Elucidating Stakeholder Perspectives with Regards to Scenario Design and Formulating Agent Decision Rules: Methodologies and Results

ELUCIDATING STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES WITH REGARDS TO SCENARIO DESIGN AND FORMULATING AGENT DECISION RULES: METHODOLOGIES AND RESULTS. VOLUME 2, APPENDICES

Deliverable no. D2.2

Marian Raley, Amanda Sahrbacher, Arlette Ostermeyer, Agata Dobruchowski, Diana Kopeva, Hristina Harizanova, Zornitza Stoyanova, Maria Peneva, Ramona Franić, MarioNjavro, Marija Romic, Miloš Delín, Marta Konecna, Jean-Paul Bousset, Olivier Aznar, Myriam Gomez, Eric Perret, Nadine Turpin

Partners: UNWE, AFSZ, UZEI, IAMO, UNEW, Cemagref

Submission date: 8-Feb-10 Final version: 28-Jan-11

Seventh Framework Programme Theme 6 (ENV-2007-1)

Environment (including climate change)

Collaborative project (Small or medium-scale focused research project) Grant agreement no. : 212345 Project duration: November 2008 - - November 2011 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

PRIMA aims to develop a method for scaling down the analysis of policy impacts on multifunctional land uses and on the economic activities. The scoped policies will include the cohesion policy (ERDF, ESF, CF), the enlargement process (IPA) & the rural development policy (EAFRD) of the European Commission, with a special focus on agriculture, forestry, tourism, and ecosystem services. The approach will: rely on micro-simulation and multi-agents models, designed and validated at municipality level, using input from stakeholders; address the structural evolution of the populations (appearance, disappearance and change of agents) depending on the local conditions for applying the structural policies on a set of municipality case studies. Involving eleven partners, the project is coordinated by Cemagref.

Email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Internet: https://prima.cemagref.fr

Authors of this report and contact details

Name: Marian Raley Partner acronym: UNEW Address: Centre for Rural Economy School of Agriculture Food and Rural development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Diana Kopeva Partner acronym: UNWE Address: Business Faculty Department Natural Resources Economics Student Town “Hristo Botev” Sofia 1700, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Ramona Franić Partner acronym: AFSZ Address: University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Svetosimunska c. 25. Zagreb, Croatia. E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Milos Delín Partner acronym: UZEI Address: Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací Oddělení lidských zdrojů na venkově Kotlářská 53 602 00 BRNO E-mail: [email protected]

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 2/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Names: Amanda Sahrbacher, Arlette Ostermeyer, Agata Dobruchowski Partner acronym: IAMO Address: Theodor-Lieser-Str. 2 06120 Halle/Saale Germany E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Name: Nadine Turpin Partner acronym: Cemagref Address: UMR 1273 Métafort, 24 Avenue des Landais, BP 50085 F-63172 AUBIERE Cedex, France E-mail: [email protected]

If you want to cite a Public Deliverable that originally was meant for use within the project only, please make sure you are allowed to disseminate or cite this report. If so, please cite as follows:

Marian Raley, Amanda Sahrbacher, Arlette Ostermeyer, Agata Dobruchowski, Plamen Mishev, Hristina Harizanova, Zornitza Stoyanova, Ramona Franić, MarioNjavro, Marija Romic, Miloš Delín, Marta Konecna, Jean-Paul Bousset, Olivier Aznar, Myriam Gomez, Eric Perret, Nadine Turpin 2011. Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices PD no. D2.2 PRIMA collaborative project, EU 7th Framework Programme, contract no. 212345, https://prima.cemagref.fr, 115 p.

DISCLAIMER

“This publication has been funded under the PRIMA collaborative project, EU 7th Framework Programme, Theme 6 (ENV 2007-1) Environment (including climate change) European Commission, DG Research, contract no. 212345. Its content does not represent the official position of the European Commission and is entirely under the responsibility of the authors.”

“The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability.”

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 3/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Appendices 1: questionnaires ...... 6

1.1 Appendix 1.1 The Bulgarian questionnaire ...... 6

1.2 Appendix 1.2: the Croatian questionnaire ...... 28

1.3 Appendix 1.3: the Czech Republic questionnaire ...... 34

1.4 Appendix 1.4: the German questionnaire ...... 39

1.5 Appendix 1.5: the United Kingdom questionnaire ...... 62

1.6 Appendix 1.6: the French questionnaire ...... 81

2 Appendix 2 Description of Svishtov Municipality ...... 91

2.1 Geographical location, and size limits of Svishtov municipality ...... 91

2.2 Population ...... 92

2.3 Industry in Svishtov municipality ...... 96

2.4 Agriculture in Svishtov municipality ...... 97

2.5 Financed projects in Svishtov municipality ...... 99

2.6 Wood processing and forest in Svishtov municipality...... 101

2.7 Tourism in Svishtov municipality ...... 102

2.8 Ecology and protected areas in Elena municipality ...... 103

2.9 References:...... 105

3 Appendix 3 Instructions for developing and conducting the pre- modelling questionnaire...... 106

3.1 Objectives of the work programme ...... 106

3.2 Work programme description ...... 106

3.3 Sylvie’s Questionnaire ...... 110

3.4 Generic questionnaire (draft) ...... 111

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 4/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 | Balance of territory by type of land in Svishtov municipality, 2007...... 92

Table 2 | Migration processes in Svishtov municipality in 2002-2007 ...... 94

Table 3 | Registered unemployed persons and level of unemployment in Svishtov municipality ...... 95

Table 4 | Holdings and area by categories of land use in Svishtov municipality, 2003...... 97

Table 5 | Number of heads by species and categories of livestock in Svishtov municipality, 1996-2003 ...... 98

Table 6 | Livestock breeding holdings 2003 ...... 98

Table 7 | Number of beneficiaries‟ and financed projects from EAGF and EAFRD in Svishtov municipality ...... 99

Table 8 | Approved projects in 2010 in Svishtov municipality ...... 99

Table 9 | Measure 112 “Young farmers”, EAFRD ...... 100

Table 10 | Approved subsidy – Young farmers -112 EAFRD...... 100

Table 11 | Projects in Svishtov municipality, 2006-2008 ...... 102

Table 12 | Territory in Natura 2000 in Svishtov municipality ...... 104

Table 13 | Areas of protected territory in Svishtov municipality by kind ...... 104

LIST OF FIGURES AND G RAPHICS:

Figure 1 | Geographical location of Svishtov municipality ...... 91

Figure 2 | Population of Svishtov municipality, 1999-2009 ...... 92

Figure 3 | Structure of the population by sex – 1985-2007 ...... 93

Figure 4 | Mechanical migrations in Svishtov Municipality 1998-2007 ...... 93

Figure 5. | Population density in Svishtov municipality in the period 2002-2007 ...... 94

Figure 6 | Population under, at and over working age 1990- 2007 ...... 95

Figure 7. | Share of forests ...... 101

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 5/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1 APPENDICES 1: QUESTIONNAIRES

1.1 Appendix 1.1 The Bulgarian questionnaire

ВЪПРОСНИК

ИНСТРУКЦИИ

Това е въпросник за индивидуални интервюта

Две са групите за интервюиране/респонденти : І група - представители на институциите и ІІ група - представители на заинтересованите страни (земеделски производители, представители на сектор туризъм и горско стопанство, живеещи в населеното място и добре информирани за текущото състояние, целите на развитие и очаквания модел/сценарии на развитие)

А.Целева група 1 – Представители на институциите

Лица за анкетиране – кмет на община (гр. Свищов и гр. Елена); представител на институция, която представлява изпълнителна агенция на място (РА „Земеделие”, другите изпълнителни агенции), представител на горското стопанство, на Съвет по туризъм/туристическа асоциация.

Б. Целева група2. – Заинтересовани страни

От включените в клъстерите общини1 на този етап се спираме само на две – община Свищов (респ. гр. Свищов) и община Елена (респективно гр. Елена), за очертаване и идентифициране на основните проблеми , силни и слаби страни и нуждите на заинтересованите страни. Целта е да бъдат интервюирани по 6 души, които живеят в посочените общини/градове и имат поглед върху нуждите/проблемите на общината и как те да бъдат постигнати/тези проблеми да бъдат решени (общо 12 респондента). Тези респонденти следва да са представители на : земеделски производители (2 души по възможност с проекти по ПРСР), представител на горското стопанство (един представител), представители от туризма (2 души); представител на организация, работеща по въпросите на околната среда (1 представител).

1 От клъстеризацията на общините и населените места са определени следните общини: Свищов (клъстер 0); Елена (клъстер 1); Тутракан (клъстеп 3); Главиница (клъстер 4), Ценово (клъстер 5), Дулово (клъстер 6).

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 6/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Представените приоритети и асоциираните мерки произтичат от стратегическите документи, свързани с Оперативните програми и ПРСР.

Политиките и плащанията по Стълб 1 на ОАП не са включени.

Срок на провеждане на интервютата 18.02.2010 до 28.02.2010

СЕКЦИЯ 1.

За двете целеви групи : Целева група І. Представители на институции и Целева група ІІ. Заинтересовани страни

Целта на тези два въпроса е да се идентифицират основните процеси и събития през последните 20 години, които са оказали въздействие върху начина на развитие на общината и върху състоянието й в момента.

Въпрос 1. През последните 20 години какви промени (икономически, социални, културни и др.) са настъпили в общината? Моля посочете годината или периода на тези промени.

При посочване на промените, моля обърнете специално внимание на промяна на структурата на икономиката, заетостта, население (промяна по пол, възраст, етнически състав, движение и др.), жилищна политика, големи инфраструктурни проекти, реализирани през този период, наличие и достъп до услуги, състояние на околната среда, промени в околната среда).

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

Въпрос 2. Кои са причините довели до тези промени? Моля посочете причините според Вас, като започнете от най-важната, подреждайки ги в низходящ ред.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 7/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Някои примерни причини могат да бъдат:

„Естествени” процеси

Промени в близкия град или в региона

Инфраструктура/ инвестиции, липса на инвестиции/

Проведени политики – Кои? По какъв начин?

Технологични промени и други

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

СЕКЦИЯ 2.

За двете целеви групи : Целева група І. Представители на институции и Целева група ІІ. Заинтересовани страни

Въпрос 2.1. Чрез европейските фондове този регион се опитва да постигне различни цели на водените политики. По-долу е дадено обобщение на очаквани резултати от политиките на ЕС на местно ниво. Моля, оценете отделните резултати по степен на важност за всяка област/ икономика, социална сфера и околно среда/.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 8/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Желани резултати от политиките на регионално ниво Степен на важност

от 1 до 5 Икономика (а) Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на различните видове бизнес, свързан със земята (селско стопанство, горско стопанство, туризъм и други) (б). Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на други сектори (в) Увеличаване на диверсификацията на икономиката в селските райони Околна среда (а)Съхраняване и опазване на биоразнообразието (б) Съхраняване и подобряване на пейзажа (в) Намаляване на влиянието на климатичните промени (г) Съхраняване и консервация на водните и почвени ресурси Социални (а) Повишени възможности в селските райони (за живот, образование, кариерно развитие, бизнес развитие, др.) (б) Подобрен начин наживот в селските райони

Скала:

1= не е важно 4= определено доста важно

2= слабо важно 5= много важно

3= доста важно

Въпрос 2.2. За всеки резултат от въпрос 2.1. с посочен резултат 3, 4 или 5, Моля обяснете накратко защо Вие считате тези резултати за важни за тази община

Подпомагащи въпроси: Кои са важните характеристики на района/общината? Какъв е сегашният път на развитие на района/общината и как той кореспондира с желаните резултати на провежданата политика? Кои са важните цели на района/общината и съответствието им с целите на провежданата политика?

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 9/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

Въпрос 2.3. За всеки резултат от въпрос 2.1. с посочен резултат 1 и 2, Моля обяснете накратко защо Вие считате тези резултати за маловажни за тази община

Подпомагащи въпроси: Кои са важните характеристики на района/общината? Какъв е сегашният път на развитие на района/общината? Кои са важните цели на района/общината?

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... ………….

………………………………………………………………...... …………

От Въпрос 2.2. идентифицирайте/ резултатите с най-висок приоритет за общината. Това са тези, получили 3 или повече от 3. Резултатите с ниски оценки няма да бъдат вземани под внимание.

Бележка:

Някои резултати не са посочени като очаквани в стратегическите документи , но имат висок приоритет за респондентите, като например: транспорт, приемливи условия за живот, контрол върху строителството в гори и защитени територии, др. Възможно е наличието на мерки, които частично да водят до тези резултати.

Моля запишете всеки от тези допълнителни резултати – това ще помогне за интерпретацията на отговорите на по-късен етап

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 10/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Моля попитайте за други резултати, които не са свързани с от различните политики на ЕС:

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

СЕКЦИЯ 3. ОКОЛНА СРЕДА

Във Въпрос 2.1 Вие посочихте, че следните резултати са много важни за Община ...... :

(а)Съхраняване и опазване на биоразнообразието (б) Съхраняване и подобряване на пейзажа (в) Намаляване на влиянието на климатичните промени (г) Съхраняване и консервация на водните и почвени ресурси

Зачертайте онези резултати, които са получили оценка по-малка от 3. за тези резултати не би следвало да се търсят отговори по-долу

До каква степен тези резултати ще бъдат постигнати чрез политиките на ЕС в рамките на Вашата община?

