The territorial dimension of the Common Agricultural and Rural Development policy (CAP) and its relation to cohesion objectives

Dax, Thomas and Hovorka, Gerhard (2007): The territorial dimension of the Common Agricultural and Rural Development policy (CAP) and its relation to cohesion objectives. Published in: No. Less Favoured Areas for Agriculture and Rural Areas (8 November 2007): pp. 20-32.

Abstract

An increasing focus on rural development issues has characterised the discussion of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. This reflects new societal demands for tasks and services provided by agriculture particularly in mountain and less-favoured areas (LFA). The regional distribution of CAP and Rural Development support underpins the argument that the territorial dimension implied by CAP reforms has not yet been taken sufficiently into account. The regional variation in the distribution of the LFA scheme between member states testifies this imbalance and underscores country specific priorities. LFAs will have to prove that they are more than a compensation measure, but already providing a range of multifunctional tasks.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: territorial impact, rural development, less-favoured areas, LFA scheme, CAP reform
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General > Q01 - Sustainable Development; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R5 - Regional Government Analysis

References

1. Arkleton Institute for Rural Development Research. The Territorial Impact of CAP and Rural Development Policy, Final Report. ESPON Project 2.1.3. Aberdeen 2005. www.espon.eu 2. Baldock D, Beaufoy G, Brouwer F, Godeschalk F. Farming at the Margins, Abandonment or redeployment of agricultural land in Europe. IEEP and LEI-DLO: London and The Hague 1996. 3. Bazin, G. Principes et resultats de la politique agricole de la montagne en France, Séance de l’Academie d’Agriculture, Paris 2003. 4. Council of the European Union. Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Official Journal of the European Union L277. 21.10.2005. 5. Crabtree, R. et al. Review of Area-based Less-Favoured Area Payments Across EU Member States, Report for the Land Use Policy Group of the GB statutory conservation, countryside and environment agencies, CJC Consulting, Oxford 2003. 6. Dax T. and Hellegers P. Policies for Less-Favoured Areas, in: Brouwer F, Lowe P.(eds.): CAP Regimes and the European Countryside, Prospects for Integration between Agricultural, Regional and Environmental Policies. CAB International, Wallingford 2000, pp.179-197. 7. Dax, T. The Redefinition of Europe’s Less Favoured Areas. 3rd Annual Conference ‘Rural Development in Europe’ – Funding European Rural Development in 2007-2013, 15-16 November, London 2005, 15pp. http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/711.html 8. Dax, T. The Territorial Dimension of CAP and Spatial Cohesion, in: EuroChoices, Volume 5, No.2, Oxford 2006, pp.12-18. 9. Dax, T. and Hovorka, G. Integrated rural development in mountain areas, in: Brouwer, F. (ed.), Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment, Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (USA) 2004, pp.124-143. 10. Dax, T. and Machold, I. Benachteiligte Gebiete in den Neuen Mitgliedsstaaten, Integration in das EU-Förderinstrumentarium, Facts&Features 35, Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, Wien 2006. http://www.bergbauern.net/2005/content/view/421/126/ 11. European Commission (EC). European Spatial Development Perspective. Potsdam 1999. 12. European Commission (EC). Rural Development in the European Union. Statistical and economic information. Report 2006. Brussels. 13. Shucksmith, M., Thomson, K.J., and Roberts, D. CAP and the Regions: The Territorial Impact of Common Agricultural Policy, CABI Publishing, Wallingford (UK) 2005.