Final Report: General Assessment of Alternative Policy Scenarios

Transcription

Foresight analysis for world agricultural markets (2020) and
Europe
PRIORITY AREA 1: Sustainable management of Europe’s natural resources:
1.1. Modernisation and sustainability of agriculture and forestry, including their multifunctional
role, in order to ensure the sustainable development and promotion of rural areas
Contract no.: 44280-AG2020, STREP, January 2007 – December 2009
D5.6: Final Report: General Assessment of
Alternative Policy Scenarios
Giaoutzi M. and A. Stratigea - NTUA
March 2010
Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable:
National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)
Partners involved:
NTUA
i
Summary for a broader readership:
The focus of the AG2020 is on the:
- Development of a foresight methodology enabling the study of the various types
of agricultural systems and their specific challenges and constraints in the EU
countries;
- Identification and analysis of trends and influential factors (drivers of change) by
use of participatory approaches that may influence the possible future
developments of EU agriculture in the various countries. This includes
combination of both quantitative and qualitative data by way of scenario methods
using indicators and stakeholder validation;
- Development of strategic policy scenarios (backasting) based on the identified
major drivers of change for the impact assessment of the probable and desirable
future directions of agriculture, including multifunctionality of rural areas and
emergence of new agricultural exporting regions for the effective enforcement of
the proposed alternative sets of policies;
- Development of indicators of EU sustainability targets in order to evaluate the
different policies on a regular basis and to perform sensitivity analysis to policy
scenarios on a regional basis (AG2020, Annex I).
The present Final Report (D5.6) on the “General Assessment of Alternative Policy
Scenarios” aims at presenting the process - backasting framework - and the results backasting policy scenarios – of the AG2020 Project that may support the process of
developing appropriate policy instruments and paths for the EU agriculture in 2020.
More precisely, Section 1 presents a broad introduction; Section 2 elaborates on the
AG2020 backasting methodological approach; Section 3 on the process of identifying
the AG2020 policy targets; Section 4 presents the Images of the Future in AG2020,
but also the gap between the baseline projections and target achievements for each
image; while Section 5 presents the process of selecting policy measures and
structuring policy packages and paths for reaching the AG2020 targets in the Images
of the Future. Finally Section 6 presents the validation approach used in the process of
building the elements of the AG2020 backasting approach (external/internal elements,
strategic elements, Images of the Future, policy measures, policy packages and paths);
while in Section 7 are shortly presented the four AG2020 case studies employed for
further elaborating on the policy framework at the regional level; and in Section 8
some comprehensive conclusions are drawn.
Target group:
As potential target groups of the D5.6 can be considered:
- Groups interested in foresight methodologies (specialists, researchers, futurists,
etc.). Such groups can get more insights into the methodological approach used
for building backasting policy scenarios in AG2020;
- Agricultural specialists who will benefit from the elaboration on the key elements
driving agricultural developments at the EU level;
- Stakeholders in the agricultural sector keeping track with decision making
processes in the sector;
- Policy making organizations at the EU, national and local levels;
ii
- Planning organizations at the EU, national and local levels;
etc.
Objectives:
The present AG2020 Final Report (D5.6) on the “General Assessment of Alternative
Policy Scenarios” aims at presenting both the process - backasting framework - and
the results - backasting policy scenarios in AG2020. These aim at supporting the
decision making process of developing appropriate policy instruments and paths for
the EU agriculture in 2020. The present report recapitulates, in a concise way, the
work presented in D5.3 on the “Definition of Policy Scenarios”, D5.4 on the
“Stakeholders Validation of Policy Scenarios” and D5.5. on the “Assessment of
Alternative Policy Scenarios on a Global Level”.
Publications:
- Stratigea, A., Grammatikogiannis, E. & Giaoutzi, M. (2010). How to Approach
Narratives in Foresight Studies: Qualitative data analysis. International Journal of
Sustainable Development (forthcoming).
- Giaoutzi, M., Stratigea, A., van Leeuwen, E. & Nijkamp, P. (2010). Foresight in
Agriculture: Scenario analysis in AG2020. International Journal of Sustainable
Development (forthcoming).
- Giaoutzi, M., Stratigea, A., van Leeuwen, E. & Nijkamp, P. (2010). Visioning in
Backasting in Agriculture: The AG2020 project. International Journal of
Sustainable Development (forthcoming).
- Van Leeuwen, E., Giaoutzi, M. & Stratigea, A. (2010). The Role of Trend Tracing
in Foresight: a Microsimulation Experiment. International Journal of Sustainable
Development (forthcoming).
- Stratigea, A. & Giaoutzi, M. (2010), Regional Foresight Analysis in Agriculture:
The case of AG2020. Papers in Regional Science (forthcoming).
- Stratigea, A. & Giaoutzi, M. (2010). Participatory Regional Foresight Analysis in
Agriculture: the case of Kastelli-Crete, Regional Studies (forthcoming).
- Stratigea, A. (2010). ICTs and rural development: a “Log-in” policy perspective.
NETCOM (forthcoming).
Results
-
The backasting policy scenario building framework, in AG2020.
Methodological framework for the identification/selection of policy targets.
The AG2020 Images of the Future.
Methodological framework for the selection and assessment of policy measures.
Pool of policy measures in AG2020.
Methodological framework for the construction of policy packages and paths.
The policy packages and paths in AG2020
Backasting policy scenarios in the EU agriculture for 2020.
A Participatory Validation Methodology.
Application of the validation methodology in AG2020.
AG2020 Case Studies (short presentation, methodological approach and results
iii
of case studies).
Deliverable number: D.5.6 (Final Report)
Due date of deliverable: December 2009
Actual submission date: December 2010
Revision (draft, 1,2 …): Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (20022006)
Dissemination level
PU
Public
X

PP
Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services

RE
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission
Services)

CO
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission
Services)
iv
Title:
Final Report: General Assessment of Alternative
Policy Scenarios
Authors
Giaoutzi M. and A. Stratigea – NTUA
Organization: National Technical University of Athens – NTUA
v
List of contents:
The structure of the Final Report D5.6 has as follows:
0.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................1
0.1. Objectives and Targets in AG2020..............................................................1
0.2. The AG2020 Images of the Future ..............................................................2
0.3. Selection of Policy Measures.......................................................................3
0.4. Policy Packages ...........................................................................................5
0.5. Policy Paths..................................................................................................7
1.
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................11
2.
THE BUILDING OF POLICY SCENARIOS IN AG2020 ............................13
2.1. Introduction................................................................................................13
2.2. The Backasting Approach in AG2020.......................................................15
2.3. Delimitation of the EU Agricultural Sector in AG2020 ............................16
3.
DEFINING OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS IN AG2020 .............................18
3.1. Defining Objectives in a Foresight Context...............................................18
3.2. The Objectives in AG2020 ........................................................................19
3.3. Setting Policy Targets in a Backasting Framework...................................21
3.4. Selection of Policy Targets in AG2020 .....................................................24
3.4.1. First target – GHG Emissions (in CO2 equivalent)...............................25
3.4.2. Second target - Biodiversity ..................................................................29
3.4.3. Third target – Competitiveness / Efficiency..........................................31
3.4.4. Fourth target - Multifunctionality..........................................................33
3.4.5. Fifth target - Food traceability...............................................................34
3.4.6. Sixth target – Bio-based economy.........................................................37
4.
IMAGES OF THE FUTURE IN AG2020 .......................................................38
4.1. Building Blocks of the AG2020 Images of the Future ..............................38
4.2. Contextual Elements ..................................................................................39
4.3. Strategic Elements .....................................................................................41
4.3.1. Technology ............................................................................................41
4.3.2. Decoupling ............................................................................................42
4.4. Images of the Future in AG2020 ...............................................................44
4.5. Comparison of the Images of the Future....................................................51
4.5.1. First step – Comparison among images ................................................51
4.5.2. Second step – Target achievement ........................................................54
4.6. Identification of the Gap between Baseline Scenario and the Images.......58
4.6.1. The baseline scenario ............................................................................58
4.6.2. Comparison between Image I to the baseline scenario .........................59
4.6.3. Comparison of Image II to the baseline scenario ..................................60
4.6.4. Comparison of Image III to the baseline scenario.................................61
4.7. Conclusions................................................................................................62
5.
