Report on Policy Delivery Systems and their relations with types of governance models

This report has focused on many aspects linked to objectives of the WP3. We have tried to identify the main relations amongst the different levels of governance; we have also explored and described the delivery systems in different contexts, including those with a LEADER-like approach. The analysis of the delivery systems in different contexts is a crucial issue in understanding the impact of Rural Development Programmes. But RDP delivery is an issue not very widely studied in policy analysis and, when studied, is essentially based on the traditional State-Region dichotomy and on the operational side, on the opposition between National Programme and Regional Programmes. We need to explore delivery at the micro-level and to take into account of more complex variables. The typology that was identified in this report proved to some extent to explain the main differences between countries and regions. Based on two main dimensions, the typology classified delivery in four types: a) Centralised and driven by sectoral administration; b) Decentralised and driven by sectoral administration; c) Centralised and driven by multiple actors; d) Decentralised and driven by multiple actors. This typology of delivery is strictly based on typical variables of governance. Most countries have been managing their RDP(s) through a delivery system which is defined within the boundaries of sectoral administrations. Therefore, even the analysis of delivery confirms the dominance of agricultural interests in driving the implementation of RDP. This feature has to be associated with the concentration of the decisional power in the hands of central structures, being either Ministries or Regional Departments of Agriculture. These types show clear differences in terms of difficulties met by delivery and times of implementation. However, other differences emerge from the analysis between: · Groups of measures (mainly between measures of investment and measures of income support); · Groups of countries. We have to take into account relevant differences between old and new Member States, being much more diversified than was foreseen in their delivery systems and in the performances of the different systems. The analysis of crucial phases of the delivery reveals interesting differences according to type of macro-delivery, type of measure and group of countries in terms of times of implementation and intensity of problems met in delivery. However, implementation times are influenced by many institutional and structural variables, and the comparative analysis above needs some note of caution

Review of Rural Development Instruments: DG Agri project 2006-G4-10. Final Report

The aim of the study was to review the policy instruments under the framework of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), 2007-13, by: • reviewing intervention rationales and instruments and their use against the objectives, priorities and key actions in the EU Strategic Guidelines; • assessing whether and how RD rationales and instruments should be adapted to deliver these more effectively. The study involved 8 tasks, grouped into 3 themes of analysis: 1) the targeting of EU-27 rural development expenditure, 2000-13, including the development of databases of EU-27 rural area characteristics and ‘indicators of need’ for RD; 2) consideration of the adequacy of the current EAFRD framework, based upon an evaluation of instruments’ cost-effectiveness; the a priori development of a typology of RD interventions and catalogue of instruments; an analysis of delivery mechanisms; and assessment of instruments in ‘fiches’; 3) conclusions and recommendations. In the event, progress in finalising national and/or regional RDPs 2007-13 was delayed,over the study period. Thus, the approach was modified to incorporate more qualitative analysis and the expenditure analysis was made using incomplete figures (July 2007), so 4% of total EAFRD planned expenditure was missing