Ако някоя от мерките се очаква да „не доведе до промени” или „до малко промени”, моля обяснете защо смятате така.

Ако мярката е „неподходяща”, моля обяснете защо.

Въпрос 3.1a: Резултат = Съхраняване и подобряване на биоразнообразието

Допълнителни въпроси – Колко земеделски производители/работещи в горското стопанство се очаква да участват? Какви са техните причини/мотивация да участват/да не участват?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 11/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е получила/каква е От 1 причината? до 5 Подобряване на биоразнообразите в горите чрез повишаване на квалификацията на заетите в сектора Първоначално залесяване на неземеделски земи Възстановяване на горския потенциал и въвеждане на превантивни дейности Стимули за земеделските производители и заетите в горското стопанство за опазване, съхраняване на хабитати

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 3.1.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 3.1., който е <3, моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Съхраняване и подобряване на биоразнообразието. Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 12/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

Въпрос 3.2. а. Резултат= Съхраняване и подобряване на пейзажа

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е получила/каква е От 1 причината? до 5 Първоначално залесяване на неземеделски земи, съхраняване/създаване на естествени огради от храсти Съхраняване и опазване на естествените природни забележителности, дивечови стопанства, природни паркове, защитени местности Стимули за земеделските производитли насочили се към биологично земеделие

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 13/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 3.2.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 3.2а., който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Съхраняване и подобряване на пейзажа. Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

Въпрос 3.3a: Резултат = Съхраняване и консервация на водните и почвени ресурси

Допълнителни въпроси – Колко земеделски производители/работещи в горското стопанство/заети в сферата на туризма се очаква да участват? Какви са техните причини/мотивация да участват/да не участват?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 14/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е получила/каква е От 1 причината? до 5 Повишаване информираността на общините и населението за мрежата НАТУРА 2000 Устойчиво ползване на ресурсите в защитени територии и защитени зони Изграждане на пречиствателни станции и депа за отпадъци Обучение на живеещите в селските райони за начините за съхранение и опазване на водните и почвени ресурси

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 3.3.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 3.1., който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Съхраняване и консервация на водните и почвени ресурси . Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по- добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 15/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

………………………………………………………………...... …………

………………………………………………………………...... ………….

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... ………….

Въпрос 3.4a: Резултат = Намаляване на влиянието на климатичните промени

Допълнителни въпросиt – Колко земеделски производители/работещи в горското стопанство/сферата на туризма се очаква да участват? Какви са техните причини/мотивация да участват/да не участват?

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е получила/каква е От 1 до причината? 5 Подкрепа на производството и използването на възобновяема енергия (слънчева, вятърна, биогорива, биомаса, др.) Подкрепа на МСП от всички сектори за насърчаване на екологично производство (нови технологии, използване на възобновяема енергия, др.) Подкрепа за изграждане на депа за отпадъци и пречиствателни станции Насърчаване на бизнес дейности, използващи енергия произведенаот преработката на отпадъци и използването на рециклирани материали и амбалаж.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 16/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 3.4.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 3.1., който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Намаляване на влиянието на климатичните промени. Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

………………………………………………………………...... ………….

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

СЕКЦИЯ 4. СОЦИАЛНА

Във Въпрос 2.1 Вие посочихте, че следните резултати са много важни за Община ...... :

(а) Повишени възможности в селските райони (за живот, образование, кариерно развитие, бизнес развитие, др.) (б) Подобрен начин на живот в селските райони

Зачертайте онези резултати, които са получили оценка по-малка от 3.

До каква степен тези резултати ще бъдат постигнати чрез политиките на ЕС в рамките на Вашата община?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 17/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Ако мярката е „неподходяща”, моля обяснете защо.

Въпрос 4.1.а. Резултат = Повишени възможности в селските райони (за живот, образование, кариерно развитие, бизнес развитие, др.)

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е получила/каква е От 1 причината? до 5 Подпомагащи икономически неактивните и безработни хора да стартират собстевн бизнес, с което дасе преодолее социалното изключване Подобряване уменията и квалификацията на заетите в селските райони (особено на ниско платените), с цел повишаване на тяхната адаптивност и способност да генерират повече доходи Подкрепа на бизнес дейности в селските райони в насока на разширяване насъществуващите предприятия/земеделски стопанства и увеличаване на заетостта, или в насока създаване на нови ЗС или предприятия Подобряване на условията за живот в селските райони (изграждане на пътна, социална, образователна и др. инфраструктура)

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 18/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 4.1.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 4.1.а, който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Повишени възможности в селските райони (за живот, образование, кариерно развитие, бизнес развитие, др.) . Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... …………….

………………………………………………………………...... …………

Въпрос 4.2.а Резултат = Подобрен начин на живот в селските райони

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е От 1 до 5 получила/каква е причината? Обновяване и рехабилитация на селата (обновяване на

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 19/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

обществени сгради) Рехабилитация на обществени зелени площи, (паркове, градини, детски площадки, др.) Подобряване на условията на живот в селските райони чрез подобряване на мобилността на трудовите ресурси, повишаване привлекателността за развитие на бизнес, подобряване на инфраструктурата, достъп до услуги,др.) Опазване и съхраняване на културно-историческите паметници (изграждане на подходяща инфраструктура за достъп до тях)

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 4.2.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 4.1.а, който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Подобрен начин наживот в селските райони . Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 20/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

СЕКЦИЯ 5. ИКОНОМИКА

Във Въпрос 2.1 Вие посочихте, че следните резултати са много важни за Община ...... :

(а) Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на различните видове бизнес, свързан със земята (селско стопанство, горско стопанство, туризъм и други) (б) Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на други сектори (в) Увеличаване на диверсификацията на икономиката в селските райони

Зачертайте онези резултати, които са получили оценка по-малка от 3.

До каква степен тези резултати ще бъдат постигнати чрез политиките на ЕС в рамките на Вашата община?

Ако мярката е „неподходяща”, моля обяснете защо.

Въпрос 5.1.а. Резултат = Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на различните видове бизнес, свързан със земята (селско стопанство, горско стопанство, туризъм и други

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е От 1 получила/каква е до 5 причината? Диверсификация/разнообразяване към неземедлски дейности Разнообразяване на земеделските дейности

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 21/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Добавяне на стойност към земеделските и горски продукти. Развитие на нови дейности Подпомагане на организации на производители Подкрепа за създаване и развитие на микропредприятия – преработка и маркетинг на земеделски продукти Насърчаване на туристическите дейности Насърчаване развитието на местно занаятчийство Производство и промяна на възобновяема енергия

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 5.1.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 5.1.а, който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на различните видове бизнес, свързан със земята (селско стопанство, горско стопанство, туризъм и други. Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 22/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

Въпрос 5.2.а. Резултат = Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на други сектори

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е получила/каква е От 1 до 5 причината? Повишаване на продуктивността и адаптивността на заетите в селското стопанство, горското стопанство и туризма, чрез повишаване на техните умения и квалификация Подкрепа на МСП в насока внедряване на иновации, достъп до знания, експертиза, бизнес мрежи, бизнес инкубатори) Подобряване на гъвкавостта и адаптивността на фирмите чрез подобряване на ресурсната ефективност (повишаване на тяхната енергийна ефективност) Повишаване на уменията и квалификацията на мениджърите и собствениците на малък бизнес

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 23/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 5.2.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 5.2.а, който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Подобряване на икономиката чрез подобряване на конкурентоспособността на други сектори. Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

Въпрос 5.3.а. Резултат = Увеличаване на диверсификацията на икономиката в селските райони

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 24/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Мерки Оценка Ако оценката е <3, защо тази мярка я е От 1 до 5 получила/каква е причината? Подпомагане на диверсификацията на дейностите в селското стопанство Подкрепа за създаване на микропредприятия в сектор преработванелна промишленост, туризъм, търговия и услуги Модернизиране на земеделските стопанства Насърчаване и подкрепа развитието на туризма в селските райони (изграждане на нова/реконструкция на съществуваща сградна инфраструктура, маркетинг на услугите, др.)

Скала:

1= Очаквам мярката да не води до промяна

2= Очаквам мярката да води до малка промяна

3= Очаквам мярката да води до промяна

4= Очаквам мярката да води до значителна промяна

5=Очаквам мярката да води до много голяма промяна

Въпрос 5.3.б. За всеки резултат от въпрос 5.3.а, който е <3, Моля обяснете накратко какво следва да се направи, за да се постигне резултат = Увеличаване на диверсификацията на икономиката в селските райони. Дали става въпрос за необходимост от адаптиране на мерките, за да работят по-добре, или за необходимост от разработването на нови мерки. В тази връзка при отговора посочете какво следва да бъде променено и какви нови мерки следва да се разработят.

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 25/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

……………………………………………………………...... ……………

………………………………………………………………...... …………

…………………………………………………………………...... ………

СЕКЦИЯ 6. ПАСПОРТНИ ДАННИ НА ИНТЕРВЮИРАНИЯ

6.1. Представител е на група респонденти : І ІІ

(оградете вярното в кръг)

6.2. Респондентът е :

Кмет на община

Заместник кмет на община

Експерт в общинска администрация

Представител на РА „Земеделие”

Представител на изпълнителна агенция /междинно звено по ОП

Моля посочете коя ОП......

Представител на Държавно горско стопанство

Представител на Съвет по туризъм/друга организация на местно ниво в областта на туризма

Представител на Администрация на Природен парк/Защитена местност/

Представител на НПО в областта на опазванена околната среда

Земеделски производител

Представител от сферата на туризма (ресторантьор, хотелиер, развиващ аграрен туризъм , др.)

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 26/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Собственик или ползвател на гори

Член на горско сдружение/Сдружение за управление на гори

Когато респондентът отговаря едновременнонаняколко от посочените по-горе класификации, моля посочете на кои:

...... (посочете само номера на изброените по- горе позиции)

Друго:......

6.3. Респондентът е от община :

А) Свищов б) Елена

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 27/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.2 Appendix 1.2: the Croatian questionnaire

Interviewer:

Institution, position:

First name and family name of the examinee:

Institution, position:

Responsibilities :

Date:

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 28/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

If you look back for about 15-20 years, what can you stress as the most important changes in this municipality? Can you be more specific about the period when these changes happened?

- employment - production structure - housing infrastructure and conditions - more important construction activities - availability of services - environment quality - recognizability of Istria in domestic and international terms - co-operation with neighbouring regions (domestic and international)

What do you think, why these changes have happened? Did some specific events influence them?

- attaining (political) independence - recent war - migrations - changes in near places/towns - new political circumstances, new economic and political programs - natural trends or...?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 29/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1. Pre-accession and accession European funds, but also domestic programs in this region, whose intention is harmonisation with EU standards, try to achieve certain results/outcomes. Please, give a grade from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) for the importance of following outcomes of economic programs for your county and municipality.

Expected outcome Importance 1 - 5 Economic 1. Ecc. 1 – higher farm income 2. Ecc. 2 – competitive rural economy 3. Ecc. 3 – market efficiency Environmental 4. Env. 1 – preserved natural resources 5. Env. 2 – sustainable development 6. Env. 3 – biodiversity Social 7. Soc. 1 – human resources development 8. Soc. 2 – co-operation of all stakeholders involved in local/regional development 9. Soc. 3 – strengthening of local identity

2. Please, explain briefly why do you thing that these outcomes are or not important for your county and municipality? Outcome Explanation Economic

Ecc. 1

Ecc. 2

Ecc. 3

Environmental

Env. 1

Env. 2

Env. 3

Social

Soc. 1

Soc. 2

Soc. 3

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 30/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

3. Please, give an estimation how applied measures are successful in achieving outcomes that you take as important (grade ≥3)

Outcome Measure Grade 1 - 5

Ecc. 1 Ecc. 1 – M1 – direct payments

Ecc. 1 – M2 – investments in diversification (such as

agritourism)

Ecc. 2 Ecc. 2 – M1 – investments in farms

Ecc. 2 – M2 – support to foundation of business zones

Economic Ecc. 2 – M3 – support to adoption of new production standards Ecc. 3 Ecc. 3 – M1 – investments in processing and marketing of products Env. 1 Env. 1 – M1 – improvements of the system of monitoring and

providing information

Env. 2 Env. 2 – M1 – investments in renewable energy resources ntal

Env. 3 Env. 3 – M1 – investments in original sorts and breeds Environme Soc. 1 Soc. 1 – M1 – improvements of the education system

Soc. 2 Soc. 2 – M1 – development of civil society (NGOs...)

Soc. 3 Soc. 3 – M1 – promotion (of Istria) Social Soc. 3 – M2 – investments in preservation and renewal of cultural heritage (buildings, products...)

1 – I expect that measure doesn't achieve any change;

2 – I expect that measure achieves small changes;

3 – I expect that measure achieve moderate changes in whole municipality or greater changes for the part of the municipality;

4 – I expect that measure achieve considerable changes;

5 – I expect that measure achieve great changes.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 31/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

4. You estimated some measures as not successful in reaching the results that are expected form them. What do you think are the reasons of such inefficiency? (grades ≤2)

Measure Explanation

Ecc. 1 – M1

Ecc. 1 – M2

Ecc. 2 – M1

Ecc. 2 – M2

Ecc. 2 – M3

Ecc. 3 – M1

Env. 1 – M1

Env. 2 – M1

Env. 3 – M1

Soc. 1 – M1

Soc. 2 – M1

Soc. 3 – M1

Soc. 3 – M2

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 32/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

5. What do you thing can be done for improving the result? Should some measures be improved or replaces by some other measures?