POLICY MEASURES, PACKAGES AND PATHS.......................................63
5.1. Critical Issues in AG2020..........................................................................64
vi
5.2. Key Elements in AG2020 ..........................................................................65
5.3. The Role of Different Policy Measures .....................................................66
5.4. Policy Measures .........................................................................................67
5.5. Policy Packages .........................................................................................68
5.5.1. Policy package 1: Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies.......69
5.5.2. Policy package 2: Green entrepreneurship ............................................72
5.5.3. Policy package 3: Environmental and resource stewardship ................74
5.5.4. Policy package 4: reduce, reuse, recycle ...............................................76
5.5.5. Policy package 5: Ecological tax reform...............................................78
5.5.6. Policy package 6: Log-in the information society.................................79
5.5.7. Policy package 7: Culture of “regionality” ...........................................80
5.5.8. Policy package 8: Social responsibility.................................................82
5.5.9. Policy package 9: Administrative innovations – e-Government...........84
5.5.10.Policy package 10: R&D – Bio-innovations.........................................85
5.5.11.Policy package 11: Public participation................................................86
5.5.12.Policy package 12: Knowledge-intensive farm management...............88
5.5.13.Policy package 13: Development of human resources .........................91
5.5.14.Policy package 14: Accessibility of rural regions to ICTs and transport
infrastructure ...........................................................................................92
5.5.15. Policy package 15: Spatial planning ................................................93
5.6. Policy Paths in AG2020.............................................................................94
5.7. Policy Path 1 (Image I) ..............................................................................96
5.7.1. The context ............................................................................................96
5.7.2. Main policy packages / areas of change ................................................97
5.7.3. Priorities in policy orientations .............................................................97
5.7.4. Linkages and Synergies.......................................................................100
5.7.5. Indicative list of policy measures serving Path I.................................101
5.8. Policy Path 2 (Image II)...........................................................................103
5.8.1. The context ..........................................................................................103
5.8.2. Main policy packages / areas of change ..............................................103
5.8.3. Priorities in policy orientations ...........................................................104
5.8.5. Indicative list of policy measures serving Path II ...............................108
5.9. Policy Path 3 (Image III)..........................................................................111
5.9.1. The context ..........................................................................................111
5.9.2. Main policy packages / areas of change ..............................................112
5.9.3. Priorities in policy orientations ...........................................................112
5.9.5. Indicative list of policy measures ........................................................117
5.10. Backasting Policy Scenarios in AG2020 .................................................121
6.
VALIDATION METHODOLOGY IN AG2020 ...........................................122
6.1. Validation in AG2020..............................................................................122
6.2. Validation Methodology ..........................................................................123
6.2.1. Define the purpose of the workshops ..................................................124
6.2.2. Selection of participatory method for each workshop.........................124
6.2.3. The selection process of stakeholders .................................................124
6.2.4. Validation of the structure and material for the workshops ................124
6.2.5. Running of the workshop ....................................................................125
6.2.6. Production of the report.......................................................................125
vii
6.2.7. Selection and Application of the Qualitative Data Analysis Model
ATLAS-ti ..............................................................................................125
6.3. Validation Workshops in AG2020...........................................................125
6.4. Validation Results....................................................................................127
7.
THE AG2020 CASE STUDIES ......................................................................128
7.1. Foresight Analysis on a Regional Basis – The AG2020 Case Studies ....128
7.2. The Rhodope Mountainous Region in Bulgaria (CS1)............................129
7.3. The Kastelli Region (Herakleion nomos) in Greece (CS2) .....................130
7.4. The Central Denmark Region in Denmark (CS3)....................................133
7.5. The Tuscany Region in Italy (CS4) .........................................................135
7.6. The AG2020 Methodological Approach in Case Studies........................138
7.7. Results from Case Studies .......................................................................140
7.7.1. The Rhodopes case study ....................................................................141
7.7.2. The Kastelli case study........................................................................147
7.7.3. The Central Denmark case study.........................................................159
7.7.4. The Tuscany case study.......................................................................163
7.8. Conclusions..............................................................................................168
8.
CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................169
9.
REFERENCES.................................................................................................170
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2-1: The conceptual framework............................................................................14
Fig. 2-2: The backasting process .................................................................................14
Fig. 2-3: Backasting Policy Scenarios: The AG2020 framework...............................15
Fig. 3-1: Views of the relationship between economic efficiency, regional
development and environmental protection in a sustainable development context.....19
Fig. 3-2: Generation of Targets (after POSSUM, 1998)..............................................22
Fig. 3-3: Contribution of agriculture to N2O ...............................................................27
Fig. 3-4: Share of CH4 and NO2 in total GHG emissions by agriculture.....................28
Fig. 4-1: The backasting process .................................................................................38
Fig. 4-2: The three AG2020 Images of the Future.......................................................46
Fig. 5-1: The process of identifying policy measures, packages and paths in AG2020
......................................................................................................................................64
Fig. 5-2: Policy packages in AG2020 ..........................................................................70
Fig. 5-3: Methodology for the construction of policy paths ........................................95
Fig. 5-4: Path to Image I (Path 1) ................................................................................99
Fig. 5-5: Path to Image II (Path 2) .............................................................................107
Fig. 5-6: Path to Image III (Path 3)............................................................................116
Fig. 5-7: Backasting policy scenarios in AG2020 .....................................................121
Fig. 6-1: Validation in the AG2020 backasting framework ......................................122
Fig. 6-2: Steps of the validation methodology in AG2020 ........................................123
Fig. 7-1: Key elements for the Tuscany region..........................................................136
Fig. 7-2: The WP6 case study methodological approach ..........................................139
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 0-1: AG2020 proposed targets.............................................................................2
Table 3-1: Key domains, issues and indicators............................................................23
Table 3-2: AG2020 proposed targets...........................................................................25
Table 3-3: Agricultural gas-emitting processes ...........................................................26
Table 3-4: N2O (1000 ton) ..........................................................................................27
Table 3-5: Projections 2020 .........................................................................................27
Table 3-6: N2O emissions projections .........................................................................28
Table 3-7: Biodiversity - typology of services ............................................................29
Table 4-1: Strategic and contextual elements for building blocks of images in AG2020
......................................................................................................................................44
Table 4-2: Relative importance of objectives in each of the images ...........................45
Table 4-3: Three selected Images of the Future...........................................................47
Table 4-4: Comparison of the AG2020 Images of the Future .....................................52
Table 4-5: Summary of the performance of Images as to the targets’ achievement by
2020..............................................................................................................................54
Table 4-6: Assumptions on agricultural policy development in the baseline scenario58
Table 4-7: Gap identified between baseline scenario and Image I ..............................59
Table 4-8: Gap identified between baseline scenario and Image II.............................60
Table 4-9: Gap identified between baseline scenario and Image III ...........................61
Table 5-1: Critical issues in AG2020...........................................................................65
Table 5-2: Key elements as areas of change................................................................65
Table 5-3: Key Elements addressed by the AG2020 Policy Paths ..............................65
Table 5-4: Policy orientations in AG2020 ...................................................................66
Table 5-5: Policy paths in AG2020 .............................................................................96
Table 5-6: Policy Path 1...............................................................................................97
Table 5-7: Indicative list of policy measures serving Path 1 (Image I) .....................101
Table 5-8: Policy Path 2.............................................................................................105
Table 5-9: Indicative list of policy measures serving Path 2 (Image II)....................108
Table 5-10: Policy Path 3...........................................................................................113
Table 5-11: Indicative list of policy measures serving Path 3 (Image III) ................117
Table 7-1: Employment structure in the Kastelli region............................................131
Table 7-2: Scenario-specific policy measures for the Rhodopes region (CS1) .........143
Table 7-3: Pool of scenario-specific policies in the Kastelli case study (CS2) .........149
Table 7-4: Scenario-specific policy measures for the Central Denmark Region (CS3)
....................................................................................................................................161
Table 7-5: Scenario-specific policy measures for the Tuscany Region (CS4) ..........164
ix
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The AG2020 project presents an innovative methodology for structuring backasting
policy scenarios at the European level for the period 2007-2020.
