination)


Area:

Prekmurje region (lagging)
Organisation structure and management

A living project: after 10+ years the association is still developing!





Project initiator – experienced major growth

4 sales stands (šunkarna Kodila) – takes aboard other members of association
Other participants: potentials not (yet) fully utilised
Brand management: Association for promotion and protection of
specialties from Prekmurje (private-law, non-profit)
Membership:
 All certified producers
 Other members: enterprises, farms
and individuals → open to all regional actors.
Characteristics:
 Collective brand
 Common design of packaging
 Wide portfolio of products enables organisation of catering
 Common sales stands in larger towns
 Common promotion actions
 Quality promotion: exhibitions, competitions
Case Study 3: Srce Slovenije
Srce Slovenije is a local collective
brand that…
connects projects,
initiatives,
events,
products …
of an area in Central Slovenia (7
municipalities).
…it is also the name of the LAG of
this area
Vir: http://www.srceslovenije.si/ in www.razvoj.si
Nosilec projekta: Center za
razvoj Litija, d.o.o.
The beginings were not so persuading

Start:


March 2006 – Cross-border cooperation project –
Alpine Space; potentials for improved performance of
Alpine regions as gastronomy / tourist destination,
renewable sources of energy (SL, IT, AT, LI, CH, FR
& D);
Slovenian contribution to the project:


Zasavska jetrnica (liver sausage) as the
traditional food product of the region;
Initial plans:
•
•

certification
zas. jetrnica – a flagship of regional gastronomy
Area: Zasavska region
(Hrastnik, Trbovlje in Zagorje ob
Savi), Osrednjeslovenska (Šmartno pri Litiji in Litija) in
Savinjska region (Radeče).
Management and Organisation structure

Management: Center za razvoj Litija d.o.o. (local development
agency)

Inclusion of local partners to the project:






Stage 1: municipalities – informal decision to cooperate
Stage 2: preparation of documents and information campaign
Stage 3: meeting with local meat processors (1 SME + few small producers)
Stage 4: inclusion of wider regional audience – exhibition and quality
competition of z. jetrnica (39 samples), round table on ethnological &
gastronomical merits
Stage 5: municipalities – letter of intent - co-financing of certification of Z.
jetrnica – REJECTED
Stage 6: project amendment → replacement with the project of a
collective tourist brand “Srce Slovenije”
What happened to the initiative?

The project of certification of
Zasavska jetrnica failed

But: it initiated the spirit of
cooperation in the area!



The ‚replacement‘ project
“Srce Slovenije” went far over
the initially planned
boundaries
Brand “Srce Slovenije” today:

Becomes a generic name of
the area

interpretation and promotion
of tourist destinations, events

Promotes local food supply;
established a cooperative for
supply of local food
„Srce Slovenije“ is today one
of the most succesful LAGs in
Slovenia
VI.
To conclude…
38
Way to go: small steps toward great aims

So: what do the succesful RD projects tell?


Building of implementation system




on all levels, from central institutions to potential beneficiaries;
facilitating role of local governance, local extension officers!
animate local partnerships (local enthusiasts - personal carisma!)
Strengthening of financial effort


it‘s about vision, commitment, cooperation and persistance; (EU)
RD policy is just a tool to reach the aim!
Looking for private initiative from within
Priorities: setting realistic targets is important


From support for small-scale investments (eg. farm machinery, cooling
and packaging facilities, transportation, market outlets)
to more complex actions (eg. vertical cooperation, producer groups, local
food supply, LEADER)
…a pinch of salt for the end
Advice for a healthy life:
Walk your dog (even if you don‘t have one)
…and an advice for healthy rural communities:
Follow good practices in rural development
even if the EU policy package is not (yet) in place
41