Measure Improvement/Alternative measure

Ecc. 1 – M1

Ecc. 1 – M2

Ecc. 2 – M1

Ecc. 2 – M2

Ecc. 2 – M3

Ecc. 3 – M1

Env. 1 – M1

Env. 2 – M1

Env. 3 – M1

Soc. 1 – M1

Soc. 2 – M1

Soc. 3 – M1

Soc. 3 – M2

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 33/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.3 Appendix 1.3: the Czech Republic questionnaire

Part 0: Perceived changes in last 20 years (For “local” people only)

0.1 Thinking back over the last 20 years approximately, what are the main changes which have occurred in this municipality? Please specify the time period when each of these changes occurred.

0.2 Why do you think these changes have occurred? Have there been any particular events?

Part 1: Importance of EU policies for municipality development

EU policies are target to reach some improvements in different domains. Pleas, try to mark down how important are different domains for development of your municipality and give short comment about your mark. 1= absolutely not important; 5 = absolutely important (critical factor)

Why do you consider Score Anticipated results of policies this domain (1 – 5) un/important?

Economic sphere

Tourism development

Infrastructure development

Improving of new entrepreneur activities in municipalities (support for small and middle size firms Environmental sphere Preservation and maintenance of the rural landscape Groundwater and surface water protection

Usage of renewable resources

Social sphere

Support of cooperation Workers flexibility in relation to changes in labour market Sustainment of population size in rural areas In following parts please declare your opinion only for domains which you marked 3-5, i.e. you consider them important.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 34/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Part 2: Evaluation of measures aimed at achieving the respective targets

In following parts please declare your opinion only for domains which you marked 3-5, i.e. you consider them important.

2.1 Economics goals

Please, mark down how much following measures achieved to improvement of mentioned domains. If the measure is not efficient (marked down 1-3), please try to give reason for your mark and give possible improvement.

1 = I expect the measure will have no effect; 5 = I expect the measure will have crucial effect

Causes of nonsucces s / Significan Tourism development Suggestio ce (1-5) n for improvem ent RDP – III.1.3 Encouragement of tourism

activities ROPSE – 2.1 Development of infrastructure

for tourism RDP – III.2.2 Conservation and upgrading of

the rural cultural heritage

Causes of nonsuccess / Significance Infrastructure development Suggestion (1-5) for improvement OPT – 4.1 Upgrading of class I roads

outside of TEN–T ROPSE – 1.1 Transport infrastructure

development in the cohesion region RDP – III.1.3 Encouragement of tourism

activities RDP – III.2.1.1 Village renewal and

development

Causes of Improving of new entrepreneur Significan nonsuccess activities in municipalities (support for ce (1-5) / small and middle size firms) Suggestion

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 35/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

for improveme nt RDP – III.1.2 Support for business creation

and development

OPBI – 5.3 Infrastructure for enterprise

OPBI – 2.1 Bank tools for support of small

and middle enterprises

RDP – I.1.4 Land consolidation

2.2 Social goals

1 = I expect the measure will have no effect; 5 = I expect the measure will have crucial effect

Causes of nonsuccess / Significan Support of cooperation Suggestion ce (1-5) for improveme nt

OPBI – 5.1 Platforms for cooperation

RDP – 4.2 Implementing local development

strategy

Causes of nonsuccess / Workers flexibility in relation to Significan Suggestion changes in labour market ce (1-5) for improveme nt

OPEC – 3 Further education OPEC – 4 System framework of lifelong

learning OPHRE – 1.1 Increasing employee adaptability and enterprise competitiveness

RDP – III.3.1 Training and information

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 36/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Causes of nonsuccess / Sustainment of population size in Significance Suggestion rural areas (1-5) for improvement RDP – III.2.1 Village renewal and development, public amenities and services

OPHRE – 3.1 Support of social

integration and social services

OPBI – 5.2 Infrastructure of education

and development of human resources

OPEC – 1 Initial education

2.3 Environmental goals

1 = I expect the measure will have no effect; 5 = I expect the measure will have crucial effect

Causes of nonsuccess / Preservation and maintenance of Significance Suggestion the rural landscape (1-5) for improvement RDP – I.1.1 Modernization of agriculture

holdings

RDP – II.1 Agro–environmental measures RDP – III.1.1 Diversification into non–

agricultural activities ROPSE – III.3 Development and

stabilization of rural area

Causes of nonsuccess / Groundwater and surface water Significance Suggestion protection (1-5) for improvement RDP – II.1.3.3 Sub–measure “landscape

management“ OPE – 4.1 The improvement of waste

management OPE – 4.2 The rehabilitation of old

ecological burdens

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 37/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Causes of nonsuccess / Significance Usage of renewable resources Suggestion (1-5) for improvement OPE – 3.1 The construction of new facilities and the modernisation of the existing facilities with the aim to increase the use of renewable energy sources for heat generation, electric energy generation and for combined heat and electric energy generation OPE – 3.2 The realisation of energy savings and the use of waste heat in the non–business carrying sector

OPBI – 3.1 Saving of energy and

renewable resources

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 38/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.4 Appendix 1.4: the German questionnaire

SHOWCARD A (Section 2)

1= In this area, this goal is of no importance

2= In this area, this goal is slightly important

3= In this area, this goal is quite important

4= In this area, this goal is definitely important

5= In this area, this goal is very important

SHOWCARD B (Sections 3 to 5)

1= I expect the measure to make no difference

2= I expect the measure to make a small difference

3= I expect the measure to make a moderate difference over the whole municipality, OR a large difference over parts of the municipality

4= I expect the measure to make quite a lot of difference

5= I expect the measure to make a lot of difference

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 39/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Section 1: Local people only.

Introduction

The purpose of these 2 questions is to identify the main processes and events which have occurred in the last 20 years (approximately) which have shaped the municipality as it is today.

1.1 Thinking back over the last 20 years approximately, what are the main changes which have occurred in this municipality? Please specify the year (or time period) when each of these changes occurred.

(Note 20 years is a rough guide to the relevant time period rather than an absolute requirement.)

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Prompts:

Employment, industrial structure

Population size/composition

Housing supply

Major built developments

Availability of services

Environmental quality

Anything else ??

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 40/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.2. Why do you think these changes have occurred? Have there been any particular events?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Prompts:

„Natural‟ trends

Changes in nearby city/town or in the region

Infrastructure (investment, disinvestment)

Policy- explain

Technological change

Anything else ??

(More or less encompasses the STEEP framework for drivers of change: societal, technological, economic, environmental & political)

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 41/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Section 2 (Policy people AND local people)

2.1. Several different European funds are available in the Altmark. They are trying to achieve various outcomes and these are summarised in the following table. Please consider these desired outcomes (or goals), and say how important each is for the Altmark.

The objective is to identify which of these goals is of high priority in the case study area.

How impo rtant ?

Score

Desired outcome 1 to 5 Improvement of competitiveness in agriculture and forestry Improvement of productivity/solvability in agriculture and forestry Improvement of trade opportunities and of market structure Improvement of product quality Improvement of the protection of environment, flora and fauna Improvement of the protection of coasts and protection against floods Improvement of the environment and landscapes Ensuring/Improvement of the state resp. diversity of natural resp. protected areas and local fauna and flora Prevention and reduction of emissions and flows of pollutants in/from soils, water and air thanks adapted management measures Keeping of a possibly area covering and sustainable agriculture Elaboration of an environmentally and diversity friendly agricultural animal husbandry Enhancement of stable and natural forests Quality of life in rural areas and diversification of rural economy Ensuring incomes and creation of jobs Improvement of life quality and ensuring of perspectives for the future Keeping resp. creation of minimal provision of goods and services Keeping or re-creation of rural natural and cultural heritage Keeping and improvement of leisure and resting places in rural areas

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 42/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Source: German RDP, reminding goals as defined in the German national strategy for rural areas or „GAK“standing for “National-Federal common task for the improvement of agricultural structures and coastal protection” (Bund- Länder-Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ (GAK)).

1= of no importance 4= definitely important

2= slightly important 5= very important

3= quite important

Ensuring incomes and creation of jobs

Improvement of life quality and ensuring of perspectives for the future

Keeping resp. creation of minimal provision of goods and services

Keeping or re-creation of rural natural and cultural heritage

Keeping and improvement of leisure and resting places in rural areas

Q2.2 For any with a score of 3, 4 or 5:

Please explain briefly why you think these outcomes are important for this municipality.

Prompt (if necessary):

What are the important characteristics of the area?

What is the current development path for the area?

What are important goals for the area?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 43/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q2.3 For any with a score of 1 or 2:

And why do you think these outcomes are not important for the Altmark?

(Use same prompts)

………………………………………………………………………………………….

From Q2.2 , identify the goals which are judged to be of high priority for the Altmark. These have a score of 3 or greater.

Low priority outcomes will not be considered further.

Note:

Some issues are not mentioned in the EU policies under consideration, but may have high priority with interviewees, for example:

Large scale infrastructures

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 44/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Transport

Management/control of regional development strategies

Measures to improve these issues may instead exist in the ESF and EFRD which are mostly oriented towards national/regional scaled projects or cities (show table).

Make a note of any such issues – it may help interpretation of later responses -, and remind the interviewee that the project is restricted to what is eligible under EU policies especially the EAFRD.

Any other issues not addressed by EU policies

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 45/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

SECTION 3: IMPROVING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY SECTOR

You have indicated that for the Altmark, the following outcomes are important (Delete if score < 3):

• Improvement of productivity/solvability in agriculture and forestry

• Improvement of trade opportunities and of market structure

• Improvement of product quality

• Improvement of the protection of environment, flora and fauna

• Improvement of the protection of coasts and protection against floods

To try to achieve these goals, a number of policy measures are currently available from the EU. There follows a summary of the main measures available in the Altmark.

I‟d like to know how capable you think these measures would be of achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality.

If any measure is expected to make „no difference‟, or „a small difference‟, please briefly explain why.

If „inappropriate‟, please explain in what way it is inappropriate.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 46/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.1a: outcome = Improvement of productivity/solvability in agriculture and forestry

Prompt – How many famers/foresters are likely to participate? What would be their reasons for participating or not?

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 111 Vocational training and diffusion of knowledge 114 Use of advisory services (121 Farm modernisation)

121-1 Programme for the promotion of on-farm investments (AFP) 121-2 Innovative investments for the restructuring, rationalisation and development of farms (formerly fund for credit for investments) (125 Improving and developing infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry)

125-1 Land consolidation 125-2 Construction of agricultural paths

Q3.1b For any score <3

So, with respect to Improvement of productivity/solvability in agriculture and forestry, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose any new measures that might help.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 47/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.2a: outcome = Improvement of trade opportunities and of market structure

Measures Capability If <3, why will Measure it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 123 Adding value to agricultural and forestry products 124 Cooperation for development of new products, processes and technologies in the agricultural and food sector (125 Improving and developing infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry)

125-1 Land consolidation 125-2 Construction of agricultural paths

Q3.2b For any score <3

With respect to Improvement of trade opportunities and of market structure, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 48/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.3a: outcome = Improvement of product quality

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 111 Vocational training and diffusion of knowledge 114 Use of advisory services 123 Adding value to agricultural and forestry products 124 Cooperation for development of new products, processes and technologies in the agricultural and food sector

Q3.3b For any score <3

With respect to Improvement of product quality, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 49/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.4a: outcome = Improvement of the protection of environment, flora and fauna

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already Score 1 to 5 used? Y/N/plan ed 111 Vocational training and diffusion of knowledge 114 Use of advisory services (121 Farm modernisation)

121-1 Programme for the promotion of on-farm investments (AFP) 121-2 Innovative investments for the restructuring, rationalisation and development of farms (formerly fund for credit for investments)

Q3.4b For any score <3

With respect to Improvement of the protection of environment, flora and fauna what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q3.5a: outcome = Improvement of the protection of coasts and protection against floods

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already Score 1 to used? 5 Y/N/plane d (125 Improving and developing infrastructure

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 50/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry)

125-3 Improvement and extension of forestry infrastructure 126 Restoring agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introducing appropriate prevention actions

Q3.5b For any score <3

With respect to Improvement of the protection of coasts and protection against floods what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

SECTION 4: IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPES

You have indicated that for the Altmark, the following outcomes are important (Delete if score < 3):

• Ensuring/Improvement of the state resp. diversity of natural resp. protected areas and local fauna and flora

• Prevention and reduction of emissions and flows of pollutants in/from soils, water and air thanks adapted management measures

• Keeping of a possibly area covering and sustainable agriculture

• Elaboration of an environmentally and diversity friendly agricultural animal husbandry

• Enhancement of stable and natural forests

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 51/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

To try to achieve these goals, a number of policy measures are currently available from the EU. I‟d like to know how effective you think these measures would be in achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality.

If any measure is expected to make „no difference‟, or „a small difference‟, please state why.