In this respect, AG2020 sets out objectives and targets for orienting the future of the
EU Common Agricultural Policy towards desired ends. These targets were used as the
basis for building the AG2020 “Images of the Future”.
The backasting policy scenarios (images and related policies) for sustainable
agriculture, in AG2020, represent possible alternative policy options towards the
desired end (targets), illustrating the range of available measures; packages and paths;
the scale of the required changes; as well as the principles for implementation, based
on acceptability, lead-times, dynamic effects and adaptability, in support of the future
Common Agricultural Policy making in the EU.
The present AG2020 Final Report (D5.6) on the “General Assessment of Alternative
Policy Scenarios” aims at presenting both the process - backasting framework - and
the results - backasting policy scenarios in AG2020. These aim at supporting the
decision making process of developing appropriate policy instruments and paths for
the EU agriculture in 2020. The present report recapitulates, in a concise way, the
work presented in D5.3 on the “Definition of Policy Scenarios”, D5.4 on the
“Stakeholders Validation of Policy Scenarios” and D5.5. on the “Assessment of
Alternative Policy Scenarios on a Global Level”.
The structuring of the backasting policy instruments and paths in AG2020 was based
on the following key elements:
- Objectives and targets in AG2020
- The Images of the Future
- Policy measures, packages and paths
These are shortly described in the following:
0.1.
Objectives and Targets in AG2020
The selected objectives in AG2020 are formulated as follows:
-
Environmental protection
Economic efficiency
Regional development
Social cohesion
Food safety and quality
Energy
More precisely, sustainability in the agricultural sector, from the point of view of
AG2020, is encompassing (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2007b, 2007c):
- Environmental aspects: preserving ecological balance of physical and biological
systems, for present and future generations.
1
- Economic efficiency aspects: based on the concept of “… attaining the maximum
-
-
-
flow of income that can be created, while at least maintaining the renewable
stocks or assets that yield these benefits” (Stimson et al, 2006, p.40).
Regional development aspects: aiming at the reduction of disparities in rural areas
and the equal access to employment, services, etc.
Social cohesion aspects: aspiring towards maintaining stability in social and
cultural systems, by pursuing a healthy and productive life in harmony with the
environment.
Food quality and safety aspects: aim to promote food safety and trust in
agricultural qualitative products for consumers, a trend that remains in both
industrialized and in less developed countries (Unnevehr, 2003).
Energy aspects: contributing towards the reduction of GHG emissions (-20%
compared to 1990 - EU climate change target of reducing 20%).
Based on the above objectives, the targets to be reached by the EU agriculture in 2020
are presented in Table 0-1 below. This is the outcome of consortium discussions,
literature review, stakeholders’ consultation etc. (see Chapter 4 that follows).
Table 0-1: AG2020 proposed targets.
Source: Giaoutzi et al, 2008f (D5.3)
TARGETS
EU Target Year 2020
AG2020 Targets
Source
GHG Emissions
(in CO2 equiv.)
20% decrease of GHG
emissions by 2020
compared to 1990
emissions
N2O, CH4 and in CO2
equivalents
EU
Biodiversity
Halt loss of biodiversity
(Set in 2001 for 2010)
Halting the loss of
biodiversity by 2020 – High
rate of halting
EU Council of
the European
Union, 2004,
EURURALIS
Competitiveness
/ Efficiency
Economically viable
regions
Multifunctionality
Increase the level of
multifunctionality of
agricultural regions
Food and Feed
traceability
Traceability of feed and
food
Food and feed traceability –
High rate
Biobased
economy
Blending targets:
in transportation fuel 10%
(2020)
Blending targets: in
- transportation fuel 10%
(2020)
- electricity 7% (2020)
- chemicals 10% (2020)
0.2.
Strong competitiveness /
efficiency in the agri-food
sector
Multifunctionality of rural
regions – High level
EU – Lisbon
Agenda
EU
EU
EU
The AG2020 Images of the Future
The design of the Images of the Future is a central element in the backasting process,
where the desired future situation is presented in the Images of the Future. As
construction material for the building blocks of the Images are the main strategic
elements (technology and decoupling), but also the contextual (external) and internal
2
elements affecting the AG2020 context. The AG2020 Images of the Future outline the
characteristics of the economy, society, agriculture etc. at the target year (2020). The
Images are structured in a way that enables them to meet the above selected AG2020
targets. Each Image should be plausible and discrete, but in some cases relatively
extreme as well. Images should be clearly different from each other in order to reflect a
range of possible futures. The process of building blocks of Images involves the
contribution of validation workshops (stakeholders and experts groups) in order to reach
a converging output.
More precisely, all three images are designed to meet the AG2020 objectives - namely
environmental protection, economic efficiency, regional development, social cohesion,
food quality and safety, and energy.
Since different developments in the society at large would require different policy
approaches to the agri-sector, the Images have been designed to exhibit different
combinations of potential policy alternatives pointing to different futures. Three
contextual alternatives are distinguished in AG2020, corresponding to the three
images of the future:
- Bilateral and EU cooperation (“top-down”);
- Local –Multilateral Cooperation (combined); and
- Local, Regional, National and EU cooperation (“bottom-up” politics).
The Images can be described as follows:
Image I: “High-tech Europe: Global Cooperation for Sustainable Agriculture”, where
science and technology is of utmost importance, together with a focus on “top-down”
initiatives.
Image II: ‘In search of Balance: Accord on Sustainability’ - a “combined approach”
where the focus is on economy and energy.
Image III: “Active Regions and Reflexive Lifestyles”, where emphasis is placed on
behavioural changes, and involves strong public participation (“bottom-up
approach”).
0.3.
Selection of Policy Measures
In order to select policy measures pursuing of AG2020 targets, the following issues
need to be addressed:
- A number of key elements (areas of change) that are considered of importance for
driving changes towards the desired end, namely the: bio-based economy;
regulated agricultural factor markets; rural development; integration into agri-food
markets; energy production; food quality and safety; CAP 1st pillar and CAP 2nd
pillar.
- A number of critical issues that have been addressed in the design of the AG2020
Images of the Future, namely: global environmental issues; balance between
agriculture and biodiversity; food quality and safety; integration into global agrifood markets; regulated agricultural factor markets; land use conflicts; and finally
rural development issues.
- The impact of technology and decoupling on each of the above presented key
elements (areas of change).
3
In the next stage, a number of policy measures are selected that may affect key
elements and critical issues. Moreover, are selected policy measures that are closely
linked to technology and decoupling, together with other important issues that may
influence key elements and critical issues.
For a systematic presentation of the role of different policy measures in pursuing the
target-driven AG2020 Images, four distinct policy orientations 1 are considered.
Policy measures, in this respect, are falling within four broad categories (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b):
- Lifestyle-oriented policy measures: policy interventions that are supporting
ongoing changes of lifestyles. A basic element of such measures is the shift in the
attitude of people towards a more qualitative lifestyle in general that strongly
affects agri-food consumption, way of living, understanding of the role of
agriculture as a nature safeguard, etc.
- Market-oriented policy measures: policy interventions supporting a market system
that promotes best environmental practices, by means of shedding light on the
linkages between environmental sustainability, economic profitability and
competitiveness. Such a policy orientation places emphasis on a number of market
incentives that may prove more effective into the competitive environment, within
which the agri-sector works. It can be basically considered as a top-down
approach, but is has also to rely on the general acceptance in society.
- Regulation-oriented policy measures: rely on both technical standards and norms
(e.g. pesticides upper limits, traceability, GMO allowance); on innovative
planning methodologies (e.g. participatory planning, land use planning); and
government reform. The general approach is rationalistic, led by targets and
criteria and top-down.
- Public infrastructure/services-oriented policy measures: are strongly associated
with the provision of infrastructure and services. The state provides built
infrastructure such as roads, rail, telecommunication, irrigation infrastructure etc.
serving the needs of rural areas; as well as services such as training, access to
information, R&D services, technology systems and successful agri-practices etc.
Important issues to policy implementation such as: time horizon of the impact of
policy measures; and scale of impact are also addressed, as important components for
building policy packages and paths. It becomes then possible to assess the role that
each policy measure may have in achieving the targets’ set.
This detailed set of procedures has been adopted to ensure consistency and
comprehensiveness in the process of policy package formulation.
