The redefinition of Europe's Less Favoured Areas

The support scheme for farming in less-favoured areas, established by the European Union in 1975, marked a major change in the nature of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) by introducing for the first time regional categories. It also represented the initiation of direct annual payments to farmers, an approach which was to expand greatly in the 1990s and thereafter. Over a long period it had remained the only significant structural measure of agricultural policy with a territorial dimension. Only recent policy reforms changed this situation: commodity market support was gradually decreased and, on the other hand, the environmental implications of policy measures were increasingly emphasised. Discussions on the interrelations of the Less-Favoured Areas (LFA) scheme with Agri-Environmental Measures (AEM) and other elements of the Rural Development Programmes (RDP) have been intensified as the political and financial weight of the programmes gained in importance. This paper focuses on the objectives and relevance of the LFA support scheme, its application in the EU and the main elements of the debate for the redefinition of LFA support. From the very beginning, LFA policy was conceived as a structural policy aimed at the prevention of land abandonment, to preserve the farming population in these areas and maintain cultural landscapes. In this regard, the instrument was one of the first measures to address environmentally beneficial farming systems, and thus reveals high coincidence with High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems. The three types of LFA, mountain areas, other LFAs and areas affected by specific handicaps take account of the range of geographical differences in the production difficulties of EU agriculture. The increased focus on environmental aims resulted in a discussion of the ‘intermediate’ areas, the category of other LFAs. It has been proposed that the socio-economic criterion in determining these areas should be dropped, but the aim to maintain land management in marginal areas would be kept. Meanwhile, the decision on the redefinition of the LFAs has been postponed (to 2010). Nevertheless the issue will keep a central role in policy discussions of the future Rural Development Programmes.Less-Favoured Areas; Common Agricultural Policy; rural development; mountain areas

The on-going CAP-reform – incentive for a shift towards rural development activities?

The paper is based on the findings of a 2 year, EU-wide project on the territorial impacts of the CAP (ESPON project 2.1.3). It particularly focuses on the territorial impact of the different components of CAP and assesses the changes towards rural development policy. The results presented are derived from statistical analysis of the database augmented by findings from an EU-wide review of literature and a series of case studies on the implementation experiences of the main rural development measures across the EU. It is shown that pillar 2 support is still strongly centred on agricultural measures and actors and far from reaching its potential for enhancing a more generally applied rural development strategy. The discussion of the paper will focus on the differing national priorities, and the uneven allocation of RDR funds, partly due to difficulties of co-financing in poorer regions. Importantly, analysis of the impact of the Mid Term Review proposals on farm incomes suggests that the latest reforms of the CAP do not improve substantially the consistency between the CAP, and cohesion. In particular, the proposed application of the CAP-reform in different member states shall be discussed and assessed whether the changes in the framework of rural development contribute to achieve a more balanced performance across EU countries and regions.Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); CAP-reform; rural development; territorial cohesion

The quest for countryside support schemes for mountain areas in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs)

Regional divergence between different areas of CEECs has considerably risen over the integration period into Western Europe economy in last decade. The EU enlargement process thus has to pay specific attention to its regional implications and to effects on regions with lagging economic development and structural problems. Particularly mountain areas have, in general, to overcome handicaps of geographical peripheral location and low competivity. As the agricultural sector is still of significant relevance in these areas the preparation for the adoption of the EU Common Agricultural Policy is of major concern. The paper draws on a national research project, commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Resources, and investigates the support schemes for mountain areas being established in the CEECs, particularly those aiming at preserving diversified countryside and outstanding cultural landscapes, as a means to nurture overall regional development. It also focuses on the need for regional policies enlarging the scope of economic activities in the peripheral mountain areas. In this context experiences from EU countries 0on policies for mountainous and less-favoured areas (LFA) and examples of successful local approaches in EU mountain regions are used. (paper prepared for conference theme: Regional disparities, problems and policies thematic area: Problems of mountainous, rural, peripheral and other lagging regions)

The territorial dimension of the Common Agricultural and Rural Development policy (CAP) and its relation to cohesion objectives

An increasing focus on rural development issues has characterised the discussion of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. This reflects new societal demands for tasks and services provided by agriculture particularly in mountain and less-favoured areas (LFA). The regional distribution of CAP and Rural Development support underpins the argument that the territorial dimension implied by CAP reforms has not yet been taken sufficiently into account. The regional variation in the distribution of the LFA scheme between member states testifies this imbalance and underscores country specific priorities. LFAs will have to prove that they are more than a compensation measure, but already providing a range of multifunctional tasks.territorial impact, rural development, less-favoured areas, LFA scheme, CAP reform

Assessment of rural development programmes to enhance youth integration

In recent years concern about social exclusion processes has reached also rural areas. The rising unemployment and the limited opportunities for young people have turned the attention of policy analysis to this social group and to processes of social exclusion under these specific regional conditions. The results presented are drawn from the EU-project “Policies and young people in rural development” under the 4th Framework programme (FAIR6 CT-98-4171) where different aspects of economic and social integration/exclusion of young people in rural areas and their recognition in rural development programmes of the EU has been analysed. The paper focuses on the scope to enhance the aspect of young people integration in rural/regional programmes. To this end, it starts with a presentation of the policy background and its evaluation, particularly with regard to its rising priority over the last EU-reforms. It continues with the investigation of selected exemplary cases of policy measures and initiatives specifically addressing young people in rural development provided by the seven project partners study areas. The concluding part draws on evaluation studies on rural development programmes all over the European Union with regard to youth participation and explores the scope for future strengthening of respective activities and inclusion of young people concerns in rural development programmes. Experiences from this analysis suggests that with fundamental changes in the market structures and relations programmes targeted at specific rural areas cannot neglect the emerging interrelations to other areas. Hence a rural policy addressing the needs of young people has to address directly its insertion into the regional framework and its relation to regional policy. (Paper for conference theme "Socio-economic cohesion and regional/local development", thematic area %22Socio-economic exclusion")