If „inappropriate‟, please explain in what way it is inappropriate.

Q4.1a: outcome = Ensuring/Improvement of the state resp. diversity of natural resp. protected areas and local fauna and flora

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed (214 Agri-environmental payments)

214-2 Voluntary environmental protection programmes 214-3 Conservation of genetic resources

Q4.1b For any score <3

So, with respect to Ensuring/Improvement of the state resp. diversity of natural resp. protected areas and local fauna and flora, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q4.2a: outcome = Prevention and reduction of emissions and flows of pollutants in/from soils, water and air thanks adapted management measures

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 52/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 213 Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (214 Agri-environmental payments)

214-1 Support for a local and market adapted agriculture (MSL) 214-2 Voluntary environmental protection programmes

Q4.2b For any score <3

With respect to Prevention and reduction of emissions and flows of pollutants in/from soils, water and air thanks adapted management measures, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q4.3a: outcome = Keeping of a possibly area covering and sustainable agriculture

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 212 Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas (214 Agri-environmental payments)

214-1 Support for a local and market adapted agriculture (MSL) 214-2 Voluntary environmental protection programmes

Q4.3b For any score <3

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 53/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

So, with respect to Keeping of a possibly area covering and sustainable agriculture, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 54/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q4.4a: outcome = Elaboration of an environmentally and diversity friendly agricultural animal husbandry

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed (214 Agri-environmental payments)

214-1 Support for a local and market adapted agriculture (MSL) 214-3 Conservation of genetic resources

Q4.4b For any score <3

With respect to Elaboration of an environmentally and diversity friendly agricultural animal husbandry, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q4.5a: outcome = Enhancement of stable and natural forests

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 221 First afforestration of agricultural land 223 First afforestration of non-agricultural land 224 Natura 2000 payments 225 Forest environment payments 227 Support for non-productive investments

Q4.5b For any score <3

With respect to Enhancement of stable and natural forests, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 55/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

………………………………………………………………………………………….

SECTION 5: QUALITY OF LIFE IN RURAL AREAS AND DIVERSIFICATION OF RURAL ECONOMY

You have indicated that for the Altmark, the following outcomes are important (Delete any that score less than 3):

• Ensuring incomes and creation of jobs

• Improvement of life quality and ensuring of perspectives for the future

• Keeping resp. creation of minimal provision of goods and services

• Keeping or re-creation of rural natural and cultural heritage

• Keeping and improvement of leisure and resting places in rural areas

To try to achieve these goals, a number of policy measures are currently available from the EU. I‟d like to know how capable you think these measures would be of achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality.

If any measure is expected to make „no difference‟, or „a small difference‟, please state why.

If „inappropriate‟, please explain in what way it is inappropriate.

Q5.1a: outcome = Ensuring incomes and creation of jobs

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 311 Diversification into non-agricultural activities 312 Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 56/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

(321 Basic services for the economy and rural population)

321-5 Encouragement of the supply with renewable energies through the construction of transportation networks (biogas and warmth transport) 321-6 Supply of DSL internet in rural areas 341 Skills acquisition and animation with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy

Q5.1b For any score <3

So, with respect to Ensuring incomes and creation of jobs, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 57/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q5.2a: outcome = Improvement of life quality and ensuring of perspectives for the future

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already Score 1 to 5 used? Y/N/plane d 311 Diversification into non-agricultural activities 312 Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises (321 Basic services for the economy and rural population)

Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-1 Water disposal Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-2 Drinking water Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-3 Small schools Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-4 Kindergartens 321-5 Encouragement of the supply with renewable energies through the construction of transportation networks (biogas and warmth transport) 321-6 Supply of DSL internet in rural areas 322 Village renewal and development 341 Skills acquisition and animation with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy

Q5.2b For any score <3

So, with respect to Improvement of life quality and ensuring of perspectives for the future, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 58/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q5.3a: outcome = Keeping resp. creation of minimal provision of goods and services

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed (321 Basic services for the economy and rural population)

Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-1 Water disposal Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-2 Drinking water Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-3 Small schools Improvement of infrastructures in the field of

321-4 Kindergartens 321-5 Encouragement of the supply with renewable energies through the construction of transportation networks (biogas and warmth transport) 321-6 Supply of DSL internet in rural areas 341 Skills acquisition and animation with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy

Q5.3b For any score <3

So, with respect to Keeping resp. creation of minimal provision of goods and services, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 59/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q5.4a: outcome = Keeping or re-creation of rural natural and cultural heritage

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already Score 1 to 5 used? Y/N/plane d 311 Diversification into non-agricultural activities 312 Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises (323 Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage)

323-1 Measures for Natura 2000 protection areas and other zones with high natural value 323-2 Environmentally friendly watercourses development 323-3 Conservation of the wine shaped landscape in wine producing zones in Saxony-Anhalt 323-4 Actions for the sensibilisation to environment protection 341 Skills acquisition and animation with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy

Q5.4b For any score <3

So, with respect to Keeping or re-creation of rural natural and cultural heritage, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 60/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q5.5a: outcome = Keeping and improvement of leisure and resting places in rural areas

Measures Capability If <3, why Measure will it fail? already used? Score 1 to 5 Y/N/planed 311 Diversification into non-agricultural activities 313 Encouragement of tourism activities (321 Basic services for the economy and rural population)

321-5 Encouragement of the supply with renewable energies through the construction of transportation networks (biogas and warmth transport) 321-6 Supply of DSL internet in rural areas 322 Village renewal and development 341 Skills acquisition and animation with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy

Q5.5b For any score <3

So, with respect to Keeping and improvement of leisure and resting places in rural areas, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 61/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.5 Appendix 1.5: the United Kingdom questionnaire

Instructions

• This questionnaire is for individual interviews

• Two types of interviewee:

a. Officials who provide the link between the locality and the funds (e.g. institution with responsibility for allocating funds;officers who implement local strategic plans projects and apply for funds; overview from forestry service or farmers union)

b. People who live in the case study area who are well informed about its characteristics, development path and goals

• Section 1 (local history) is only for people who live in the case study area, and NOT policy people

• Sections 2 to 5 are for both types of interviewee.

The policy goals, and associated measures, are derived from those outlined in the policy documents for ERDF, SF, and RDPE (including Environmental Stewardship and EWGS). Note that policies and expenditure related to CAP Pillar 1 are not included.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 62/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

SHOWCARD A (Section 2)

1= In this area, this goal is of no importance

2= In this area, this goal is slightly important

3= In this area, this goal is quite important

4= In this area, this goal is definitely important

5= In this area, this goal is very important

SHOWCARD B (Sections 3 to 5)

1= I expect the measure to make no difference

2= I expect the measure to make a small difference

3= I expect the measure to make a moderate difference over the whole municipality, OR a large difference over parts of the municipality

4= I expect the measure to make quite a lot of difference

5= I expect the measure to make a lot of difference

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 63/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Section 1: Local people only.

Introduction

The purpose of these 2 questions is to identify the main processes and events which have occurred in the last 20 years (approximately) which have shaped the municipality as it is today.

(Note 20 years is a rough guide to the relevant time period rather than an absolute requirement.)

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Prompts:

Employment, industrial structure

Population size/composition

Housing supply

Major built developments

Availability of services

Environmental quality

Anything else ??

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 64/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.2. Why do you think these changes have occurred? Have there been any particular events?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Prompts:

„Natural‟ trends

Changes in nearby city/town or in the region

Infrastructure (investment, disinvestment)

Policy- explain

Technological change

Anything else ??

(More or less encompasses the STEEP framework for drivers of change: societal, technological, economic, environmental & political)

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 65/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Section 2 (Policy people AND local people)

2.1. Several different European funds are available in the East Midlands region - RDPE, ESF and ERDF. They are trying to achieve various outcomes and these are summarised in the following table. Please consider these desired outcomes (or goals), and say how important each is for Case Study Area X.

The objective is to identify which of these goals is of high priority in the case study area.

How important?

Score

Desired outcome 1 to 5 Environment Safeguard and improve biodiversity Safeguard and improve landscape Reducing the causes and impacts of climate change Water and soil conservation Social Enhance opportunity in rural areas Enhance quality of life in rural areas Economic Improve economy by improving the competitiveness of land-based businesses (farming, forestry, horticulture and closely related businesses) Improve economy by improving the competitiveness of businesses in other sectors Increase the diversity of the rural economy

Q2.2 For any with a score of 3, 4 or 5:

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 66/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Please explain briefly why you think these outcomes are important for this municipality.

Prompt (if necessary):

What are the important characteristics of the area?

What is the current development path for the area?

What are important goals for the area?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Q2.3 For any with a score of 1 or 2:

And why do you think these outcomes are not important for Case Study Area X?

(Use same prompts)

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 67/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

From Q2.2 , identify the goals which are judged to be of high priority for the case study area. These have a score of 3 or greater.

Low priority outcomes will not be considered further.

Note:

Some issues are not mentioned in the EU policies under consideration, but may have high priority with interviewees, for example:

Affordable housing

Transport

Control of the built environment

Measures to improve these issues may instead exist under UK or local policies

Make a note of any such issues – it may help interpretation of later responses -, and remind the interviewee that the project is restricted to what is eligible under EU policies.

Any other issues not addressed by EU policies

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 68/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENT

You have indicated that for Case Study Area X, the following environmental outcomes are important (Delete if score < 3:

• Safeguard and improve biodiversity

• Safeguard and improve landscape

• Climate change mitigation

• Water and soil conservation

To try to achieve these goals, a number of policy measures are currently available from the EU. There follows a summary of the main measures available in the East Midlands.

I’d like to know how capable you think these measures would be of achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality.

If any measure is expected to make ‘no difference’, or ‘a small difference’, please briefly explain why.

If ‘inappropriate’, please explain in what way it is inappropriate.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 69/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.1a: outcome = Safeguard and improve biodiversity

Prompt – How many famers/foresters are likely to participate? What would be their reasons for participating or not?

Measures Capability If capability <3, why will Score 1 to 5 it fail? 1. Grants for woodland management to improve its biodiversity 2. Substantial incentives to farmers/foresters for very high standards of environmental management, in targeted areas or habitats (to protect, restore, and create habitats) 3. Incentives for management by farmers/foresters to enhance biodiversity. Paid at a lower rate, and requiring a smaller environmental management effort than under Measure 2. Available in all areas, not just ‘special’ areas

Q3.1b For any score <3

So, with respect to Safeguarding and improving biodiversity, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose any new measures that might help.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 70/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.2a: outcome = Safeguard and improve landscape

Measures Capability If capability <3, why not (score 1 to effective? 5) Incentives to farmers to protect/restore features such as walls, hedgerows, old buildings Woodland planting, especially in degraded landscapes Incentives to farmers to use farming methods which maintain a diverse landscape e.g. traditional grassland management; moorland management; on-farm woodland

Q3.2b For any score <3

With respect to Safeguarding and improving landscape, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 71/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.3a: outcome = Reducing the causes and impacts of climate change

Measures Capability If capability <3, why not (score 1 to effective? 5) Support for renewable energy generation (solar, wind, anaerobic digestion; growing biomass, woodfuel etc) Assistance to SMEs in all sectors to encourage environmentally-friendly production e.g. adopting renewable energy, cleaner technology; establish environmental management systems Help businesses to enter markets to recover energy from waste, or recycle it.

Q3.3b For any score <3

With respect to Reducing the causes and impacts of climate change, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 72/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q3.4a: outcome = Water and soil conservation

Measures Capability If capability <3, why not (score 1 to effective? 5) Incentives to farmers for measures to reduce soil erosion & run-off (e.g. overwinter cover) Capital grants for farmers and foresters for water management schemes e.g. irrigation reservoirs, water recycling Buffer strips for on-farm watercourses (protection from spraying, livestock) Training for water management

Q3.4b For any score <3

With respect to Water and soil conservation, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 73/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

SECTION 4: SOCIAL

You have indicated that for Case Study Area X, the following social outcomes are important (Delete if score < 3):

• Enhance opportunity in rural areas

• Enhance quality of life in rural areas

To try to achieve these goals, a number of policy measures are currently available from the EU. I’d like to know how effective you think these measures would be in achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality.

If any measure is expected to make ‘no difference’, or ‘a small difference’, please state why.

If ‘inappropriate’, please explain in what way it is inappropriate.

Q4.1a: outcome = Enhance opportunity in rural areas

Measures Capability If capability <3, why will it (score 1 to fail? 5) Help to get economically inactive and unemployed people into work, thereby reducing social exclusion. e.g. individual coaching Improve skills of employed people in rural areas (especially low paid) thereby increasing earning power and adaptability. Help to overcome barriers to employment faced by rural residents In disadvantaged communities, additional business support for start-ups and existing enterprises to expand the number and range of jobs.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 74/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q4.1b For any score <3

So, with respect to Enhancing opportunity in rural areas, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 75/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q4.2a: outcome = Enhance quality of life in rural areas.

Measures Capability If capability <3, (score 1 to 5) why will it fail? Woodland creation, providing landscape change and increased access to outdoor recreation In former mining & industrial areas, improve the physical environment. Protect cultural assets by encouraging farmers to protect archaeological features on their land Positive management of historic buildings

Q4.2b For any score <3

With respect to Enhancing the quality of life in rural areas, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Note:

The main EU funding streams have little to offer in the way of community projects or access to services (including care) which can make an important contribution to quality of life in rural areas.