Having identified the critical issues and key elements as well as the impact of
technology and decoupling on the above issues, a comprehensive list of policy
measures is constructed.
For each of these policy measures is addressed its impact on the (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b):
- agri-food sector, but also industry and service sectors,
- critical issues in AG2020, and
1
Under policy orientation is meant the generic rationale, which can be found behind different policy
measures.
4
- AG2020 targets (level of impact and time scale),
This list contains potential groups of policy measures for inclusion in policy packages
and paths in AG2020.
Moreover, for each policy measure it is presented its link to technology and/or
decoupling (strategic elements in AG2020), i.e. whether it is focused on the use of
technological developments or decoupling.
The above selected comprehensive list of policy measures form the basis for building
policy packages and paths driving future developments towards the desired end.
0.4.
Policy Packages
In order to be able to reach the targets within the desired Images of the Future, key
policy measures, packages and policy paths have been developed, in order to impact
the: bio-based economy; regulated agricultural factor markets; rural development;
integration into agri-food markets; energy production; food quality and safety; CAP
1st pillar; and CAP 2nd pillar.
The AG2020 policy packages are developed, by properly combining sets of policy
measures that are likely to work well together (i.e. create synergies). Each of the 15
policy packages is designed to serve a specific dimension of the Images of the Future.
The policy packages in AG2020 have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5):
- PP 1 - Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies
The package aims at increasing the knowledge stock of rural economies, based on
a demand-driven development of knowledge and innovations, capable of serving
the needs of a diversified pattern of rural businesses and population.
- PP 2 - Green entrepreneurship
The package is highly concerned with the environmental integrity of businesses,
aiming at merging environmental protection, economic efficiency and business
innovation objectives.
- PP 3 - Environmental and Resource Stewardship
The package is focusing on the role of the agri-food and forest sectors as
safeguards of environmental resources. It pursues the environmental and resource
stewardship of the agri-food and forest sectors, based on the sustainable use of
natural resources.
- PP 4 - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3Rs)
At the core of this package stands a more effective and multiple-use of resources,
based on the 3Rs, namely Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.
- PP 5 - Ecological Tax Reform
This package is based on the idea behind an ecological tax reform, that is the view
that externalities of resource use and environmentally harmful activities are taxed
too lightly, while labour is taxed too heavily.
5
- PP 6 - Log-in the Information Economy
The idea behind the sixth policy package is based on the promotion of ICTs and
their applications in rural regions that may support the interaction and knowledge
exchange both at the intraregional (among various actors/sectors), and
interregional level.
- PP 7 - Culture of “regionality”
The focus of this package is on a locally-driven perspective of rural development
(localization), based on the endogenous potential of rural regions. This perspective
is driven by behavioural patterns that place emphasis on quality and authenticity
(quality of food, quality of life, quality of social interaction, quality of
environment, etc.).
- PP 8 - Social responsibility
This package aims at mobilizing personal obligation/commitment of both citizens
and businesses in rural regions to environmental and social progress.
- PP 9 - Administrative innovations - e-government
This policy package is built upon the need for improvement of services, provided
by administrative institutions in rural areas. It addresses the use of administrative
innovations that may support a more timely and cost-effective provision of
services (e-government).
- PP 10 - R&D – Bio-innovations
As rural regions are phasing great challenges during the transition towards biobased economies, this policy package focus in on the development of all kinds of
knowledge and innovations that may support this transition.
- PP 11 - Public participation
This policy package focus is on the strengthening of public participation in the
decision making process, that may potentially build a broader consensus on the
future development paths of rural regions.
- PP 12 - Knowledge-intensive farm management
The aim of this policy package is the promotion of a knowledge and technology
intensive farm management approach, used to support the enhancement of
profitability and environmental integrity in high-productivity systems.
- PP 13 - Development of human resources
This package aims at strengthening the knowledge base and skills of labour
resources in rural regions (knowledge and technology driven production
processes, ICTs skills etc.), in the agri-food sector but also in other sectors.
- PP 14 - Accessibility to transport – ICTs infrastructure
This package aims at increasing accessibility of rural regions to transport and
ICTs infrastructure in order to support mobility of persons and goods, but also
information exchange both at the intra and interregional level.
6
- PP 15 – Spatial planning
The aim of this policy package relates to the development of the spatial patterns in
rural regions. Planning is of outmost importance in this respect, for reaching
balanced distribution of land use patterns, refraining competition among land uses.
0.5.
Policy Paths
This part presents the next stage of the policy making process, namely the
construction of policy paths leading to the AG2020 Images of the Future. The
construction of policy paths is based on a proper combination of policy packages,
serving the achievement of the AG2020 objectives in each of the Images. The output
of this process is three policy paths, each of them serving a specific AG2020 Image of
the Future, together with the sets of policy packages and policy measures better
serving them.
The construction of policy paths is also taking into account the key states that describe
the necessary rates of change that may lead to each of the specific Images. Therefore,
key states are firstly presented, followed by the building of policy paths. The selection
of policy measures in each path is based on their impact on the agri-food sector, the
AG2020 targets, the key elements and the critical issues for the future of the EU
agricultural sector.
Policy Path to Image I - Path 1
In Image I, High-tech Europe: Global Cooperation for Sustainable Agriculture,
initiatives. The prevailing policy orientation of this path is the “Public
infrastructure/services orientation”. Furthermore, also the market orientation is
important (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
At the core of this path is Policy Package 6 (Log-in the information society), provided
that a proper network infrastructure (PP 14 – Access to ICTs and transport
infrastructure) is already available in the rural regions. An important aspect is the
creation of a communication platform to increase interaction among stakeholders in
rural regions; and the establishment of links with R&D institutions, research centers,
universities etc. Adoption and use of ICTs applications in rural regions may support
the development of an e-culture, beneficial for rural areas, laying at the core of
personal and business development (Stratigea, 2010).
Additionally, PP6 is closely linked to PP1 (Knowledge-driven diversified rural
communities) and PP12 (Knowledge-intensive farm management), establishing thus a
‘bridge’ for the diffusion of knowledge and information among the various
stakeholders. PP6 also forms the backbone for the implementation of PP13
(Development of human resources). At the same time, fulfillment of PP13 will
facilitate the pursuit of PP1 (Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies) and
PP12 (Knowledge-intensive farm management), as it lays the ‘grounds’ for both
adoption and use of technology and innovation.
7
Furthermore, PP6 is very important for the implementation of PP9 (administrative
innovations - e-government), as e-government applications support all kinds of eservices, provided by public institutions. Adoption and use of ICTs and their
applications supports trust to technology and skill acquisition, which in turn facilitates
the development and use of e-government applications.
Another important policy package, in this respect, is the upgrading of the quality of
ICTs and transport infrastructure. PP14 (Accessibility to transport – ICTs
infrastructure) promotes the deployment of the necessary transport and
telecommunications infrastructure that may facilitate the in and out smooth flow of
persons, goods, and information from rural regions to the outer world. This supports a
better exploitation of local resources and the flourishing of a variety of economic
activities, contributing to the diversification of rural economies (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b).
Finally, PP15 (Spatial planning) is setting the rules for a balanced land use
distribution in rural regions, serving as a tool for land management; protection of
valuable natural resources in rural regions; control of competition among land uses;
etc., contributing among others to the bettering of social and economic cohesion of
rural population.
Policy Path to Image II - Path 2
In Image II - In search of Balance: Accord on Sustainability - the focus is on the
economy and energy. A certain balance of different policy orientations is necessary
for the implementation of this path, although the public infrastructure/services
orientation seems to be ranked higher in importance than the other three policy
orientations (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
For reaching Image II, is necessary to combine technology and decoupling elements.