Sustainable Rural Development in Environmentally Protected Areas of Hungary and Austria: The Role of CAP payments

Although there are steps in the direction that the application of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) instruments in different regions has to take account of the territorial dimension, these have to be further improved. This aspect attains particular relevance in ecologically sensitive areas. The aim of the paper is to examine the role of CAP instruments in two National Parks from the aspect of sustainable rural development. The two selected National Parks are both very famous protected areas in Hungary and Austria, situated in very different landscapes and representing different types of national parks. The territorial distribution of the CAP Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 payments are analysed against the specific local role and the regional and national contexts. The comparison addresses the different policy background of the two countries with their different history and experience within the CAP system. It particularly discusses the regional expenditure structure with regard to the place-specific role of agri-environmental payments.National Parks, CAP, territorial dimension, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Q20, Q01,

A regional analysis of CAP expenditure in Austria

This paper reflects the demand for taking account of the territorial dimension in the application of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) more comprehensively. While this has been addressed in rural development discourse to a wide extent over the last two decades and consensus for regionalized strategies is emerging, programme evaluation is in general still limited to the analysis of policy interventions at the national level. This implies that conclusions on the territorial effects of CAP are largely missing. Therefore the intention of this paper is to provide a regional analysis of CAP expenditures for pillar 1 and pillar 2, and to demonstrate and assess their actual territorial impacts, represented on the basis of the NUTS 3 region ‘Obersteiermark West’: The territorial analysis presented is an example to reduce this gap (national vs territorial) in the evaluation of CAP.CAP expenditure, regional analysis, territorial effectiveness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Q18,

Rural innovation activities as a means for changing development perspectives – An assessment of more than two decades of promoting LEADER initiatives across the European Union

Since the 1990s the LEADER approach has very powerfully addressed the spirit of mobilising actors in the countryside through focusing on endogenous potential and activating local stakeholders across all sectors. Given the long-term experience and wealth of diverse development initiatives across the European Union (EU), the diversity of implementation is huge. Considering the limited financial support as a Community Initiative (until 2006), a significant extension and ‘upgrading’ of LEADER was intended by integrating it into the EU Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) since 2007. The shift from the character of a ‘pilot’ instrument at the start of LEADER to its ‘mainstreaming’ into the RDPs involved radical administrative changes and high expectations of increased impacts. The interest in LEADER practice and effectiveness led to many studies that in general apply a limited perspective of self-evaluation and refl ection on LEADER activities. Its main impact is seen in providing learning processes in rural regions and the effects on changes in local governance through extended involvement of local stakeholders and institutions. This paper provides a synthesis of European experiences and analyses of core changes, in particular by referring to the example of implementation in the Austrian context. The main lessons are based on the refl ection of obstacles and promoting factors of implementation during the last 25 years against the LEADER principles. The limitations in the assessment of LEADER call for a systemic approach that includes interrelations to a much wider degree. LEADER’s legacy is seen well beyond a quantitative measurement, but has to be found in its influence on actors’ perspectives, new pathways and strategies for rural development

The redefinition of Europe's Less Favoured Areas

The support scheme for farming in less-favoured areas, established by the European Union in 1975, marked a major change in the nature of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) by introducing for the first time regional categories. It also represented the initiation of direct annual payments to farmers, an approach which was to expand greatly in the 1990s and thereafter. Over a long period it had remained the only significant structural measure of agricultural policy with a territorial dimension. Only recent policy reforms changed this situation: commodity market support was gradually decreased and, on the other hand, the environmental implications of policy measures were increasingly emphasised. Discussions on the interrelations of the Less-Favoured Areas (LFA) scheme with Agri-Environmental Measures (AEM) and other elements of the Rural Development Programmes (RDP) have been intensified as the political and financial weight of the programmes gained in importance. This paper focuses on the objectives and relevance of the LFA support scheme, its application in the EU and the main elements of the debate for the redefinition of LFA support. From the very beginning, LFA policy was conceived as a structural policy aimed at the prevention of land abandonment, to preserve the farming population in these areas and maintain cultural landscapes. In this regard, the instrument was one of the first measures to address environmentally beneficial farming systems, and thus reveals high coincidence with High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems. The three types of LFA, mountain areas, other LFAs and areas affected by specific handicaps take account of the range of geographical differences in the production difficulties of EU agriculture. The increased focus on environmental aims resulted in a discussion of the ‘intermediate’ areas, the category of other LFAs. It has been proposed that the socio-economic criterion in determining these areas should be dropped, but the aim to maintain land management in marginal areas would be kept. Meanwhile, the decision on the redefinition of the LFAs has been postponed (to 2010). Nevertheless the issue will keep a central role in policy discussions of the future Rural Development Programmes