Deborah Roberts

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

• 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 1
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

• Dwyer et al analysed use of Pillar 2 measures
  across EU15 and SAPARD in CEECs.

• 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.

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.