This requests improvement of the rates of adoption/use of technology, where an
emphasis is placed on the support of R&D and knowledge-driven innovations (PP1 –
Knowledge-driven diversified economies), but also on knowledge-intensive farm
management innovations (PP12). In addition, PP3 on ‘environmental and resource
stewardship’, dealing with the use of technological innovations for a more
environmentally-friendly management of the agri-forest resources, is of great
importance. Moreover, PP10 (R&D innovations – bio-innovations) places emphasis
on all kinds of innovations relating to the bio-based economy. The application of the
above PPs creates synergies, that motivate rural communities towards acquiring a
broader knowledge base and available technologies for an effective rural resource
management. Moreover, the upgrading of human resources (PP13 – development of
human resources), combined with the adoption – use of ICTs and their applications
(PP6 – Log-in the information society), create the appropriate conditions for
unimpeded flow of information and knowledge among rural stakeholders, expected to
positively impact entrepreneurship, job creation and support of local income. Finally,
good access of rural regions to transport infrastructure (PP14 – access to transport and
ICTs infrastructure) may support interaction and trade of agri-food and forest products
(Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
8
As to the decoupling element, in Image II a more conscious attitude towards
preserving natural and environmental resources is adopted, with stakeholders taking
active roles for the protection and preservation of these resources. PP2 (green
entrepreneurship), PP3 (environmental and resource stewardship – Variant 2), and
PP4 (reduce, reuse and recycle) are promoting a more conscious attitude towards
consumption patterns of natural resources, which implies the development of a new
culture of resource-saving and multiple use of natural resources in rural regions.
These also introduce a new spirit of resource management at both the household and
the business level that may also impact positively job creation and local income
generation. Moreover, it forms the basis for the creation of agri- and non agri-based
activities, supporting the levels of multifunctionality in rural regions (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b).
Finally, spatial planning (PP15) sets the framework for a more effective spatial
organization of rural regions (residential areas, spatial pattern of economic activities,
infrastructure etc.), that aims at serving the needs of both population and activities,
preserving at the same time local valuable ecosystems.
Policy Path to Image III - Path 3
The focus of Image III - Active Regions and Reflexive Lifestyles - is on behavioural
changes and involves strong public participation. Key policy orientation in this path is
lifestyle orientation, for widening the already existing rigorism on green values,
environmental responsibility, regionality, respect for local resources, culture etc., but
also quality of life and the local environment, food, etc. This is followed by the
market orientation, which adopts market policy measures motivating business to
follow “green” behaviour and develop / adopt innovations accordingly (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b).
In Path 3, where lifestyle orientation is important, participatory decision making
(PP11 - Public participation) forms the platform for interaction among local
stakeholders and the creation of a vision for the future development of rural regions,
based on respect to social, cultural and natural resources. This is facilitated by the
adoption and use of ICTs and the creation of an ICTs platform, supported by PP9
(Administrative innovations – e-government). Of importance is also the dedication to
values, authenticity, cultural heritage, social interaction and demand for quality,
expressed via PP7 (Culture of “regionality”) that drives behavioural patterns in rural
regions; but also the taking of responsibility of both population and business in
respect to the management of environmental, cultural and social resources, expressed
by PP8 (Social responsibility). The above mobilize environmental and resource
stewardship, based on: resource preservation and management (PP3); a reduction,
multiple use of resources and recycling (PP4). Moreover, the spirit of e-culture,
which is well established among local population, is a key driver for access to
information and knowledge that supports decisions on sustainable resource
management (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
Of additional importance is the provision of incentives to business for gaining respect
and competitiveness in the rural context. More precisely, PP2 (Green
Entrepreneurship) promotes policy measures that motivate business innovations,
capable of supporting the integration of an environmentally-friendly business
9
behaviour and competitiveness objectives; PP3 (Environmental and Resource
Stewardship) promotes policy measures that motivate agri-food and forest business to
adopt environmentally-friendly product and process practises that may support the
decoupling of environmental quality from these activities; PP8 (Social
Responsibility) motivates business behaviour that takes into local environmental and
social resources; PP12 (Knowledge-intensive farm management) motivates business
to adopt knowledge-intensive farm management techniques that may support the
decoupling of agricultural production from environmental quality; finally PP10
(R&D innovations – Bio-innovations) motivates business to develop / adopt
innovations that may support bio-material production. Of importance is the
contribution of PP6 (Log-in the Information Society), which creates the potential for
both intra-business and/or inter-business innovations (network cooperation) that may
support firms’ competitiveness, efficiency, sharing of resources and risks, etc.
Of importance are also investments on public infrastructure and services that may
strengthen the economic base of rural regions, by improving accessibility of rural
regions (PP14 - Access to ICTs and transport infrastructure), their knowledge base
(PP6 - Log-in the Information Society), but also quality of local human resources
(PP13 - Development of human resources).
Finally, of importance is a certain regulatory framework for the spatial organization of
rural settlements (PP15 – Spatial planning) that may form the basis for strengthening
of linkages among activities, and an upgraded network infrastructure (PP14 – Access
to transport and ICTs infrastructure). The protection of valuable natural systems (PP3
- Environmental and resource stewardship) is also of great importance. The above
framework is setting the directions for a sustainable exploitation of resources (PP4 Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) and a set of financial measures as disincentives for
developing resource-intensive activities (PP5 - Ecological tax reform) (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b).
10
1. INTRODUCTION
The agricultural sector in one of the most important production sectors of the global
economy, as it largely determines the population’s survival and quality of life. This
holds for the quantity and quality as well as the safety of the agricultural products.
Agriculture is also considered as a sector determining the development potential of a
significant part of the European territory - namely the rural regions - and is largely
associated with the economic prosperity, tradition, production systems, culture etc. of
the European local regions’ population – the farmers.
The increasing population growth rates, at a global scale, impose significant demand
for increasing agricultural production. This stresses the importance of the
environmental dimension in the agricultural sector, due to the pressure exerted by the
agricultural production on the environment.
Therefore, has become an imperative for future policies in agriculture to focus on
sustainability targets namely environmental, social and economic, incorporating at the
same time the quality-safety dimension in the agricultural production. This implies
that drivers of today’s change - likely to be of policy relevance over the medium and
long term - need to be identified and strategic decisions have to be made, in order to
cope with the uncertainty involved in policy making.
The AG2020 Project aims, among others, at developing a methodological framework
for the structuring of backasting policy scenarios for the development of agriculture in
Europe 2020. Reaching, though, the goal of sustainable agricultural development by
2020 requires a process of exploring the future, determining trends, key drivers and
uncertainties, which could influence the future of sustainable agricultural
development.
The vision of AG2020 is to improve the decision-making process for reforms in
common EU agricultural policy (CAP), by synthesising a range of policy scenarios for
the year 2020, based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of the future.
In order to fulfil this goal, the AG2020 project adopts an innovative methodology for
structuring backasting policy scenarios at the European level for the period 20072020.
In this respect, AG2020 sets out objectives and targets for orienting the future of the
EU Common Agricultural Policy towards the desired ends. These targets are used as
the basis for building the AG2020 “Images of the Future”.
The backasting policy scenarios (images and related policies) for sustainable
agriculture in AG2020, represent possible alternative policy options, illustrating: the
range of available related measures; packages and paths; scale of the required
changes; as well as principles for implementation, based on acceptability, lead-times,
dynamic effects and adaptability, in support of the future Common Agricultural
Policy making in the EU.
Therefore, the structure of the present Final Report has as follows:
11
Section 2 elaborates on the AG2020 backasting methodological approach; Section 3
on the process of identifying the AG2020 policy targets; Section 4 presents the Images
of the Future in AG2020, but also the gap between the baseline projections and target
achievements for each image; while Section 5 presents the process of selecting policy
measures and structuring policy packages and paths for reaching the AG2020 targets
in the Images of the Future. Finally, Section 6 presents the validation approach used in
the process of building the elements of the AG2020 backasting approach
(external/internal elements, strategic elements, Images of the Future, policy measures,
policy packages and paths); while in Section 7 are shortly presented the four AG2020
case studies employed for further elaborating on the policy framework at the regional
level; and in Section 8 some comprehensive conclusions are drawn.
12
2. THE BUILDING OF POLICY SCENARIOS IN AG2020
Chapter 2 presents the methodological framework adopted in AG2020. Section 1
focuses on the concept of backasting scenarios; Section 2 on the AG2020 backasting
policy scenario approach; while in Section 3 is presented the delimitation of the EU
agricultural system.
2.1.
Introduction
The AG2020 scenario methodology adopted is based on backasting 2 . Backasting was
first introduced by Robinson (1982) 3 to explore how desirable future energy futures
could be attained. According to Robinson (1990), the main characteristic of
backasting is:
“…a concern not with what futures is likely to happen, but with how desirable
futures can be attained. It is thus explicitly normative, involving working
backwards from a particular desirable future end-point to the present in order
to determine the physical feasibility of that future and what policy measures
would be required to reach that point” 4 .