If necessary, prompt people that quality of life is more than the physical surroundings, and if appropriate encourage to propose some new measures.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 76/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

SECTION 5: ECONOMY

You have indicated that for Case Study Area X, the following economic outcomes are important (Delete any that score less than 3):

• Improve economy by improving the competitiveness of businesses in the land-based sectors (agriculture, forestry, processing etc)

• Improve economy by improving the competitiveness of businesses in other sectors

• Increase diversity of economy

To try to achieve these goals, a number of policy measures are currently available from the EU. I’d like to know how capable you think these measures would be of achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality.

If any measure is expected to make ‘no difference’, or ‘a small difference’, please state why.

If ‘inappropriate’, please explain in what way it is inappropriate.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 77/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q5.1a: outcome = Improve economy by improving the competitiveness of farming, forestry and horticultural businesses

Measures Capability If capability <3, why will it Score 1 to 5 fail? Farm diversification into non-agricultural activities or novel crops/livestock to provide alternative income e.g. new uses for buildings; direct selling; provide environmental services Adding value to agricultural or forestry products. Developing new products, processes, markets e.g. own processing, retailing; support for necessary buildings, machinery, market research Support groups of businesses to develop new techniques, processes or products. e.g. improve supply chain, cost reduction Training, support for technical and business skills Modernising livestock enterprises (e.g animal welfare, waste management) Improve economic value of forests Support for Renewable energy: generation, supply of biomass, woodfuel

Q5.1b For any score <3

So, with respect to Improving economy by improving the competitiveness of farming, forestry and horticultural businesses, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 78/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q5.2a: outcome = Improve economy by improving the competitiveness of businesses in other sectors

Measures Capability If capability (score 1 to <3, why will 5) it fail? Improve productivity and adaptability by improving skills of workforce Improve business performance by making it easier for firms to access knowledge, expertise and facilities to help them innovate. (e.g. Bring together businesses and universities or other businesses. Set up innovation networks. Incubators) Support for SMES to increase innovation and develop new processes, products and markets (e.g. to produce higher value goods) Improve resilience of firms by improving resource efficiency (e.g. advice to reduce consumption of energy and raw materials) Improve skills of managers and owners in small businesses Exploit waste –develop products and markets which use it Business support for firms in priority sectors (Food and drink, transport equipment, construction, healthcare; logistics, engineering manufacture, tourism leisure and hospitality, health and social care, clothing and textiles, creative industries)

Q5.2b For any score <3

So, with respect to Improving economy by improving the competitiveness of businesses in other sectors, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 79/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Q5.3a: outcome = Increase diversity of rural economy

Measures Capability If capability <3, why will it (score 1 to fail? 5) Support for farm diversification Support to create and grow micro- enterprises in manufacturing, environmental, creative, recreation and retailing sectors Help businesses to enter markets to recover energy from waste, or recycle it. Encouragement of tourism activities (e.g. new/improved accommodation; initiatives related to infrastructure; marketing)

Note: Under RDPE, two of the above measures are available in LEADER APPROACH AREAS only.

Q5.3b For any score <3

So, with respect to Improving the diversity of the economy, what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures? Please suggest how to adapt, or propose a new measure

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 80/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.6 Appendix 1.6: the French questionnaire

Questionnaire Jeune Loire et ses rivières

Guide d'entretien – projet PRIMA La dynamique de développement territorial Communes du Pays de la Jeune Loire et ses Rivières

1) Présentation du Cemagref et du projet PRIMA Le Cemagref est un organisme de recherche public en environnement, notre unité fait partie du Département "Territoires". L'Unité Mixte de Recherche Métafort (Mutations des activités, des espaces et des formes d'organisation dans les territoires ruraux) regroupe des chercheurs et des enseignants- chercheurs en sciences agronomiques et en sciences sociales dont les travaux visent à comprendre et accompagner les transformations des territoires ruraux. Dans le cadre d'un projet européen "PRIMA" focalisé sur les fonds structurels et la multifonctionnalité (voir définition), nous nous intéressons à la dynamique communale et nous cherchons à identifier quels sont les impacts des politiques publiques sur les actions locales.

Fonds structurels: Pour la période 2007-2013, les principaux fonds de la politique de cohésion sont le Fonds européen de développement régional (FEDER) et le Fonds social européen (FSE). Ces fonds sont également désignés sous le nom de « fonds structurels », car ils visent à agir en profondeur sur les structures économiques et sociales des régions en Europe, afin de réduire les inégalités de développement sur le territoire européen. Instruments financiers de la politique régionale de l'Union Européenne que sont: - le FSE : Fonds Social Européen Le FSE a été créé dès le Traité de Rome en 1957. Il cherche à améliorer l‟emploi et les possibilités d‟emploi des Etats membres, en soutenant les politiques visant à atteindre le plein emploi ainsi que la qualité et la productivité du travail, à promouvoir l‟inclusion sociale et à réduire les disparités nationales, régionales et locales en matière d‟emploi. - le FEDER: Fonds Européen de Développement Régional Créé en 1975, il corrige les principaux déséquilibres régionaux par le soutien au développement et à l‟ajustement structurel des économies régionales et favorise les actions de coopération territoriale européenne.

Outre les fonds structurels, d‟autres fonds interviennent au profit de certains territoires spécifiques (zones rurales): le FEADER, Fonds Européen Agricole pour le Développement Rural. Il intervient dans le cadre du second pilier de la PAC en soutenant une politique de développement rural destinée à accompagner les mutations de l'espace rural.

Multifonctionnalité: Mis en avant par la Loi d'Orientation Agricole de 1999, la multifonctionnalité représente un concept destiné à renouveler les politiques agricoles et rurales.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 81/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Elle fait référence aux différentes dimensions productives, sociales et environnementales des activités agricoles.

Ce projet compte six terrains répartis en Europe: - France: région Auvergne - analyse de deux territoires en périurbain dynamique et rural isolé - République Tchèque: agriculture de qualité et développement touristique - Allemagne: problématique de réouverture de l'Allemagne de l'est - Angleterre: parc naturel et problème de fuite de population dû au manque de services - Croatie: parc naturel et développement touristique - Bulgarie: développement de l'assainissement, électrification en zone rurale

Cette consultation comprendra deux étapes, la première consistera en un entretien avec vous. Puis dans un second temps, il serait intéressant de réunir les différentes communes consultées afin de confronter les points de vus exprimés.

2) Pourriez-vous me décrire à grand trait l'évolution de votre commune et les enjeux auxquels elle est confrontée (portait de la commune: fonctionnement, école, population, activités économiques etc.) Quel est votre projet de développement ?

3) D'après vous, quels sont les atouts de votre commune ? En termes de population, d'attractivité économique, touristique etc.

4) Et quels sont les points faibles de la commune, ce qu'elle subit ?

5) Pourriez-vous évoquer les réalisations récentes dans votre commune (depuis 2 ou 3 ans) et les projets qu'envisage la municipalité ?

Voici quelques propositions, la liste n'est pas exhaustive: - voirie - patrimoine - activité économique: accueil d'entreprises, développement du commerce, de l'artisanat, des activités touristiques - protection de l'environnement - logement, cadre de vie - équipement culturel, sportif, scolaire - gestion des espaces agricoles, forestiers et naturels - aménagement de structures récréatives - déchets - énergie et télécommunication

6) Quelles sources de financement participent à la réalisation de ces objectifs, ces projets ? Quels fonds sont sollicités pour les projets à venir ?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 82/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

(Affecter les financements aux réalisations et les montants alloués)

- dispositifs départementaux - fonds régionaux, type Auvergne + - fonds nationaux, type fnadt - fonds européens, type fonds structurels - autres fonds, type agence de l'eau, pnr

7) Quelles sont vos attentes vis-à-vis de ces projets, comment estimez- vous qu'un projet est réussi ? Existe-t-il des indicateurs d'impacts ?

Voici quelques exemples d'indicateurs d'impacts: - population totale - densité de population - % de logements collectifs sur logements totaux - emplois dans le secteur tertiaire (éducation, santé, action sociale) - services de transport collectif - diversité des couvertures des sols: nombre des différentes cultures - emploi total - % chômage - total des salariés du tourisme - revenu moyen

8) Quelles sont les menaces ou les opportunités qui peuvent faire évoluer vos objectifs ? Par exemple, la diminution des subventions etc.

9) Comment envisagez-vous l'avenir sur votre commune, qu'est-ce qui pourrait se passer dans 10 ans ?

10) Présentation du territoire a) Diagnostic Globalement, on constate une évolution démographique en pleine croissance, avec des disparités au sein du territoire. Tandis que l'arrondissement d'Yssingeaux enregistre une évolution très positive, certains territoires ayant de faible densité constituent des territoires d'accueil non saturés. Au contraire, d'autres territoires – du fait de l'altitude sont en déclin démographique, qu'il s'agisse des Communauté de communes du Haut Lignon ou du Pays de Montfaucon.

Cette attractivité assez générale est liée entre autres aux infrastructures routières adaptées qui induisent un certain développement économique. La qualité du cadre de vie et l'offre en foncier jouent un rôle non négligeable. Toutefois, quelques points faibles peuvent fragiliser cet équilibre, tels qu'un développement plus ou moins bien maîtrisé et réparti; un tissu économique assez peu diversifié et quelques déficits en matière de service. En outre, il peut être intéressant de veiller à ce que le phénomène de résidentialisation du territoire "dortoir" ne prenne pas des proportions trop importantes et à ce que le tissu économique ne soit pas affaibli par le territoire rhônalpin. Certaine opportunités seront à priori saisies par le Pays, telles que l'ouverture sur les territoires voisins, un développement basé sur un capital – richesses

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 83/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

(énergies renouvelables, tourisme) ou encore un renforcement de l'attractivité économique et la diversification du tissu d'entreprises. b) Projet de développement du pays Le scénario de développement choisi par les élus consiste à : - accompagner et maîtriser la croissance démographique par l'affirmation de la multipolarité du territoire : correspond à l'axe 1 - maintenir un dynamisme économique permettant la pérennisation du tissu économique mais aussi sa diversification: correspond à l'axe 2

L'axe 1 comprend 4 objectifs: 011: Favoriser le développement d'un habitat adapté et diversifié en prévoyant d'une part le nombre de logements et d'autre part leurs caractéristiques dans une logique environnementale. 012: Renforcer les pôles de vie en accompagnant le soutien aux services et en répondant aux besoins de la population. 013: Mettre en réseau les villes et les acteurs en développant des alternatives à la voiture particulière comme l'utilisation des transports collectifs. 014: Favoriser un développement qualitatif respectueux des paysages et de l'environnement, favorisant le maintien d'un cadre naturel et paysager de qualité. Agir autour de la préservation du cadre de vie et de la gestion de l'environnement en tenant compte des problématiques environnementales.

L'axe 2 comprend 3 objectifs: 021: Mettre en œuvre une stratégie de développement économique à l'échelle du Pays. Il s'agit de conforter le tissu économique existant tout en mettant en place une politique globale d'accueil et en favorisant l'innovation et la diversification. 022: Maîtriser le développement des activités commerciales. Il s'agit de tendre vers une offre commerciale équilibrée à l'échelle du territoire (entre commerces de centre ville et périphérique). 023: Favoriser l'émergence d'une véritable activité touristique. Il s'agit de développer le tourisme indispensable à la diversification du tissu économique du Pays.

Etes-vous d'accord avec cette présentation ? Avez-vous des compléments d'informations ou des ajustements à faire ? Quelles sont les convergences avec votre projet de développement communal ?

