Study on funding for EU rural areas: Final Report

This study on funding for EU rural areas assesses the role of the CAP 2014-2022 in addressing needs and actions outlined under the EU’s Long-term vision for rural areas (LTVRA) in Europe. This role is considered in the context of Member States’ strategic frameworks, plans or other policies for rural areas. The study also assesses the specific role of the CAP alongside those of other EU funds targeting rural areas (2014-2020), primarily ERDF/CF, ESF and EMFF, and national funds. The study addresses seven evaluation study questions covering three criteria: effectiveness, relevance, and coherence, with most emphasis upon analysis of relevance and coherence. It finds that while the LTVRA covers very diverse needs, they are well targeted by CAP, often through bottom-up approaches and small-scale delivery that reflect regional and local variation in challenges and opportunities. However, targeting needs beyond farming relies on a relatively small number of measures with rather limited funding allocations. In their funding of rural areas, the CAP’s EAFRD and other ESIF demonstrate strong complementarity especially in infrastructure investments (ERDF) and support for social inclusion (ESF) where these funds are used. Nevertheless, there is great variability in how EU funds are used, among the Member States. National policies for rural areas, where ambitious and holistic, can improve the coherence between EU funds in this context; whereas the relevance of CAP funding is evident even where no national rural strategy or strong commitment to rural areas is in place. The study suggests placing further emphasis upon CAP funding beyond farms, also encouraging increased ERDF and ESF investment in meeting rural needs and improving procedures to enable greater synergy and integrated approaches between EU funds, in the futur

Study on the ENRD and the NRNs’ contribution to the implementation of EU rural development policy

The European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) and National Rural Networks (NRNs) are part of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy since the 2007- 2013 programming period. The ENRD brings together stakeholders from across the EU and facilitates the exchange between national networks, organisations, and administrations with an interest in EU rural development. The NRNs are mainly established at national level in each Member State and bring together stakeholders involved in Rural Development. The study highlights the causal mechanisms of networks and governance structures that contribute to the implementation of the EU Rural Development policy. The various activities carried out by the ENRD are deemed effective to involve NRNs in networking at EU level although participation is heterogeneous across Member States, notably due to language barriers. Capacity building and knowledge transfers enabled by ENRD activities improved the implementation of Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) and policy. The Evaluation Helpdesk’s substantive support to the evaluation of RDPs improved the quality of evaluations but with little use in terms of policy learning. The organisational structure of NRN’s Network Support Units influence their efficiency; a hybrid system where policy coherence is provided by the Managing Authority and outsourcing parts of the activities is among the efficient models. The ENRD activities are coherent and complementary with the activities of the NRNs. The ENRD and the EIPAGRI operated alongside each other with limited complementarity and synergies. Substantial EU added value is provided through stakeholders involvement and the provision of capacity building, in turn contributing to better RDP delivery and generating social capital

Study on funding for EU rural areas: Executive Summary

The study on funding for EU rural areas examines the contribution of the CAP 2014-2022 in addressing the needs and actions outlined under the Long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas (LTVRA). It explores the specific role of the common agricultural policy (CAP) 2014-2022 alongside that of other EU funds targeting rural areas in the 2014-2020 cohesion policy period, primarily ERDF/CF, ESF and EMFF. Moreover, this study provides a forward-looking glance at the CAP 2023-2027 period. The study principally covers the relevance and coherence of funding in addressing rural needs, and draws on studies published of effectiveness to provide key context for this assessment. This is achieved through the responses to seven evaluation study questions (ESQ) covering three evaluation criteria: effectiveness, relevance, and coherence. The European Commission launched the LTVRA in June 2021, aiming to address the challenges faced by rural areas and seize opportunities from which they can benefit. It proposes two main routes to reach the vision’s shared goals: the EU Rural Action Plan (COM(2021) 345 final), a set of actions undertaken by European Commission services, and the Rural Pact, a framework to enable and inspire other levels of governance and stakeholders to cooperate and mobilise to achieve the vision’s goals. The LTVRA was adopted in June 2021; however, many of its identified needs and actions were already anchored in the goals of the CAP 2014-2022

Study on funding for EU rural areas: Brochure

The study on funding for EU rural areas examines the contribution of the CAP 2014-2022 in addressing the needs and actions outlined under the Long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas (LTVRA)

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems

Evaluation support study on the impact of leader on balanced territorial development

LEADER promotes integrated rural Community-Led Local Development with key features of bottom-up and multi-sector approaches, local partnerships and place-based design and delivery, funded through the Common Agricultural Policy (Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013), under a common framework (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013). This study evaluated LEADER across the EU in the 2014-2020 programming period. Methods included: literature review; major surveys of local action group (LAG) managers, and Managing Authorities; indicator analysis; and in-depth case studies of 36 LAGs and 14 Rural Development Programmes across 10 Member States. The study found LEADER was relevant and effective for local rural development, targeting and achieving economic development, strengthening social fabric and capacity and enhancing local governance, with good coherence alongside other policies. Most LAGs promoted social inclusion in a more limited way, and environmental goals via integration within socio-economic projects or awareness-raising. Tackling rural poverty was not a LEADER priority, but positive impacts were identified in a few case studies. Clear relationships and excellent support from Managing Authorities, also sufficient funds for animation, were crucial to LAG performance. Fuller implementation of LEADER key features positively influenced quality and scope of impacts. Strengthened network support at EU and national levels is recommended, also further simplification to ensure future obligations and conditions are proportionate, especially in cases of multi-funded CLLD where CAP (EARDF) and other ESI funds combine