A ‘backasting scenario’ is a description of desired plausible futures (Images of the
Future), within a chosen time horizon, that provide a background for assessing
preferred policy options, on the basis of certain criteria.
There are numerous ways of building scenarios as a mean to clarify policy options
(Dreborg, 1996). The backasting approach is of special interest when the task is to
find long term solutions to major societal problems and/or when policy-making
involves substantial changes.
Figure 2-1 below shows the backasting conceptual framework. The backasting
approach designs images of the future, representing desired solutions to societal
problems. As part of the backasting methodology, possible paths are developed from
the future back to the present for 15-20 years time.
The term policy scenario covers both the Images of the Future and the trajectories
leading back to the present (Banister et al, 2005, 2006).
More precisely, the main components of the policy scenarios are (see Fig. 2-2 below):
- The objectives and targets to be met by the end of the study period (2020);
- The baseline scenarios;
- A set of important contextual factors;
- The main strategic elements associated with each scenario.
- The Images of the Future, built on the basis of objectives/targets, contextual and
strategic elements;
- Policy measures, packages and paths that would promote the pursued objectives.
2
. The Backasting approach is analysed by Dreborg, K.H., ‘Essence of Backasting’, Futures, Vol. 28,
No. 9, pp 813-828, 1996.
3
. Robinson, J:, ‘Energy backasting: a proposed method of policy analysis,’ Energy Policy, December
1982.
4
. Robinson, J., ‘Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict’, Futures, October 1990.
13
Fig. 2-1: The conceptual framework
Source: Adapted from Banister and Hickman, 2005
Business as
Usual
Sustainable
agriculture
The building of backasting policy scenarios is based on the above components.
A clear understanding, at this stage is needed of the differences between trends,
internal, external factors, strategic elements and policies (measures, packages). In
Figure 2-2 below can be clearly seen the relationship among the above elements of the
backasting process.
Fig. 2-2: The backasting process
Source: After POSSUM, 1998
Objectives and
Targets
Key Elements
Key States
PRESENT
IMAGES OF THE FUTURE
Contextual
elements
Strategic
Elements Policy Measures,
Packages and Paths
14
2.2.
The Backasting Approach in AG2020
The scope of the AG2020 project is twofold, namely to:
- test the backasting methodology as a means to assess challenging new agricultural
targets for EU agricultural policy – this is the methodological objective; and
- produce a set of Images of the Future that represent different alternative visions
for the year 2020, and determine alternative policy packages in order to achieve
the AG2020 targets, together with the policy paths that highlight when change has
to take place – this is the policy objective.
There have been three main stages in AG2020:
The first stage is to set targets for 2020 and to forecast the business as usual scenario
in the EU agricultural system, so that the scale of changes can be assessed as to the
AG2020 targets.
The second stage is the description of the agricultural system in 2020 that may meet
the AG2020 targets. This has taken the form of three alternative Images of the Future
that push both the technological and the decoupling options, separately and in
combination.
The third stage is the backasting process per se, where alternative policy packages are
assembled to drive developments towards to the Images of the Future, taking into
account their time scale of enforcement.
Fig. 2-3: Backasting Policy Scenarios: The AG2020 framework
Source: After POSSUM 1998
Objectives/Targets
-
External Elements
Economic
efficiency
Social cohesion
Food safety
and quality
Energy
Policy Orientations/Measures
1. Lifestyle oriented
2. Market oriented
3. Regulation oriented 4. Public infrastructure/services
Case studies Strategic Elements Images of the
Future
Key Elements
- Technology
- Decoupling Policy
Packages
Key Issues
Policy
Paths
The proposed policy framework should meet the AG2020 objectives, regarding
environmental protection, economic efficiency, regional development, social
cohesion, food safety and quality as well as energy. A set of case studies have been
15
introduced, in AG2020, to enrich the policy framework with the specificities present
in each regional context.
The backasting policy scenario framework in AG2020 is presented in Fig. 2-3 above,
outlining the elements involved in the process.
A thorough description of the elements involved in the backasting approach, namely
objectives and targets, the AG2020 Images of the Future, as well as the AG2020
backasting policy framework (policy measures, packages and paths) is presented in
the rest of this report (Chapters 3, 4 and 5 respectively).
2.3.
Delimitation of the EU Agricultural Sector in AG2020
In this section is presented the delimitation of the EU-27 agricultural sector in order to
enable the identification and mapping of the emerging patterns in the sector, but also
the need for policy interventions at the various spatial scales.
In AG2020, the focus of the agricultural sector is on (Giaoutzi et al, 2008f, D5.3):
Production of food, feed, fiber and fuel;
Interactions with the rest of the sectors;
Use of local resources;
Environmental impacts;
Contribution to social and economic cohesion of the EU territory;
Production of a wide range of important and socially valuable agri-environmental
products and related services; and finally
- The sector as part of a global agricultural production system.
-
In the following is presented the sectoral distribution of agriculture, the rest of the
sectors, while in the last paragraph the agri-food processing sector in detail.
The sector has been divided into the following sub-sectors namely: crops, livestock
and forestry (see Banse et al, 2008, D3.1), where:
The crop sector is distinguished into the following general types:
- Cereals (wheat, maize etc.);
- Oilseeds; and
- Sugar
The livestock sector, into:
- Beef;
- Pork;
- Poultry; and
- Fishery;
(Cheese and milk are also classified within the livestock sector).
The forestry sector.
Industry and services are also considered as part of the EU economic structure. These
are further divided as follows:
The industrial sector includes all types of processing activities such as (see Banse et
al, 2008, D3.1):
16
- Agri-food processing activities: includes also beverages and tobacco;
- Manufacturing activities;
- Chemical / Material industry: includes, among others, activities relating to the
processing of agri-raw input for bio-material production;
- Energy production industry: includes activities relating to energy production (see
also energy production from agri-raw input processing - biofuels production); and
- Food processing and service firms: these relate to both the processing of agri-food
for the production of customized and innovative food ingredients; and the
provision of these ingredients to global brand leaders for the production of foods
and beverages, functional foods and bioactive constituents with validated health
benefits. This is a fast moving sub-sector, rather innovative and continually
adopting and improving the technologies used for the production, processing,
distribution and preparation.
A further classification of the agri-food processing sector is presented below, based
on the type of food produced (see Petzoldt et al, 2008, D4.3):
- Convenience food or tertiary processed food: implying commercially prepared
-
food designed for ease of consumption;
Fast food: referring to food that can be prepared and served very quickly;
Functional food: food claimed to have a health-promoting or disease-preventing
property beyond the basic function of supplying nutrients;
Organic food: produced without using conventional pesticides, fertilizers (no- or
low-input fertilizers), etc.; and
Food ingredients and additives that may add value to functional food.
A classification in the service sector has as follows:
Public services;
R&D services - research institutions, universities, etc.
Health services:
Trade services;
Tourism: both mass and alternative tourism activities that can be promoted in rural
regions;
- Environmental services: activities relating to the improvement of the
environmental quality; and finally
- Transport services: relating to the transportation of people and goods.
-
The above classification is used in AG2020 for policy making purposes.
17
3. DEFINING OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS IN AG2020
In this section is presented the process of defining objectives and targets in AG2020.
More specifically, in section 1 is presented the process of defining objectives in a
backasting framework, while in section 2 the definition of the AG2020 objectives. In
section 3, on the other hand, is presented the setting of policy targets, while in section
4 the setting of policy targets in AG2020.
3.1.
Defining Objectives in a Foresight Context
The meeting of the European Union Agricultural Council in 1997 stated that
“European agriculture as an economic sector should be versatile, sustainable,
competitive and spread throughout Europe, including the less favoured and
mountainous regions, contributing thus to their economic development. At the same
time, it must be capable of maintaining the countryside, conserving nature and
making a key contribution to the vitality of rural life. Furthermore, it should be able
to respond to consumers’ concern and demand regarding food quality and safety,
environmental protection and the safeguarding of animal welfare” (SCENAR 2020,
2007).