11) Quels sont les objectifs actuels des programmes en cours dans votre commune ? Classez-les par ordre d'importance

Objectifs Importance [0.. 3] Partie 1 : Un équilibre du territoire s’appuyant sur une armature multipolaire 1.1. Maintenir les grands équilibres et l’identité du territoire 1.2. Renforcer l’armature urbaine du territoire 1.3. Les perspectives de croissance et l’estimation des besoins

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 84/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

1.4. Favoriser un développement qualitatif de l’habitat 1.5. Anticiper les besoins en équipements 1.6. Optimiser les infrastructures existantes 1.7. Renforcer l’utilisation des transports collectifs et des modes doux Partie 2 : Les conditions du maintien d’un dynamisme économique 2.1. Mettre en place une stratégie de développement économique à l’échelle du Pays 2.2. Promouvoir une offre lisible, équilibrée et qualitative à l’échelle du Pays 2.3. Favoriser l’émergence d’une véritable activité touristique 2.4. Accompagner le développement des activités commerciales 2.5. Préserver et valoriser l’agriculture Partie 3 : Promouvoir un développement respectueux de l’environnement 3.1. Maintenir une trame naturelle et paysagère à l’échelle du Pays 3.2. Assurer une gestion cohérente de la forêt et des espaces boisés 3.3. Protéger la ressource en eau 3.4. Limiter l’écoulement des eaux de surface 3.5. Anticiper sur la production et les modes de gestion des déchets 3.6. Assurer la prévention des risques 3.7. Limiter l’exposition au bruit des populations 3.8. Maîtriser la consommation d’énergie Partie 4 : Promouvoir un développement qualitatif et innovant 4.1. Mettre en valeur les entrées de ville et les abords des axes structurants 4.2. Assurer un traitement qualitatif des franges urbaines 4.3. Respecter la trame urbaine des espaces bâtis et maintenir des espaces de respiration 4.4. Prendre en compte le contexte topographique 4.5. Valoriser les éléments de typicité du bâti 4.6. Protéger et valoriser le patrimoine bâti 4.7. Protéger et valoriser les espaces emblématiques du territoire

0: objectif non retenu 1: objectif mineur 2: objectif moyennement important 3: objectif important

Commentaires: Quelles organisations/ collectivités locales sont en charge de la réalisation de ces objectifs ? Autres objectifs inscrits à l'ordre du jour

12) Pourriez-vous me décrire votre trajectoire personnelle ?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 85/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Questionnaire Pays de Saint Flour same as the previous for points 1) to 9)

10) Présentation du territoire a) Diagnostic

Le Pays de Saint-Flour Haute-Auvergne est un territoire rural de Montagne, marqué par une forte présence de population agricole (20% des actifs du pays) et une très faible densité oscillant de 6 à 16hab/km2 en moyenne. Son économie se construit autour de la valorisation de ses ressources locales : Agriculture de Montagne, Tourisme d‟hiver et d‟été par le biais d‟un réseau de PME-PMI. La spécificité du territoire est son absence de « ville » au sens de l‟INSEE bien que Saint-Flour avec ses 7000 habitants, regroupe tous les services d‟une ville de 15 à 30000 habitants, et son réseau de bourgs secondaires qui maille à 20km de distance en moyenne les 2500 km2 du Pays. On citera les principaux bourgs : Murat, Massiac, Neuvéglise, Chaudes-Aigues, Condat, Allanche, Pierrefort, Ruynes-en-Margeride.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 86/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 87/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Les élus du territoire ont relevé 17 objectifs pertinents, en lien avec les forces et faiblesses du territoire. b) Projet de développement du pays

Le scénario de base a été définit à partir d'une projection d'évolution de la population totale et d'une hypothèse d'évolution des taux d'activité.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 88/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Le scénario de projection de population totale retenu est celui "central" à l'horizon 2030 (maintien de la fécondité au taux calculé pour 1999, la mortalité baisse au même rythme que la tendance métropolitaine, les quotients migratoires de référence calculés entre les recensements de 1982 et 1999 sont maintenus sur la période de projection).

Le scénario d‟activité s‟appuie sur la série des taux d‟activité par âge des hommes et des femmes observés dans la zone au recensement de 1999 et de l‟évolution des taux d‟activité par sexe et âge retenue pour la métropole au sens du BIT de 2000 à 2030.

Variantes envisagées sur les comportements d'activité :

Variante A : remontée progressive des taux d'activité des 55-59 ans à l'horizon 2025 (décalage de 5 ans des taux d'activité des 50-54 ans sur les 55- 59 ans).

Variante B : montée des taux d'activité féminins au niveau de ceux de l'Ile-de- France à l'horizon 2015 (si inférieur) pour les femmes âgées de 25 à 49 ans.

Variante C : remontée de 1 an des taux d'activité des 20-24 ans au niveau des 21-25 ans (entrée plus rapide sur le marché du travail). Bibliographie : "Projections de population active - un retournement progressif". Insee première n°838, mars 2002"Baisses des ressources de main d'œuvre à l'horizon 2015". La Lettre n°9- Insee Auvergne, juin 2003

Etes-vous d'accord avec cette présentation ?

Avez-vous des compléments d'informations ou des ajustements à faire ?

Quelles sont les convergences avec votre projet de développement communal ?

11) Quels sont les objectifs actuels des programmes en cours dans votre commune ? Classez-les par ordre d'importance

Objectifs Importance [0…3]

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 89/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

O1 Connecter l'exploitation agricole avec le marché. O2 Accompagner les projets par l'innovation et le soutien à la recherche. O3 Accompagner l‟adaptation des outils et des pratiques professionnelles aux réalités économiques. O4 Appuyer l‟installation d‟artisanat de production. O5 Accompagner une économie de services au service des secteurs existants (tourisme, artisanat). O6 Accompagner le développement d‟une économie locale compétitive autour de la valorisation du Bois. O7 Assurer la multifonctionnalité de l‟espace forestier. O8 Poser les bases d‟un schéma cohérent d‟utilisation des espaces. O9 Maitriser par l‟offre la question immobilière et logement. O10 Construire les solidarités territoriales en phase avec la réalité de « métropolisation ». O11 Envisager des solutions durables à la mobilité des populations en espaces à faible densité. O12 Reconnaissance par les populations des richesses naturelles du Pays. O13 Adaptation des pratiques agricoles à la réalité des espaces (NATURA 2000…) O14 Faire de la richesse de nos espaces un levier de développement et de compétitivité territoriale. O15 Assurer le maintien des services indispensables pour les populations. O16 Développer de nouveaux services au regard de nouveaux besoins des populations. O17 Trouver l‟équilibre dans la programmation culturelle entre Qualité/ Fréquence / Périodicité / Territoire / Moyens. 0: objectif non retenu 1: objectif mineur 2: objectif moyennement important 3: objectif important

Commentaires: Quelles organisations/ collectivités locales sont en charge de la réalisation de ces objectifs ? Autres objectifs inscrits à l'ordre du jour

12) Pourriez-vous me décrire votre trajectoire personnelle ?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 90/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

2 APPENDIX 2 DESCRIPTION OF SVISHTOV MUNICIPALITY

2.1 Geographical location, and size limits of Svishtov municipality

Svishtov municipality occupies the northern part of the Veliko Turnovo District and borders through the Danube River on the Republic of Romania and the following municipalities: Polski Trambesh in Veliko Turnovo District, Tsenovo in Russe District, and Levski in Pleven District (Figure 1). Diana Kopeva DianaHristina Kopeva Harizanova, HristinaZornitza Harizanova, Stoyanova, ZornitzaMariya Peneva Stoyanova, Mariya Peneva

Figure 1 | Geographical location of Svishtov municipality

The terrain in the area is slightly hilly and flat, the plateau areas. The average altitude is 130 meters. South of the Danube bank relief is slightly hilly in places and a plateau. This contributes to the development of agricultural activity. Specificity of the geological structure of the terrain on the border of the Danube conditioned serious geological ecological problems associated with landslides and regressive erosion.

Svishtov municipality covers a territory of 625,321 km². Svishtov municipality is a plateau area, and this can be explained the high ratio of agricultural land (82,6%). The agricultural land counts of 516,509 km². In that number 452821 sq.km. are arable land. Arable land is 72,4% of total territory of the municipality (obshtina Svishtov). The forest occupies 7,74 % of the municipality‟s territory (Table 1).

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 91/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Table 1 | Balance of territory by type of land in Svishtov municipality, 2007

Type of land Area, sq.kilometers Structure,%

Total agricultural land, of which: 516,509 Arable 452,821 82,60% Irrigated 47,399 Forest 48,410 7,74%

Urbanized 28,672 4,59%

Water flows and territories 24,975 3,99%

Мining and digging raw materials 3,001 0,48%

Other 3,754 0,60%

Total 625,321 100,00%

Source: NSI, 2007, Regions, districts and municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria

2.2 Population

In 2009, the population of Svishtov municipality equals to 41451 people. Last ten years the population in the municipality decreased by 22 % (Figure 2). The negative trend is due to the socio-economic changes, revival of the Bulgarian economy after the big economic crisis from 1997, increased job opportunities in big cities (Sofia, Varna, Burgas, Plovdiv), increased outflow of young people outside Bulgaria. This trend is similar to the negative demographic trend on national level and in other municipalities and regions.

Figure 2 | Population of Svishtov municipality, 1999-2009

56000

54000

52000

50000

48000

46000

44000

42000

40000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Source: NSI, Annual yearbooks (various years)

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 92/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

The population structure by sex shows that the share of women prevailed over the share of men (1985-2007). In 2007 the number of men in Svishtov municipality is 23464, while the and the women are 25650. The structure of the population shows that 52% of total populations are women. This ratio is stable for the period 1985 (Figure 3).

Figure 3 | Structure of the population by sex – 1985-2007

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% females males 40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 1985 1987 1989 1991 1995 1997 2002 2004 2006

Source: NSI

For the period 1998-2007 the mechanical migration in Svishtov municipality is unstable. The highest level of migration is in 2000 and 2004 and the lowest observed level is in 1999 while the emigrants were 664 more than immigrants (Figure 4).

Figure 4 | Mechanical migrations in Svishtov Municipality 1998-2007

1500

1000

500

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

-500

-1000

Source: NSI

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 93/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

The main tendency of migration is positive and immigrants are more than emigrants. In year 2004 is observed the most number of immigrated people. (Table 2) Female immigrants and emigrants are more than males in all the period. The number of emigrants is increasing and they increase is from 835 in 2002 to 1405 in 2007.

Table 2 | Migration processes in Svishtov municipality in 2002-2007

Immigrants Emigrants Year Total Males Females Total Males Females

2002 1903 835 1068 835 360 475 2003 1787 720 1067 1094 467 627 2004 2296 949 1347 1086 444 642 2005 1725 681 1044 1227 523 704 2006 1506 618 888 1201 503 698 2007 1 583 595 988 1 405 606 799 Source: NSI

In recent years the tendency in population density is positive.(Figure 5) The density of 76,7 persons per square kilometer in 2002 increased by 2% and became 78,6 persons per square kilometer in 2007. This can‟t be explained with the population dynamic and the number of the people in the municipality, because the tendency is negative, but can be explained with a positive migration processes in the municipality and with more immigrated people towards the region of Svishtov.

Figure 5. | Population density in Svishtov municipality in the period 2002- 2007

79,0

78,5

78,0

77,5 Population density (persons/sq.km) 77,0

76,5

76,0

75,5 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source:NSI

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 94/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

People at working age are 68% (2007) of total, over working age - 21 % and 10% are under working age (Figure 6).

Figure 6 | Population under, at and over working age 1990- 2007

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Over working age 50% At working age 40% Under working age

30%

20%

10%

0% 1990 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2 007

Source: NSI

The information above shows that the age structure had changed in the period 1990 – 2007 and the population at working age has increased. The increase is from 63 % in 2002 to 68% in 2007. According to the NSI the number of people under and over working age decreased. The people over working age decreased from 25% to 21 % and the people under working age decreased from 12 to 10 % (for the same period).

The unemployment is 4,4% in 2007 (Table 3). The level of unemployment has decreased from 14,02% (2002) to 4,4 % (2007).

Table 3 | Registered unemployed persons and level of unemployment in Svishtov municipality

Registered unemployed persons of which: Level of unemployment Not older than Registered more Year Total 29 ages than one year (%) thousands 2002 2840 692 1034 14,02 2003 2011 444 702 9,93 2004 2011 444 702 9,93 2005 1607 336 571 7,93 2006 1408 218 536 6,95 2007 882 131 361 4,4 Source: NSI

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 95/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Number of registered unemployed persons under age of 29 decreases by 82 % (from 626 persons in 2002 they decrease to 131 in 2007). The same tendency is observed in the group of unemployed people for more than 1 year (the decrease is around 66 %).

2.3 Industry in Svishtov municipality

Svishtov municipality is one of the main industrial and agricultural centers in Veliko Tarnovo Region (Oblast). In the municipality is developed mixed economy specialized in manufacturing, trading, services, agriculture, food processing and tourism. The structure of the industry is represented mainly by the production of pulp, food industry, railway sleepers, electric poles and apparel industry extraction of inert materials. Chemical and food industries occupy a significant proportion of municipal economy.

SVILOZA" PLC is the leader of local economy. It produces artificial chemical fibres and rayon, sulfate bleached cellulose and its derivatives. The production is oriented to export for Korea, Taiwan, European Union, Romania, Turkey, Macedonia and Serbia. Small quantities of cellulose and rayon are intended to the domestic market and the electric energy is mainly for the domestic market. The enterprise is a producer of cellulose and viscose silk. It satisfies the domestic market. The company covers completely the requirements of the international market for these two products. The major part of the production is exported abroad - in Italy, Germany, Austria, South Korea, Taiwan.

ENTERPRISE FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS AND PRODUCTS The enterprise produces sleepers from reinforced concrete, vibrated and centrifugal posts and elements for industrial production, garage cells, specific concrete for the needs of the Bulgarian Railway Company and the National Electric Company. The enterprise produces a new type of sleeper, corresponding to the international standards on an English production line.

"REPUBLIKA CONSERV" PLC - SVISHTOV The enterprise was founded in 1938, and the main activity is purchase, processing and export of canned food from fruits, vegetables and meat. The list of products comprises more than 30 items, and the traditional ones are: whole peeled and unpeeled tomatoes, green peas, preserves from aubergines and vegetable marrow, preserves from peppers, tomato concentrate, stuffed cabbage leaves and different types of canned fruits. The major clients of the enterprise are from Russia, Germany and domestic market.

"SLUNCHO" PLC - SVISHTOV produces children's food based on corn - children's milk porridges "Sluncho", oat flakes, macaroni, high quality wheat flour, hulled wheat, groats, and the most delicious corn snacks in the country - the hit of the market. The quality of the produced foods is a guarantee for the health of our children - the capital of the nation.

