EVALUATION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT MEASURES The EU Rural Development Regulation (RDR) set out 26 measures that attempt to tackle challenges facing rural areas. The measures offer support for rural development, and can be categorised into three axis: I Restructuring/Competitiveness II Environment/Land management III Rural Economy/Rural Communities These axis are then broken down into smaller categories and evaluated. Overall, the approach was deemed appropriate and the results positive. However, the extent to which each measure was successful varied depending on the area of interest and EU country in question.

I Investments in agricultural holdings AIMS: reduce production costs; improve production; increase quality; preserve the natural environment; implement hygiene and animal welfare standards; and promote diversification of farming activities. Some regions/Member states show increases in income and better use of factors of production as a result of this measure. Therefore labour productivity and farm profitability increased. Finland and Greece show a re-orientation of farming activities – diversification. But this in not a universal finding. This diversification has helped to create more jobs and maintain jobs. The extent of this is highly variable by region. For many regions/Member states investments have brought about more environmentally friendly farming. Improvements in working conditions and animal welfare have been seen, but are mainly due to indirect effects of the investment scheme. The deadweight losses (ie where support is given to farmers who would have invested anyway) is difficult to measure. However, it is fair to assume that some deadweight loss was incurred. It must be remembered that investments often take time to produce a visible impact and are more effective in the longer-run. Overall the results produced a positive impact of this measure.

Investments in processing and marketing AIMS: Guide production to meet market trends; improve marketing channels; improve preparation and presentation of products to encourage better use of by-products and reduce waste; apply new technology favouring innovative investments; improve and monitor health conditions; and protect the environment. Supported investments, especially technological investments, have been seen to enhance competitiveness of agricultural products. Some improvement in marketing ability has been seen. Positive improvements on health and welfare in the workplace have been seen in many regions/Member States as direct effects of the investment scheme. However, is uncertain whether improvements go beyond minimum standards. Improvements on the environment are as a result of the requirement to meet minimum standards. Once again, the extent of the deadweight loss is unclear. As before, investments take longer to reveal their impacts. The effects at this stage may therefore be assumed to underestimate the full impact of investment.

Support for young farmers and Early Retirement AIMS: to assist farm transfer and thus reduce the average age of those in the sector. Support covers up to one third (in most cases half) of setting up costs. This has contributed to earlier transfer of farms, albeit marginally. There is a large deadweight loss as those most keen to join retirement scheme are those who were soon going to pass on their farm anyway. Early retirement support does not seem to have significantly changed farm structures. Even at a mid-term stage it is possible to see some positive effects of the support. However, it is difficult to assess the extent to which the support provided influences the decisions of those involved. Training In some regions/Member states training programmes have been tailored to meet specific needs and work well with other measures in the RDR programme. The skills acquired through training have been seen to help the trainees and agriculture in some regions/Member states with approximately three-quarters of trainees gaining qualifications or experience that have brought about job improvements. While training is important, it should not be confined to farm related skills.

II Less favoured area scheme AIMS: Preserve landscape and environmental qualities of rural areas via the continuation of farming. The areas benefitting have expanded considerably, so it is hard to measure the benefits of such a broad scheme. Agri-environment measures Improvements in the environment are difficult to assess, though in general evaluations are positive. Forestry AIMS: Sustain forest management; maintain and improve forest resources; and extend woodland area. The very long term nature of this measure means impacts at this stage are marginal. In some areas improvements have been seen, but the results are variable.

III Adaption and development of rural areas (Article 33) Targeted at agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. Implementation of many policies in this measure was delayed, therefore so were their impacts. Tourism projects have helped improve incomes in some regions/Member states. Better employment maintenance. Moderate positive environmental outcomes. In southern regions/Member states interventions focussed on fundamental issues such as water resource management and environmental awareness; In Northern regions/Member states focus was on rural advice, conservation and supporting local community projects. Some small scale positive impacts on living conditions. Impacts of some of the measures are restricted due to the small scale of projects. LEADER Has a more territorial approach rather than a sectoral one. Overall gave positive results though faults remain in limited funding and it’s cohesion with mainstream rural development policies.

General Evaluations Much administration meant added burdens and costs; causing delays and inefficiencies in some cases. The bureaucracy created a barrier to entry. Decentralisation of decision making to a local level was a proposed solution. Better implementation of improvement schemes would therefore give enhanced results. Evaluation of the above schemes could be improved upon by evaluating all rural development measures together, regardless of their funding source. Inadequate budgets for some measures have meant its impact was restricted. The evaluation system provides little information on what was financed and what was actually achieved. The success of each improvement measure depends, in part, to the cooperation of the region/member state. All but a couple of these measures focus on agricultural concerns and the characteristics of the geographical area are not always considered sufficiently. This increases the likelihood of the RDR failing to achieve its second goal – ‘contributing to the economic and social cohesion of rural areas.’ Despite these shortcomings, in general, the 26 measures are believed to have met the priorities of the area in question and are working well.