The agricultural sector today should move along the present mainstream discourse on
sustainable development, encompassing:
- Economic aspects, based on the concept of maximizing flow of income, while
maintaining the non-renewable stocks or assets that yield these benefits;
- Social aspects, maintaining the stability of social and cultural systems where
people lead a healthy and productive life in harmony with their environment, and
- Ecological aspects, implying stability of physical and biological systems (Keiner,
2006).
The objectives relating to the above three pillar model can be otherwise translated
into, ‘produce more, distribute justly and preserve the nature’ (Keiner, 2006). Such
“ideal solutions” though within closed systems are doubted, since sustained solutions
for one dimension are often incompatible with the sustainability of the rest of the two
(Stimson et al, 2006; Keiner, 2006). Opposing to that, some others state that a
compromise among the objectives of the three pillar model could be accomplished in
future development, mainly based on technological advances (Keiner, 2006).
A complementary view of policy concern, among dimensions of the above presented
three pillar model, first adopted in the POSSUM project, will also be the working
framework for defining objectives in AG2020.
This view will be tackled through the process of selecting policy objectives, where the
extent to which objectives are conflicting or complementary is an issue at stake
(POSSUM, 1998).
Thus, a “trade-off approach” between the objectives of the three pillar model can be
adopted, seeking for objectives which will ensure a complementary perspective of the
18
main aspects in agricultural policy. Schematically, part (b) of Fig. 3-1 below
(POSSUM, 1998) represents such an approach, where a three-dimensional
relationship illustrates the movement towards one objective, which does not
necessarily imply movement away from the rest two.
Fig. 3-1: Views of the relationship between economic efficiency, regional
development and environmental protection in a sustainable development context.
Source: POSSUM, 1998.
Economic
efficiency
Environmental
protection
Environmental
protection
Economic
efficiency
Regional
development
Regional
development
(a) Conventional Conflicting View of Policy
3.2.
(b) Complementary View of Policy
The Objectives in AG2020
In this section are presented the objectives selected in AG2020, as a first step for the
identification of policy targets.
The AG2020 objectives have as follows:
-
Economic efficiency
Social cohesion
Food safety and quality
Energy
Sustainability in the agricultural sector, from the point of view of AG2020, is
encompassing (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2007b; Giaoutzi et al, 2007a):
- Environmental aspects: preserving ecological balance of physical and biological
systems, for present and future generations.
19
- Economic efficiency aspects: based on the concept of “… attaining the maximum
-
-
-
flow of income that can be created, while at least maintaining the renewable
stocks or assets that yield these benefits” (Stimson et al, 2006, p.40).
Regional development aspects: aim at reducing disparities and providing equal
access to employment, services, etc.
Social cohesion aspects: aspire towards maintaining stability in social and cultural
systems, by pursuing a healthy and productive life in harmony with the
environment.
Food quality and safety aspects: aim to promote food safety and trust in
agricultural qualitative products for consumers, a trend that remains in both
industrialized and in less developed countries (Unnevehr, 2003).
Energy aspects: contributing towards the reduction of GHG emissions (-20%
compared to 1990 - EU climate change target of reducing 20%).
The objective of environmental protection associates with both: the long term survival
of a society, in today’s times, characterized by considerable environmental
degradation and high risks; and the long term survival of agriculture. Future
sustainable agricultural development requires a new relationship between agriculture
and the environment, building upon the preservation of an overall balance and value
of the natural capital stock, based on a long-term view of the environmental costs and
benefits of agricultural production [COM(2000)20 final]. It is also an objective, which
may mobilize new solutions, involving structural changes and technological
innovations in agricultural production.
The objective of economic efficiency is based on the attainment of optimal and
efficient use of scarce resources. Efficiency is of relevance for agriculture, since it
contributes to the overall efficiency of the system, by acting as a driving force for the
restructuring of activities; technology developments for a more efficient use of
resources; changing life-styles, consumption patterns etc. (Stimson et al, 2006).
Regional development is another very important objective, heading to the
development of rural regions. It can be based on triggering the competitive advantages
not only in agriculture but also in the other activities in the areas, by encouraging
diversification of activities and innovation.
These may largely contribute to the territorial, social and economic cohesion of the
European rural regions. Rural development may result into a higher value added
production and a stronger economic basis, by increasing competitiveness, growth and
job creation, in line with the Lisbon Strategy. This concern is reflected in the last CAP
reform through the second pillar for the adoption of a coherent integrated rural
development policy [COM(1999)22 final].
The objective of health and food safety is of great concern, in the last decade. Food
‘scare’ has caused an increase in consumers’ awareness in terms of food health and
safety, which in turn has strengthened demand for qualitative and safe food (Buller
and Hoggart, 2001). Growing concern for health and well-being has influenced
consumers’ demand patterns towards increasingly healthy food and “natural” products
as well as “functional” 5 products.
5
Foods which are intended to be consumed as part of the normal diet and that contain biologically
active components which offer the potential of enhanced health or reduced risk of disease. Examples
20
The above trend has specific impacts on production patterns in agriculture, e.g.
organic production. As the share of well informed and aware consumers seeking for
healthy and qualitative food grows, relevant adjustments of agricultural production in
terms of agricultural practices adopted should be of increasing importance in Europe,
driven by food scare, health and environmental concerns (EEA, 2005).
As a result, it is proposed that AG2020, should place emphasis on environmental as
well as food safety and quality issues, as there is a more straightforward relationship
of these two domains with agricultural production systems. Moreover, rural
development and economic efficiency of the agricultural sector can be based on these
two objectives.
The energy objective is also of importance in AG2020, considering the potential
contribution of the agri-sector to energy production (biofuels, bioenergy) but also the
EU policy towards the exploitation of renewable energy sources.
3.3.
Setting Policy Targets in a Backasting Framework
Targets are closely linked to goals and objectives. In attempting to define targets, it is
useful to clarify the concepts of goal, objective and target as well as their
interrelationships.
In the international literature and in many national policy documents, a goal has been
frequently used interchangeably with the term objective. A goal is a more general
description of a desired direction, a long term aim of the society e.g. sustainable
development, and can usually be further developed into several objectives. According
to the meaning used by the United Nations, an objective is rather more specific than a
goal and it is an aim which can be partly achieved during the planning period. Each
objective refers to a certain dimension of the goal, while reaching objectives posed
leads to the fulfilment of the goal.
As to the concept of a target, World Health Organization (WHO) defines a target as
‘… an intermediate result towards the achievement of goals and objectives; it is more
specific, has a time horizon and is frequently, though not always, quantified’, while
‘… a goal refers to the long-range aims of the society and is usually expressed in
rather general terms’.
Targets are also defined as ‘… explicit endpoints of public policy, expressed in terms
of relevant indicators, to be pursued, within a given time with a systematic monitoring
of progress towards their achievement’.
Potential policy targets may be selected by means of a “top-down” approach
combined with a “bottom up” approach used for convergence, validation and
checking purposes. Policy targets, in this respect, are identified by means of the
following complementary approaches (see POSSUM, 1998) (Fig. 3-2 below):
9 Top-down approach
- Internal workshops: identifying important issues for future policy (hotspots),
emerging or likely to emerge till the target year of the study.
of functional foods include foods that contain specific minerals, vitamins, fatty acids or dietary fibre,
foods with added biologically active substances such as phytochemicals or other antioxidants and
probiotics that have live beneficial cultures (European Food Information Council - EUFIC, 2004).
21
- Stakeholders and Experts views: on strategic policy issues of relevance in building
future policy scenarios;
9
Bottom-up approach:
- Literature review: various important issues for future policy that can be found in
literature;
- Review of sustainability targets: relating to the study system at hand.
Fig. 3-2: Generation of Targets (after POSSUM, 1998)
Source: Giaoutzi & Stratigea, 2007b
Experts /
Internal Workshops
Top-down
Key issues
Key indicators
Convergence
Validation
Checking
Literature review
of sustainability
targets
Bottom-up
Key issues
Key indicators Selection
Process
Comprehensive
set of
key issues key indicators
Comprehensive
set of
potential
targets
Comprehensive
set of selected
targets
The above approaches usually contribute to the identification of potential policy
targets, by both: direct elaboration, e.g. in the case of literature review or review of
sustainability issues; and indirect, e.g. in the case of internal workshops or the
stakeholders/experts opinions on strategic policy issues.