"PRISTANISHTEN COMPLEX" PLC -PORT SVISHTOV It is located on 554 km from the mouth of the Danube river, on 1825 km from the port of Regensbourg, and it is the most southern point from the Bulgarian segment

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 96/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

of the Danube river. From here stretches the shortest way from the Danube river to the passes of the Stara Planina mountain, and from there to Turkey, Greece, and the Middle East. The port performs loading, unloading, storing, forwarding and repairing activities. It is equipped with modern port and supporting equipment and can process all kinds of dry freights and non- dangerous liquid freights. A customs office is established for serving the clients.

"VINPROM - SVISHTOV" PLC The enterprise was founded in 1948. It produces red wines with high quality, mainly Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. The company deals mainly with export -about 95 % from the produce is exported to Western Europe and Japan.

"SOFBIOLIFE BG" PLC - SVISHTOV The enterprise produces milk products. There is a tendency towards development of high technology and pure biological production. Among these products are: yogurt and fresh milk "Zdravets", concentrated yogurt, cow cheese, butter and curds.

2.4 Agriculture in Svishtov municipality

Relief, suitable agricultural and climatic conditions, different type of soils suggests good conditions for development of agricultural sector in Svishtov municipality.

In the balance of the territory of the Republic Bulgaria the agricultural land equals to 51650,9 ha of which the utilized agricultural area (UAA) is 37 040.14 ha. UAA is 59, 2% of the total territory of the district and 71.71% of the total agricultural land.

A big part of the arable land is suitable for growing of cereals and therefore the number of holdings in 2003 growing cereals and dry pulses are the most – 2970 farms and the land occupied by cereals is 23331.4 ha.

Because of good climate conditions a big part of the holdings grow vineyards - 2812 which is is 20 % of all holdings. 15 % of farm holdings grow strawberries, fresh vegetables and flowers. A large part of the area is occupied with industrial crop – about 24 %.

Table 4 | Holdings and area by categories of land use in Svishtov municipality, 2003

Holdings Area Categories of land use (number) (ha) Cereals and dry pulses 2970 23331.4 Industrial crops 785 9093.8 Forage plants 1982 2358.1 Strawberries, fresh vegetables and flowers 2115 218.2 Other arable land 42 432.2 Kitchen garden 3093 1240

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 97/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Permanent grassland 84 655.7 Orchards and other permanent crops excl. vineyards 140 34.7 Vineyards 2812 792.1

Source: MAF, 2005, Agricultural census in Bulgaria 2003

According to the Agricultural census (2003) in Svishtov municipality operate 12724 holdings in livestock breeding (Table 5).

A big part of the rural population breeds livestock mainly in households for personal needs and not for the market. The number of sheep is decreasing in that period. While in 1996 they were 9791, in 2003 their number decreased to 7949.

Table 5 | Number of heads by species and categories of livestock in Svishtov municipality, 1996-2003

Categories of livestock Number of heads

1996 2001 2003 Bovine and Buffalo-all categories 5154 2826 5466 Dairy cows 2393 1723 2761 Sheep-all categories 9791 14024 7949 Goats-all categories - 6027 4059 Pigs – all categories 3391 3374 13554 Equidae -all categories - - 1853 Poultry - all categories 76376 106907 168705 Rabbits-all categories - 6076 Bee colonies - 3242 3555

Source: MAF, 1996, 2001, 2005, Agricultural census in Bulgaria 2003

A big part of the livestock holdings breed poultry - 2983 holdings. About 15 % of the holdings breed pigs.The bees are good alternative for income of local farmers. In Svishtov municipality is keeping 3555 bee hives and 255 farms have such kind activity.

Table 6 | Livestock breeding holdings 2003

Holdings (number) Categories of livestock

2003 Bovine and Buffalo-all categories 938 Dairy cows 804 Sheep-all categories 1672 Goats-all categories 1564

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 98/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Pigs – all categories 2148 Equidae -all categories 1780 Poultry - all categories 2983 Rabbits-all categories 585 Bee colonies 250

Source: MAF, 2005, Agricultural census in Bulgaria 2003

2.5 Financed projects in Svishtov municipality

Big opportunities for agricultural development are by receiving subsidies from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund –Direct payment (EAGF) and from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). In Table 7is shown the number of beneficiaries‟ and received subsidies from EAGF and from EAFRD. The total number of beneficiaries financed by EAGF and EAFRD in 2008 in Svishtov municipality was 367 of which 361 funded by EAGF- DP, 6 from EAGF and 315 from EAFRD. Some producers received subsidies from both funds EAGF, such as EAFRD. Average sum per beneficent received from EAGF-DP was 16036,51 lv. and from EAFRD was 5996 lv.

Table 7 | Number of beneficiaries‟ and financed projects from EAGF and EAFRD in Svishtov municipality

EAGF -DP EAGF EAFRD Number of beneficiaries 361 6 315 Average sum per 1 16036 1901 5 996 beneficiaries, BGN Total amount of all beneficients, BGN 5869363 696024 2194745

Source: DFZ

The agricultural development is very important for earning income for the residents. Farmers are very active in project activities. Projects of five agricultural producers are approved for financing under the Plan for rural development (Table 8).

Table 8 | Approved projects in 2010 in Svishtov municipality

Name Village/Town Amount Purpose OPKPK Zora Bulgarsko slivovo 38662 agricultural equipment OPPK Pobeda 93 Svishtov 57159,2 agricultural equipment and software Kemapul EOOD Svishtov Svishtov 110582,2 agricultural equipment PPK Vazrajdane Morava 65684,2 agricultural equipment ET Komita Borislav Dimitrov Svishtov 17354,48 agricultural equipment

Source: DFZ

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 99/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

The measure “Young farmers” is very popular. Farmers from 10 villages were financed under this measure (Table 9)

Table 9 | Measure 112 “Young farmers”, EAFRD

Young farmers(112) Village/Town Amount Crops/Animals Aleksandrovo 48892 tomatoes Aleksovo 44044 wheat, corn Balgarsko slivovo 48892 bees Dragomirovo 48892 sheep Dragomirovo 48892 potatoes, pumpkins Dragomirovo 48892 walnut-trees, bees Hadzi Dimitrovo 44004 corn; watermelon Kozletz 48892 plumtrees, cucumbers Morava 48892 corn, calves Morava 44004 peaches, cherries Morava 39114 potatoes, wheat Oresh 48892 wheat, corn, calves Svistov 48892 bees Tzarevetz 48892 strawberries Vardim 48892 walnut-trees, strawberries

Source: DFZ

According to the data above the most common cases the young farmer received subsidy for walnuts-trees, bees and vegetables. In the table below (Table 10) are show the projects which are approved, but the farmers still waiting the payments.

Table 10 | Approved subsidy – Young farmers -112 EAFRD

village crops/animals Aleksandrovo wheat, corn Delianovetz wheat, watermelon Dragomirovo walnuts-trees Dragomirovo cucumbers, tomatoes Dragomirovo walnuts- trees Kozlovetz watermelon, pumpkins Morava cherries, cucumbers, bees Morava wheat, corn Oresh bees Tzarevets potatoes, alfalfa Tzarevetz hazelnut Tzarevetz hazelnuts Vardim tomatoes, hazelnuts

Source: DFZ

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 100/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

The data shows that the most preferred by farmers activities are planting and growing hazelnuts, bees, wheat and corn.

2.6 Wood processing and forest in Svishtov municipality

Forest resources in Svishtov municipality are relatively limited. Forests cover 7,74 % of the municipality‟s territory (Figure 7).

Figure 7. | Share of forests

forest 8%

other kind of land 92%

Source: NSI, 2007, Regions, districts and municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria

In the municipality of Svishtov there is one State Forestry Company– ST ”Svishtov "named after the town of Svishtov. It is bordered by state border between Bulgaria and Romania to the north, by State Forestry “Biala” to the east, by State Forestry “Veliko Tarnovo” to south and by State Forestry "Nikopol" and State Forestry Pleven to the west. Territory of the State Forestry Svishtov include the lands in town of Svishtov and villages Aleksandrovo, Alekovo, Bulgarian Slivovo, Vardim, Gorna studena, Delianovtzi, Dragomirovo, Kozlovo, Moravia, Morava, Ovtcha mogila, Oresh, Sovata, Haji Dimitrovo, Tsarevets and Chervena.

Territory of the State Forestry “Svishtov” is situated in the middle part of the Danube plain, north of Pleven and Pavlikenska altitudes, in middle and northern part of Ludogorie. Forests and forest areas are scattered and form separate complexes. Forestry has an irregular shape with a length from north to south about 30 km and wide from east to west about 30 km. The relief of Forestry "Svishtov" is flat-hilly. Relief parts in the area of forestry can be grouped into two types: plateau part, which covers highly chopped Svishtov Pridunavski Plateau and lowland part, typical for the area west of the town of Svishtov and east of Vardim village near the Danube. Lowland part includes the islands Hajduk, Large and Small Vardim. The average altitude is about 150 m. The highest point is located in the "Bolar Bunar “- 239 meters above sea level, the lowest point is the bank of the Danube border with DF" Biala "- 18 meters above sea level .

Registered private foresters – physical persons in Svishtov municipality are 20, of which 18 in town Svishtov, 1 in Kozlovetz village and 1 in Vardim

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 101/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

village and registered private tradesman are 9, of which 8 in town Svishtov and 1 in village Tzarevetz. There are 2 any suppliers of wood reproductive material.

The most importance to the economy are Canadian poplar plantations, which are not only fast-growing forest type, but they have good technical and economic indicators. They grow near the Danube and near the islands willow and acacia forests. Less significance for the municipality development in the surveyed area are located artificially planted pine forests.

2.7 Tourism in Svishtov municipality

Svishtov - based on its natural and anthropogenic resources are developed cognitive tourism, wine tourism, fishing and water sports. Among the landmarks that can be seen in the municipality are:

 Roman city and fortress Nove. Located 4 km east of Svishtov, it is the best preserved Roman military camp, open to us at the moment  Medieval fortress Citadel and built in close proximity to the cultural center open.  City History Museum - one of the oldest in Bulgaria  Many churches, including St. Demetrius (1640), St. Peter and Paul (1644), "Holy Trinity" (1876)  Clock Tower, built in 1760  Memorial Park Monuments ", dedicated to the Russian-Turkish wars.

The project activities are very important for the development of the municipality. The main projects in last few years are shown in Table 11.

Table 11 | Projects in Svishtov municipality, 2006-2008

Projects in 2008 Projects in 2007 Projects in 2006 "Prevention of Repair Center "Elenka and "Conservation of the ecological institutionalization of children Cyril D. Avramov”, SVISHTOV balance in the region Chuka in with disabilities from Svishtov Svishtov”, Bulgaria municipality"- Project to National Program Deinstitutionalization through "From Social Assistance to "Establishment of the provision of community Employment" 2007 Municipal Social Welfare services for risk groups Complex - Svishtov " Project Extension and "Promotion of systems, tools ennoblement of Ekokat Persina Program neighborhood forum - and best practices for quality to program small grants to PP Project: "Building a children's management in the Persina (Project "Wetlands playground in square Rila “ administration and Restoration and Pollution arrangements arising from the Reduction”) “Green Corridor from Nove TO project: development, THE RIVER" implementation and Project Renovation, certification system for quality improvement of living “Project Transparency, and management in accordance conditions and providing direct feedback between with international standard

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 102/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

ISO 9001:2000” access for people with citizens and municipal disabilities in social administration " The Beautiful BULGARIA: educational vocational "Restoration of Church St. establishment (SUPZ) - Sheep Project ennoblement and the Elijah the prophet "in the town Mogila village, Municipality of introduction of separate waste of Svishtov Svishtov, carried to the Soc ial collection in the holiday village, Investment Fund at the MLSP in the "glass" in the town of "From Social Assistance to Svishtov Employment” of the Ministry of Improving the living Labor and Social Policy environment in the quarter Stoyan Nikov "in school" Project "Orange House" Tzvetan Radoslavov in Illumination "- works of talents Svishtov, carried out within the and psychological work with national campaign "For Clean arts Environment” of MEW

For the development of tourism is very important an organization – Tourism Advisory Board, that work on territory of the Svishtov municipality and is beneficent of most project connected with tourism. This organization is a beneficiary of a project to build a visitors' center in Nove in 2006 as a measure of the municipal development plan "Development of cultural tourism”. It is a organizer of the project in 2005 in a measure “Development of ecological tourism” and to realize eco-routes with tourist groups. This organization is a beneficent of a project to build a municipal yacht harbor in 2008 in measure “Development of river tourism” from municipal development plan.

2.8 Ecology and protected areas in Elena municipality

In recent years, environmental problems and reduce the municipality, mainly due to the closure of Romanian enterprises Zimnich city. There are still environmental problems associated with pollution of soil, air and water. Also last but not least waste of human activity. Geoecological issues are another problem for environmental management. The municipality is characterized by numerous landslides, demolitions, frustration, increase the level of groundwater and erosion processes. All this affects the development of municipal infrastructure.

