Towards Rural Synergies and Trade-offs between Economic Development and Ecosystem Services Stocktaking of policy measures impacting rural areas in the EU Sören Höjgård 1 ; Cecilia Carlsson 1 , Kristina Jansson 1 , Ewa Rabinowicz 1 Deliverable D1.2 1 Department of economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Project title Towards Rural Synergies and Trade-offs between Economic Development and Ecosystem Services Project number 235175 (ANR- 13-RURA-0001-01) Deliverable Stock taking policy (D1.2) Description This task examines different measures impacting rural areas financed by the rural development programmes (RDP) and possible complemen- tary or competing measures financed by pillar I of the common agricul- tural policy (CAP) and other EU-funds during the period 2000-2013. The purpose is to compile a data set that provides background informa- tion on financial resources directed to rural areas, at the NUTS-2 level, for subsequent policy analysis. Due date Month 12 (September 2014 ) Date of submission Month 12 (September 2014 )
21
Embed
Stocktaking of policy measures impacting rural areas in the EU...Towards Rural Synergies and Trade -offs between Economic Development and Ecosystem Services Stock taking of policy
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Towards Rural Synergies and Trade-offs between Economic Development and Ecosystem Services
1Department of economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Project title
Towards Rural Synergies and Trade-offs between
Economic Development and Ecosystem Services
Project number 235175 (ANR- 13-RURA-0001-01)
Deliverable Stock taking policy (D1.2)
Description This task examines different measures impacting rural areas financed by the rural development programmes (RDP) and possible complemen-tary or competing measures financed by pillar I of the common agricul-tural policy (CAP) and other EU-funds during the period 2000-2013. The purpose is to compile a data set that provides background informa-tion on financial resources directed to rural areas, at the NUTS-2 level, for subsequent policy analysis.
Due date Month 12 (September 2014 )
Date of submission Month 12 (September 2014 )
Towards Rural Synergies and Trade-offs between Economic Development and Ecosystem Services
Stock taking of policy measures impacting rural areas in the EU
TABLE OF CONTENT ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2. RURAL AREAS .............................................................................................................................................. 4
3. SELECTION OF FUNDS .............................................................................................................................. 4
4. MEASURES FINANCED BY THE RESPECTIVE FUNDS .................................................................. 6
5. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL COMPLEMENTARITY AND COMPETITION
BETWEEN MEASURES IN THE RDP AND OTHER FUNDS ............................................................ 10
6. DATA ON PAYMENTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE FUNDS ............................................................... 11
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ 19
4
1. INTRODUCTION
This task examines different measures impacting rural areas financed by the rural
develop¬ment programmes (RDP) and possible complementary or competing measures
financed by pillar I of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and other EU-funds during the
period 2000-2013. The purpose is to compile a data set that provides background information
on financial resources directed to rural areas, at the NUTS-2 level, for subsequent policy
analysis.
2. RURAL AREAS
We adhere to the definition of rural areas adopted by the EU in 2010 (Eurostat, 2015). This is
based on a classification of geographical grid cells of 1 km2 that defines a cell as urban if it has a
population density of at least 300 inhabitants per km2 and a minimum of 5 000 inhabitants in
contiguous cells above the density threshold, and as rural if it does not fulfil the requirements
for urban cells. EU’s NUTS-3 regions are grouped into three categories based on the
classification of grid cells.
Urban regions – the population in the region’s grid cells defined as rural according to the
above classification is less than 20 per¬cent of the region’s population.
Intermediate regions – the population in the region’s grid cells defined as rural accord-
ing to the above classification is between 20 and 50 percent of the region’s population.
Rural regions – the population in the region’s grid cells defined as rural according to the
above classification is 50 per¬cent or more of the region’s population.
A region classified as rural according to the above becomes intermediate if it includes a
city of more than 200 000 representing at least 25 percent of the region’s population.
A region classified as intermediate according to the above becomes urban if it includes a
city of more than 500 000 representing at least 25 percent of the region’s population.
A map showing the classification of EU’s NUTS-3 regions can be found on Eurostat’s home page
(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat). When aggregating to NUTS-2 level, our “rural areas” include
both regions defined as intermedi¬ate (2) and regions defined as rural (3) at the NUTS-3 level.
3. SELECTION OF FUNDS
Of course, there are several EU-funds that may affect rural areas. However, those deemed most
likely to have an impact during the period 2000-2013 are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 : EU financing most likely to affect rural areas
Fund/programme Period Objective
European Agricultural Guidance and Guaran-
tee Fund (EAGGF). It had two sections; the
Guarantee section and the Guidance section.1
2000-2006 Guarantee section: Financing the common organisation of
the markets (Pillar I) and rural development measures out-
side Objective 1 areas.
Guidance section: Financing rural development measures covered by Objective 1 and LEADER PLUS.
