Search

The aim of the paper is to assess the impact of the CAP reform on the resources allocation by Member State and evaluate whether the new distribution actually fits better the agricultural policy objectives and equity criteria. The modification of the allocation systems is a particularly sensitive issue and it has been raising great attention during the negotiations. At a first glance, it seem that the European Commission, addressing the CAP post 2013, had to choose among different scenarios and it bent (at least partially) the theoretical framework of the proposal to the pragmatic matter of availability and robustness of data related to the criteria selected for the reallocations of financial resources. The paper analyses the effects on the national envelopes of the “convergence” criteria for direct payments (first pillar) combined with the scenarios (currently) most supported by the Commission for the distribution of the rural development resources (second pillar).

The Commission launched an ambitious process of modification of the basis for the budget allocation (hereafter referred to as the “allocation system”), proposing a menu of objective criteria for the distribution of resources in the next programming period. Such a process raised a series of questions on which a political agreement is needed, i.e. what criteria – linked to political objectives and priorities – should be adopted to define the distribution; how to turn them into indicators; how concretely to combine them; if appropriate, how to take into consideration the historical allocation. The modification of the allocation system has represented an important factor in the reform process of the CAP, both for the impact it would have among Member States and for its effects on national contexts. The achievement of political objectives and priorities depends on it. However, the political deal on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, reached by the 27 Member States during the European Council (8th February 2013), seems to have settled on an allocation system endorsing the current distribution of resources, which largely reflects the past spending framework, and disregarding the use of objective criteria proposed by the Commission. The paper, aims to provide a critical analysis on the approaches linked to formula driven distribution, allocation criteria and indicators. After introducing the contents of the agreement on the MFF and citing the contributions existing in literature and examples of political, implementation, the paper investigates the use of objective criteria and indicators focusing in particular on those proposed by the European Commission for the reform post-2013, highlighting those weaknesses which still exist in these approaches, which, in turn, lead to a marginal use of objective criteria.

Aestimum, Atti del XXXVII Incontro di Studio (Ferrara)

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

The Commission launched an ambitious process of modification of the basis for the budget allocation (hereafter referred to as the “allocation system†), proposing a menu of objective criteria for the distribution of resources in the next programming period. Such a process raised a series of questions on which a political agreement is needed, i.e. what criteria – linked to political objectives and priorities – should be adopted to define the distribution; how to turn them into indicators; how concretely to combine them; if appropriate, how to take into consideration the historical allocation. The modification of the allocation system has represented an important factor in the reform process of the CAP, both for the impact it would have among Member States and for its effects on national contexts. The achievement of political objectives and priorities depends on it. However, the political deal on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, reached by the 27 Member States during the European Council (8th February 2013), seems to have settled on an allocation system endorsing the current distribution of resources, which largely reflects the past spending framework, and disregarding the use of objective criteria proposed by the Commission. The paper, aims to provide a critical analysis on the approaches linked to formula driven distribution, allocation criteria and indicators. After introducing the contents of the agreement on the MFF and citing the contributions existing in literature and examples of political, implementation, the paper investigates the use of objective criteria and indicators focusing in particular on those proposed by the European Commission for the reform post-2013, highlighting those weaknesses which still exist in these approaches, which, in turn, lead to a marginal use of objective criteria.

The process to define the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is underway. The implementation model governing the process requires each EU Member State to design a National Strategic Plan to deliver operational actions exploiting the synergies under the two pillars of the policy. Each Plan must be built from an evidence-based needs assessment that undergoes rigorous prioritisation and planning to create comprehensive, integrated, and achievable interventions. In Italy, the success of this planning process requires all interested stakeholders to generate options for the regional authorities who plan, manage, and legislate agricultural activities. This research proposes a decision-making technique, based on the cumulative voting approach, that can be used effectively when multiple persons from different backgrounds and perspectives are engaged in problem-solving and needs prioritisation. The results indicate that the model can be applied both theoretically and practically to prioritise Strategic Plan needs that involve national and regional authorities. Validation of the model allows it to be used in the next consultative processes and for expansion to socioeconomic stakeholders.