Svishtov municipality, except ecological problems is known as a municipality with a large number of protected areas.In the territory of the municipality of Svishtov are 6 protected areas in and 5 protected zone. Protected areas are as follows:

Bojurluk, Gorna studena village Protected Area- Kaikusha, Oresh village Protected Area Meshova gora, Delianovci Protected Area- Persina, Oresh village Nature Park - Rusalka, Alekovo village, Hadjidimitrovo village Protected Area - Old Oak, Vardimvillage

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 103/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Protected zones according Directive 79/409/EEC - on the conservation of wild birds in the Birds Directive are: Complex Belenski Islands, the territory of Svishtov Renewed village Vardim - Island Village Vardim Hatcheries Hadjidimitrovo – Alekovo village, Hadjidimitrovo village Svishtov-Belenski Valley, Oresh village

Territory in Natura 2000 in Svishtov municipality are Vardim and Studena reka. The land and area are presented in Table 12

Table 12 | Territory in Natura 2000 in Svishtov municipality

Territory in Land Area, dca NATURA 2000 Vardim Vardim 1912,924 Studena reka Vardim 8108,260

Table13 shows the areas of protected territory in Svishtov municipality by type.

Table 13 | Areas of protected territory in Svishtov municipality by kind

Type of territory Area, dca Territory in "Protected areas 4640, Territory in NATURA 2000 107256,22 Territory according Directove 92/43/EEC - on the conservation 90790,74 of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora According Directive 79/409/EEC 61576,45 - on the conservation of wild birds

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 104/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

2.9 References:

1.Municipality plan for development of Svishtov Municipality 2007-2013

2. MAF, 2005, Agricultural census in Bulgaria 2003

3.NSI, 2002, 2003, 2004,2005, 2006, 2007, Regions, municipalities and municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria

4. Strategy for sustainable development of Svishtov municipality 2001,

5. www.dfz.bg

6. www.mzh.government.bg

7. www.svishtov.bg

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 105/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

3 APPENDIX 3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR DEVELOPING AND CONDUCTING THE PRE-MODELLING QUESTIONNAIRE

Work Programme for WP2,

November 2009 to mid-February, 2010

Marian Raley,UNEW, November 2009

3.1 Objectives of the work programme

• To develop a questionnaire which is appropriate for the case study area.

Then, by means of individual interviews in one case study area per country:

• To identify the broad outcomes which are desired from current EU rural development policy in the case study area

• To then identify policy measures by which these outcomes can be achieved in the case study area, including both current measures and new or modified measures.

3.2 Work programme description

3 phases: i. Desk study ii. Interviews: Group A stakeholders (institutional people) iii. Interviews: Group B stakeholders (local people) i. Desk study

1. Select one case study area (identified by cluster analysis).

2. Obtain policy documents (such as Operational Programmes) for the main European funding streams which are currently operational (Structural Funds, Social Fund, EAFRD etc) in the municipality. These will probably relate to a higher spatial level than the municipality, such as the region.

3. For each funding stream, identify a list of the policy objectives and their associated measures.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 106/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

4. Reduce these long lists of policy measures to smaller lists of „Policy Outcomes‟, which will be easier to use during interviews.

For each policy measure, identify the broad outcome that is expected. For example, if Measure A is „To reduce the intensity of grassland management‟ then the principal outcome might be „Biodiversity‟. If Measure B is „To provide grants to farmers for business diversification‟ the outcome might be „Maintain/improve farm income‟. Some measures may have more than one important expected outcome (e.g. maintain farm income and improve biodiversity).

By this means, we can produce:

• a relatively small list of Policy Outcomes.

• for each Policy Outcome, a list of one or more measures which are expected to help achieve the outcome, taken from current policy documents.

It is important to minimise both the number of Policy Options and the length of the lists of measures. Therefore I suggest: a. Take the 3 axes of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) and, using the policy documents, identify approximately 3 Policy Outcomes for each. This will give us 9 areas of questioning. If the measures can fit into less than 8 categories then this is good. (e.g. perhaps very few social outcomes are expected). Likewise if you need to have 10 or 11 then that is okay. b. Restrict the measures under each policy outcome to those which are likely to be delivered in the municipality e.g. ignore measures aimed at urban areas. c. Ignore minor measures (low spending) d. If two or more measures are fairly similar, then only include one of them. ii Field work: Group A Stakeholders

(Refer to the draft questionnaire)

5. Identify Group A stakeholders. As a guide, I suggest 3 per case study area. Group A stakeholders are the people who form the link between the municipality and the funds. There will be national differences, but they might include representatives of:

• the institution with responsibility for implementing local strategic plans (for example conceiving of projects and applying for EU funding);

• the institution(s) with responsibility for allocating funds;

• others organisations with an overview such as officials of the forestry service, or the farmers union.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 107/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

6. Question 1 asks the stakeholders (interviewees) to consider the case study municipality and then rate the importance of each Policy Outcome for the municipality. Use a 5 point scale.

7. Question 2 asks for contextual information to help interpret Q1 responses. This will be useful if the replies to Q1 are counter-intuitive – for example you expect the person to be concerned about biodiversity, but they say that they are not!

8. Now consider only the Policy Outcomes which were given a score of 3 or higher. Using the lists of measures under each Policy Outcome (produced during the desk study) ask interviewees to rate how well current EU policy measures can deliver these outcomes. This can include how well they are working now, or how well they are expected to work in future. This is the „capability‟ to deliver, and a 5 point scale should be used (Question 3). Answers may be based on direct experience or opinion.

9. If the performance of any of the current measures was rated as 1 or 2 (will make nil or small difference), then ask the interviewee why the measure(s) fail to deliver (Question 4) We may need to code these responses later (1= availability of funds; 2= inappropriate; 3= etc)

Note: This step is slightly different from the Zagreb presentation which used a close-choice question (i.e. a fixed list of options).

10. Then ask the interviewee to propose new measures, or suggest how existing measures may be adapted, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved (Question5).

11. Repeat this sequence of questions for the environment and social axes (Q6 to8; 9 to 11)

12. More information is given later in this document about outputs. However, broadly speaking, the output will be a list of desired Policy Outcomes with a list of current policy measures that are perceived as effective, and a list of „improved‟ or new policy measures. iii Field work: Group 2 Stakeholders

13. Repeat steps 5 to 9 with 3 people who live in the municipality and have a „local‟ view of what is desirable for the area. You must judge who will be suitable in your area, but I suggest including someone who represents local residents (in France the mayor (I think!); in UK a local government representative); also perhaps a land-manager (e.g. farmer), and another commercial interest such as a hotel owner.

Interview method

• I suggest telephone interview for the institutional people. Mail the questionnaire to them beforehand.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 108/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

• Face-to-face for the „local‟ people.

Outputs from the interviews:

1. A list of Policy Outcomes which are desirable for the case study area (priorities). (Derived from Q1). Contextual information to help explain these responses (Q1A).

2. For the high priority outcomes, a table showing the current measures available under EU funding streams, and the perceptions of interviewees as to whether these have the capacity to deliver the desired outcomes in the case study area. (Derived from Q2)

3. Where measures have been found inadequate, the reasons for expected failure (Derived from Q3)

4. Proposals for changes to existing measures, or proposals for new measures which are expected to achieve the Policy Outcome. (Derived from Q4)

5. A comparison of the perceptions of the 2 stakeholder groups: do institutional people have a different perception of the priorities and the likely effectiveness of policies from „local‟ people?

6. An output which will feed into the next round of stakeholder interactions and help determine agent behaviour in the case study areas. This will consist of a list of current policy measures which a) contribute to the delivery of the desired policy outcomes; and b) are thought to be effective; and also a list of „improved‟ and new policy measures suggested by interviewees.

This list will form the generic policy which will be considered in the context of various scenarios (status quo; rural development priority, environment priority etc.). I envisage that we will use this in our engagement with local actors when we ask how they would respond to these policy measures.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 109/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

3.3 Sylvie‟s Questionnaire

Sylvie Huet (Cemagref) would like us to ask some simple questions to find out what changes have occurred in the last 20 years (approximately) in the case study area. I have now finalised the questions with Sylvie.

I suggest asking these questions at the start of the interview, as simple warm- up questions.

Objective of questions:

To identify the main processes and events which have occurred in the last 20 years (approximately) and which have shaped the municipality as it is today.

Sylvie Q1. Thinking back over the last 20 years approximately, what are the main changes which have occurred in this municipality? Please specify the year (or time period) when each of these changes occurred.

(Note to WP2: 20 years is a guide to the relevant time period rather than an absolute requirement. Be flexible and include something from 25 years (say) that is relevant; or if there have been big changes more recently (e.g. end of war in Croatia) then perhaps only a shorter period is relevant.)

If the person has difficulty thinking, here are some topics you can use as prompts:

Employment, industrial structure Population size/composition Housing supply Major built developments Availability of services Environmental quality Etc etc

Sylvie Q2. Why do you think these changes have occurred? Have there been any particular events?

Prompts:

Changes in nearby city/town or in the region Infrastructure (investment, disinvestment) „Natural‟ trends Policy- explain Technological change Etc etc

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 110/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

3.4 Generic questionnaire (draft)

This is a fictional example. Please adapt this template to include your own policy outcomes and policy measures.

Q1. European funding in this region is trying to achieve various outcomes. I have produced a summary of those outcomes. Please consider the outcomes, and say how important each is for Case Study Area X.

Desired policy outcome How important?

(obtained from Step 4) (score 1 to 5) Economy a. Maintain/improve farm incomes 4 b. Increase employment rate 3 c. Expand tourism infrastructure 2 Environment d. Biodiversity 3 e. Renewable energy 1 f. Restoration 4 Social g. Access to services 3 h. Poverty reduction 1

1= of no importance 4= definitely important

2= slightly important 5= very important

3= quite important

Q2a. Please explain briefly why you think a,b, d, f and g are important for Case Study Area X.

Q2b. And why are c, e and h unimportant for Case Study Area X.?

Prompt (if necessary): ask about important characteristics of the area; the current development path; what are important goals for the area.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 111/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

ECONOMY

Q3. You have indicated that for Case Study Area X, the following economic outcomes are important: increased employment rate, and improved farm incomes. I’d like to know whether the main policy measures which are currently available from the EU are capable of achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality.

Please indicate the capability of the policy measures to deliver these outcomes.

(Note: these are the policy measures found in the policy documents in Step 4.) outcome = improving farm Capability (score 1 to 5) income Modernisation 1 Support for diversification 3 Co-operative marketing schemes 1

outcome = increasing Capability (score 1 to 5) employment rate Training for 16 to 19 year olds 3 Coaching to improve employability 1 Assistance to help disabled people get 3 into work Local transport scheme 5

1= I expect the measure to make no difference

2= I expect the measure to make a small difference

3= I expect the measure to make a moderate difference over the whole municipality, OR a large difference over parts of the municipality

4= I expect the measure to make quite a lot of difference

5= I expect the measure to make a lot of difference

ECONOMY (continued)

Q4. You have indicated that some of these measures will not deliver the expected outcome. Please tell me why they will fail to deliver.

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 112/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Theme = improving farm income

Measure Why failing? Modernisation Level of capital investment required from farmer is too high. Only big farms can afford it. Co-operative marketing No existing culture of co-operation schemes

ECONOMY (continued)

Q5. So what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

Theme = improving farm income

Measure Alternative/improvement Modernisation Change the minimum project size so small farms can apply Co-operative marketing Inappropriate measure. Can‟t think how to schemes. make it work in this area Proposed new measure! Help to reduce supply chain length. More on- farm processing and sales

ENVIRONMENT

Q6. You have indicated that for Case Study Area X, the following environmental outcomes are important: biodiversity and restoration. I’d like to know whether the main policy measures which are currently available from the EU are capable of achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality. outcome = biodiversity Capability (score 1 to 5) Agri-environment schemes 1 Hedgerow planting grants 3 etc 4

outcome = restoration Capability (score 1 to 5) Grants to plant trees 3 Incentives for brownfield 3 development etc 1

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 113/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

ENVIRONMENT (continued)

Q7. You have indicated that some of these measures will not deliver the expected outcome. Please tell me why they will fail to deliver.

Outcome = biodiversity Measure Why failing? Agri-environment schemes Can‟t increase the area in ag-env schemes because most farmers are already in a scheme.

ENVIRONMENT (continued)

Q8. So what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

Outcome = biodiversity Measure Alternative/improvement Agri-environment schemes Increase the level of environmental management that is required so greater public benefits are produced per hectare

SOCIAL

Q9. You have indicated that for Case Study Area X, the following social outcomes are important: access to services. I’d like to know whether the main policy measures which are currently available from the EU are capable of achieving these policy outcomes in this municipality. outcome = access to services Capability (score 1 to 5) Local transport schemes 3 Business advice for shops 1 etc 4

SOCIAL (continued)

Q10. You have indicated that some of these measures will not deliver the expected outcome. Please tell me why they will fail to deliver.

Outcome = access to services Measure Why failing?

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 114/115 Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D2.2 | 28/01/11

Business advice for shops There are no shops in the village

SOCIAL (continued)

Q11. So what can be done to improve the outcome? Is it a question of adapting the existing measures to make them work better, or of employing some different measures?

Outcome = access to services Measure Alternative/improvement Business advice for shops Provision of suitable buildings

Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: methodologies and results. Volume 2, appendices 115/115