Towards Regional Differentiation of Rural Development Policy in the EU
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Towards regional differentiation of rural development policy in the EU Ida J. Terluin Gabe S. Venema Project code 62757 January 2003 Report 6.03.01 Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Hague The Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) is active in a wide array of research which can be classified into various domains. This report reflects research within the fol- lowing domain: ¨ Statutory and service tasks ¨ Business development and competitive position ¨ Natural resources and the environment ¨ Land and economics ¨ Chains þ Policy ¨ Institutions, people and perceptions ¨ Models and data II Towards regional differentiation of rural development policy in the EU Terluin, Ida J. and Gabe S. Venema, The Hague, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), 2003 Report 6.03.01; ISBN 90-5242-788-7; Price € 44,- (including 6% VAT) 234 p., fig., tab. In this study a comparative analysis of the Rural Development Plans (RDPs) in four inter- mediate rural regions (Northern Netherlands, Lower Saxony, Wales and Emilia Romagna) and four most urban regions (Southern Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia, Flanders and Lombardia) is made. Such plans are designed in the scope of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In particular, the focus was on the question whether the menu approach of the second pillar enables EU member states and regions to design Rural Development Plans with a tailor-made set of measures which address their specific rural development needs. The findings of this study suggest that the current menu of rural development meas- ures is sufficient to suit the wide range of socio-economic, ecological and physical circumstances in the EU regions. The analysis also revealed that there is some overlap be- tween the three rural development priorities of the second pillar. Therefore, an outline of future rural development priorities and measures in the EU is designed, in which it is at- tempted to avoid overlap between the various rural development priorities and in which each measure contributes to the achievement of one development priority only. In addition, it is proposed that regions would select only those measures in their Rural Development Plan which really address the rural development needs in their region, even if this results in a Rural Development Plan with only one or two rural development measures. Such an ap- proach of selecting rural development measures according to regional needs will result in a large variation in rural development measures implemented and may be considered re- gional differentiation of EU rural development policy. Orders: Phone: 31.70.3358330 Fax: 31.70.3615624 E-mail: [email protected] Information: Phone: 31.70.3358330 Fax: 31.70.3615624 E-mail: [email protected] © LEI, 2003 Reproduction of contents, either whole or in part: þ permitted with due reference to the source ¨ not permitted The General Conditions of the Agricultural Research Department apply to all our research commissions. These are registered with the Central Gelderland Chamber of Commerce in Arnhem. III IV Contents Page Preface 9 Summary 11 Samenvatting 17 Part I: Setting the scope of the study 1. Introduction 23 2. Analysis of socio-economic indicators in EU regions 26 2.1 Introduction 26 2.2 Population 26 2.3 Population growth 27 2.4 Employment growth 28 2.5 Unemployment rates 30 2.6 GDP per inhabitant and GVA per agricultural worker 30 2.7 Share of agriculture in regional employment 33 2.8 Farm size in hectares and ESU 33 2.9 Less favoured areas 35 2.10 Part-time and pluriactive farmers 35 2.11 Intermediate rural regions with more or less similar 36 socio-economic characteristics as the Northern Netherlands 2.12 Most urban regions with more or less similar socio-economic 38 characteristics as the Eastern, Southern and Western Netherlands Part II: Case studies in intermediate rural regions 3. Socio-economic indicators in selected intermediate 43 rural case study regions 3.1 Introduction 43 3.2 Selection of case study regions 43 3.3 Comparative analysis of socio-economic indicators 44 in the four case study regions 3.4 Protocol for conducting case studies 47 4. Case study Northern Netherlands 50 5 Page 4.1 Description of the case study region 50 4.2 Rural development policy and related measures 55 4.2.1 Rural development plan 55 4.2.2 Other measures 58 4.3 Assessment 62 4.4 Concluding remarks 65 5. Case study Lower Saxony 66 5.1 Description of the case study region 66 5.2 Rural development policy and related measures 71 5.2.1 Rural development plan 71 5.2.2 Other rural development measures 77 5.3 Assessment 79 5.4 Concluding remarks 81 6. Case study Wales 82 6.1 Description