The role of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy in creating rural jobs

This study analysed the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy’s role in creating rural jobs. Starting at the EU level, a thorough systematic literature review and a statistical analysis prepare the ground for more detailed Member Stare reviews and Case studies. When discussing the findings the study concludes that the CAP supports the survival of small scale farms and contributes to sustain and develop rural economies. However, Pillar I payments have contradictory effects on employment and its ability in creating jobs appears to be limited. Pillar II is effective in supporting diversification, but concrete evidences of direct effects on employment are difficult to assess due to missing systematic reporting on job creation

The role of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy in creating rural jobs

This study analysed the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy’s role in creating rural jobs. Starting at the EU level, a thorough systematic literature review and a statistical analysis prepare the ground for more detailed Member Stare reviews and Case studies. When discussing the findings the study concludes that the CAP supports the survival of small scale farms and contributes to sustain and develop rural economies. However, Pillar I payments have contradictory effects on employment and its ability in creating jobs appears to be limited. Pillar II is effective in supporting diversification, but concrete evidences of direct effects on employment are difficult to assess due to missing systematic reporting on job creation

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)

Evaluation support study on the impact of the CAP on territorial development of rural areas. Socioeconomic aspects

This study is an evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) impact on balanced territorial development (BTD) of rural areas across EU-28: socio-economic aspects. The main focus of the study is on territorial development of rural areas, which are investigated through the analysis of socio-economic aspects and social inclusion. The evaluation work starts with a causal analysis which intended to scope and select the CAP measures and instruments considered to have a direct impact on the general objective of BTD in rural areas. The work is then articulated around five evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, European added value. Several methods have been applied to gather and analyse both quantitative and qualitative information. Sixteen evaluation study questions have been answered by using quantitative methods such as input-output analysis, clustering, and statistical regressions, as well as qualitative methods, including case studies, literature review and the observation of development trends over the programming period. According to the evaluation study findings, the issues and needs faced by rural regions in the EU-28 are significant. The evaluation’s quantitative and case study findings indicate that the impact of the CAP in supporting BTD through the improvement of socioeconomic aspects and social inclusion varies according to the characteristics of the rural region and the policy mix applied. Pillar I instruments, in particular direct payments, have been found to positively impact regional employment and reinvestment. Pillar II measures, some of which are specifically designed to address socio-economic issues, demonstrate also positive effects

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