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund
(EAGF).2)
2007-2013 Replaced the guarantee section of the EAGGF in 2007.
Finances the Single Farm Payment Scheme and other
measures under Pillar I.
5
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Deve-
lopment (EAFRD)2)
2007-2013 In 2007, this fund replaced the guidance section and that
part of the guarantee section of the EAGGF that financed
rural development measures outside Objective 1 areas.
European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF)3)
2000-2013 The ERDF finances projects under Objective 1 (promo-
ting the development and structural adjustment of regions
lagging behind), Objective 2 (supporting economic and
social conversion of areas with structural difficulties), and
Objective 3 (supporting adaptation and modernisation of
education, training and employment in regions not covered by Objective 1).
Special Accession Programme for Agriculture
and Rural Development (SAPARD) and Instru-
ment for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)4)
2000-2013 Financing measures for the accession countries in central
and eastern Europe similar to those in the Rural Develop-
ment Programme for the EU-15. SAPARD was replaced by ISPA for the period 2007-2013.
European Structural Fund (ESF)5) 2000-2013 Financing measures to increase the adaptability of wor-
kers, enterprises and entrepreneurs; to enhance access to
employment and sustainable inclusion in the labour mar-
ket; to reinforce the social inclusion of disadvantaged
people with a view to their sustainable integration in em-ployment; and measures to enhance human capital.
Cohesion Fund (CF)6) 2000-2013 Financing environmental measures and investments in
trans-European transport networks in the new member
states (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Slovakia, and Slovenia) and the old member states Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain.
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
(FIFG)7)
2000-2006 Financing measures to achieve balance between fisheries
resources and their exploitation; to strengthen compete-
tiveness and development of economically viable enter-
prises; to improve market supply and value added; and
measures to revitalise areas dependent on fisheries and aquaculture.
European Fisheries Fund (EFF)8) 2007-2013 Financing measures to adapt the fishing fleet; promoting
aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing;
collective action contributing to sustainable development,
conservation of resources, improving services offered by
fishing ports; and measures supporting diversification and
strengthening economic development in areas affected by decline in fishing activities.
Source : 1)The financing of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries).
2)Financing the common agricultural policy (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries).
3)Guidelines for programmes in 2000-2006 (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries), and
European Regional De-velopment Fund (ERDF) (2007-2013
However, it proved more difficult to obtain regionalised data on payments for rural areas at the
NUTS-2 level, disaggregated according to measure. For Pillar I and the RDP, this could be
achieved again by using the CAPRI database. The results are provided in the accompany-ing files
Pillar I data and pivot table and RDP data PIVOT.
For the other funds, it is presently only possible to compile data on annual EU commitments (not
payments) for rural areas at the regional level from the ERDF and the ESF. Moreover, these data
cannot be disaggregated according to measure. The results of these compilations are provided in
the accompanying files EU ERDF COMMITMENTS and EU ESF COMMIT-MENTS. The
accompanying file ERDF and ESF EU commitments for countries that cannot be regionalised
provides some additional information on how much of the commitments that cannot be
regionalised.
However, according to information from DG REGIO, there is work in progress with the aim of
disaggregating data on annual payments from these funds according to region and measure. The
results are foreseen to become available during 2015 and it is our intention to supplement our
present database with this information if it becomes available.
19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : EU financing most likely to affect rural areas ...................................................................................... 4
Table 2 : Measures financed by the selected funds .............................................................................................. 6
Table 3 : Annual payments per country at the national level from the selected funds during the
period 2000-2013 ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
Towards Rural Synergies and Trade-offs between
Economic Development and Ecosystem Services
The TRUSTEE project in a nutshell Title Towards Rural Synergies and Trade-offs between Economic
Development and Ecosystem Services
Project coordinator Cécile Détang-Dessendre, INRA UMR Cesaer (Dijon, France)
Grant Agreement 235175 RURAGRI (ANR- 13-RURA-0001-01)
Funding Scheme RURAGRI ERA-NET, European Commission 7th Framework Programme
Total cost 2,6 M€
Duration 2013 – 2016 (36 months)
Short description The trade-off/synergy dilemma between economic development and ecosystem services is one of the major issues of sustainable rural development.
The main research objective of TRUSTEE is to disentangle the complex relationships between economic development and ecosystem services at different spatial scales using an interdisciplinary approach that involve scientists, experts, and stakeholders. The sub-objectives are:
- Analyse the multi-scaled determinants of economic development and ecosystem services on a large European gradient of rural and rural/urban areas.
- Increase our understanding of how to achieve mutual benefits for economic development in rural areas and ecosystem services.
- Identify and assess the governance mechanisms and policy instruments that enhance sustainable rural vitality in very diverse contexts.
- Produce synergies among international researchers of varied disciplines and between researchers and various stakeholders at different governance scales.