of the case study region 82 6.2 Rural development policy and related measures 86 6.2.1 Rural development plan 86 6.2.2 Other rural development policy measures 90 6.3 Assessment 93 6.4 Concluding remarks 96 7. Case study Emilia Romagna 97 7.1 Description of the case study region 97 7.2 Rural development policy and related measures 101 7.2.1 Rural development plan 101 7.2.2 Other rural development policy measures 105 7.3 Assessment 106 7.4 Concluding remarks 108 8. Comparative analysis of the four case studies in the intermediate 109 rural regions 8.1 Introduction 109 8.2 Socio-economic characteristics of the four regions 109 8.3 The rural development plans in the four regions 114 8.4 Concluding remarks 122 Part III: Case studies in most urban regions 9. Socio-economic indicators in selected most urban case 124 study regions 9.1 Introduction 124 6 Page 9.2 Selection of case study regions 124 9.3 Comparative analysis of socio-economic indicators in the four 124 case study regions 10. Case study Southern Netherlands 128 10.1 Description of the case study region 128 10.2 Rural development policy and related measures 133 10.2.1 Rural development plan 133 10.2.2 Other rural development measures 134 10.3 Assessment 137 10.4 Concluding remarks 140 11. Case study North Rhine-Westphalia 142 11.1 Description of the case study region 142 11.2 Rural development policy and related measures 147 11.2.1 Rural development plan 147 11.2.2 Other rural development policy measures 150 11.3 Assessment 153 11.4 Concluding remarks 155 12. Case study Flanders 157 12.1 Description of the case study region 157 12.2 Rural development policy and related measures 162 12.2.1 Rural development plan 162 12.2.2 Other rural development measures 167 12.3 Assessment 169 12.4 Concluding remarks 171 13. Case study Lombardia 172 13.1 Description of the case study region 172 13.2 Rural development policy and related measures 177 13.2.1 Rural development plan 177 13.2.2 Other rural development measures 184 13.3 Assessment 185 13.4 Concluding remarks 187 14. Comparative analysis of the four case studies in the most 188 urban regions 14.1 Introduction 188 14.2 Socio-economic characteristics in the four regions 188 14.3 The rural development plans in the four regions 193 14.4 Concluding remarks 201 7 Page Part IV: Policy recommendations 15. Recommendations for a regional differentiation of rural 203 development policy in the EU 15.1 Introduction 203 15.2 Reconsidering the development priorities of the 204 second pillar 15.3 Assessment of the rural development priorities in the 209 case study regions 15.4 Use of rural development measures in the case study regions 212 15.5 Recommendations for a future rural development 216 policy in the EU 15.6 The floor is open for discussion 218 References 221 Annex 1 Territorial scheme in this project 229 Annex 2 Tables 231 8 Preface Working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries in the north- ern parts of the Netherlands, one may wonder whether such regions would benefit from a more differentiated mode of Rural Development Plan. The Northern Netherlands definitely are different from the highly urbanized central and western parts of the Netherlands. They harbour quite a significant proportion of the nation's arable agriculture as well as animal husbandry, mostly of a land bound type. The population density is comparatively low and at least one quarter of the population here still lives in villages of around 2,500 inhabitants. These rural areas are rich in terms of landscape and nature values and as a matter of course attract visitors from elsewhere for their recreation. In being one of the last of such areas of outstanding scenic and historical beauty and relatively semi-natural landscapes characterized by a comparatively high biodiversity, calm and quiet, stocks of clean drinking water, the more urbanized parts of the Netherlands are laying all kinds of claims on the Northern Netherlands. In terms of accessibility for leisure and tourism, but also in terms of designating quite a bit of its territory to be protected for one or another reason e.g. Birds and Habitat Directives, national parks, nature reserves, ar- eas of outstanding scenic beauty, monuments and environmental protection areas. In such areas, farmers are expected to contribute to the production and sound management of these environmental public goods. They are expected to perform well in this respect over and above the average 'agricultural good practice'. Starting from the idea that this may call for an appropriate package of rural develop- ment policy measures we decided to study a number of rural areas across Europe, some of which are in a rather similar 'intermediate' sort of situation like the Northern Netherlands, and others located in a rather more 'urban' sphere of influence.