The outcome of the “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches leads to the selection of
potential targets to be considered. The overall process is depicted in Figure 3-2 above.
The “top-down” approach represents a deductive, comprehensive and systematic
strategy using a framework, where targets are derived from principles, objectives,
sectors, issues and causal relationships (POSSUM, 1998). Targets should be pursued
for the three domains of sustainable development namely environment, economy and
society.
Defining targets, within each policy domain, presupposes that key issues and
respective key indicators have been identified. Each domain comprises a set of
potential key issues, along with potential key indicators to be used for the
22
development of targets (Table 3-1 below). Key issues and key indicators are
expressing the basis for defining sustainability targets, in the key domains.
Table 3-1: Key domains, issues and indicators
Domains
Key Issues
Potential Indicators
Social
Economic
Environmental etc.
The impacts of key issues on the future developments are measured by key indicators.
Several types of impacts can be included in more than one domain, expressing each
time the perspective of the domain of their origin.
The “bottom-up” approach, on the other hand, is an inductive, knowledge-based
strategy, involving a review of the existing targets of sustainable development from
the literature as well as a review of the sustainability targets in the study context.
The combination of both the “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches allows for
convergence, validation and checking that all key issues have been considered. This
leads to the selection of a comprehensive set of potential targets for further
elaboration.
Having identified the above set of potential targets, a selection process should follow
in order to select a relevant and sound set of targets.
Maclaren (1996) defines a commonly used list of eleven (11) criteria to support the
evaluation process of potential targets, as follows:
- Scientific validation: targets should be valid in scientific terms;
- Representativeness of a broad range of conditions: targets should be relevant in
various contexts e.g. different geographical areas;
- Responsiveness to change: they should be capable of incorporating changes;
- Relevance to the needs of potential users: targets should be of relevance to the
specific needs of potential users;
- Availability of accurate accessible data: reflects accuracy and accessibility of data;
- Availability of historical data: several time series should be available, in order to
discern trends, evolution patterns etc.;
- Comprehensibility by potential users: targets should be easily and clearly grasped
by users;
- Comparability with indicators developed in other jurisdictions: targets developed
within different jurisdictions should be comparable;
- Cost-effectiveness to collection: collection of data on targets shouldn’t be a very
costly process;
- Attractiveness to the media: reflecting the power of the targets for communication
purposes; and
- Unambiguity: refers to the quite clear picture reflected by a target.
23
Apart from the above list of criteria for the evaluation of targets, another critical
aspect is the identification of target and threshold values, relating to the desired and
acceptable conditions for each target. If this is not the case, i.e. target and threshold
values cannot be defined for a specific target, then the desired trend direction should
be stated (Mitchell et al, 1995).
Potential targets should be evaluated also on the basis of the following criteria
[COM(2001)144 final]:
- Policy-relevance: referring to the capability of addressing key environmental
issues;
- Responsiveness: stressing the need for sufficient changes in response to enforced
actions;
- Analytical soundness: reflecting scientific soundness;
- Measurability: focusing on feasibility in terms of current or planned data
availability;
- Ease of interpretation: in terms of power to communicate essential information in
a way that is unambiguous and easy to understand;
- Cost effectiveness: focusing on costs in respect to the value of the information
derived.
3.4.
Selection of Policy Targets in AG2020
The focus of this section is on the identification of the AG2020 policy targets for
sustainable agricultural development in Europe 2020. These will lay the grounds for
the structuring of backasting policy scenarios, for the year 2020.
The setting of targets in AG2020 had to deal with certain difficulties, such as:
- Several targets set at the EU level, relevant for the AG2020 study, do not refer to
the same end year.
- Certain EU targets refer to a generalised objective (e.g. GHG 20% decrease for
2020, refers to all sources of GHG emissions).
- Certain targets have not been defined, at the EU level, for the year 2020.
- Almost all qualitative targets are presented on an undefined scale.
Following the approach presented in the previous section, on the identification of
policy targets, the process of setting policy targets in AG2020 involves two steps (for
more details see Giaoutzi et al, 2008f, D5-3):
- In the first step, a pool of key issues is defined, together with potential indicators,
forming the basis for the creation of a comprehensive set of potential targets
relating to the above issues. This set is also reflecting EU objectives.
- In the second step, are selected the AG2020 policy targets, based on their
importance for the goal and objectives of the study.
As a result, the following targets 6 have been proposed (Table 3-2 below) (Giaoutzi
and Stratigea, 2007b; Giaoutzi et al, 2007b; Giaoutzi et al, 2008d).
6
More detailed information on the pool of potential policy targets considered in AG2020 can be found
in D5.3, Appendix I, Tables 10-1 and 10-2.
24
Table 3-2: AG2020 proposed targets
Source: Giaoutzi et al, 2008f (D5.3)
TARGETS
EU Target Year 2020
GHG Emissions
(in CO2 equiv.)
20% decrease of GHG
emissions by 2020 compared
to 1990 emissions
Halt loss of biodiversity
(Set in 2001 for 2010)
N2O, CH4 and in CO2
equivalents
EU
Halting the loss of
biodiversity by 2020 – High
rate of halting
Competitiveness
/ Efficiency
Economically viable
regions
Multifunctionality
Increase the level of
multifunctionality of
agricultural regions
Traceability of feed and
food
Blending targets:
in transportation fuel 10%
(2020)
Strong competitiveness /
efficiency in the agri-food
sector
Multifunctionality of rural
regions – High level
EU Council of
the European
Union, 2004,
EURURALIS
EU – Lisbon
Agenda
Biodiversity
Food and feed
traceability
Biobased
economy
AG2020 Targets
Food and feed traceability –
High rate
Blending targets: in
- transportation fuel 10%
(2020)
- electricity 7% (2020)
- chemicals 10% (2020)
Source
EU
EU
EU
The final set of the AG2020 policy targets has been the converging output of both
consortium discussions and the Athens 2008 experts’ validation workshop 7 .
The final description of the AG2020 policy targets has as follows:
3.4.1. First target – GHG Emissions (in CO2 equivalent)
Agricultural land occupies over 50% of Europe’s land surface and fluxes from
agriculture constitute the largest CO2 flux to the atmosphere of all land uses.
The main GHG emissions from agriculture are carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide
(N2O) and methane (CH4). Globally, agricultural CH4 and N2O emissions increased
by nearly 17% from 1990 to 2005. Three sources together explain 88% of the CH4
and N2O increase: biomass burning (N2O and CH4), enteric fermentation (CH4) and
soil N2O emissions (US-EPA, 2006a, IPCC, 2001).
Agricultural activities currently generate the largest share (63 %) of the world’s
anthropogenic non-CO2 emissions (84% of N2O and 52% CH4 in CO2 equivalent) and
make up roughly 15% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency - USEPA, 2006a; Prentice et al., 2001).
Both the magnitude of the emissions and the relative importance of the different
sources vary widely among the world regions. In Africa, North America, Europe and
7
Notice: Targets, at this stage, were refined in an “expert workshop” at the National Technical
University of Athens, February, 2008. The experts were specialists in the agricultural sector
(Professors, Public Servants and Senior Researchers). More information is provided in the context
of the validation workshops at a latter stage.
25
most of the Asia continent (seven of the ten world regions as defined by US-EPA
(2006a), N2O from soils was the main source of GHGs in the agricultural sector in
2005, mainly associated with N fertilizers and manure applied to soils. In Latin
America and the Caribbean, the countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and
Central Asia, and OECD Pacific (the other three regions in US-EPA 2006) CH4 from
enteric fermentation was the dominant source (US-EPA, 2006a; IPCC WGIII, 2007).
The balance between the large fluxes of CO2 emissions and removals in agricultural
land is uncertain. A study by US-EPA (2006) showed that some countries and regions
have net emissions, while others have net removals of CO2. Except for the countries
of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, which had an annual emission of
0.026 Pg CO2 yr-1 in 2000, all other countries showed very low emissions or
removals.
Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase significantly over the
next 20 years, especially in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, due to the increased
demand for agricultural products as a result of population growth; rising per capita
caloric intake; and changing diet preferences, such as an increased consumption of
meat and dairy products over grains and vegetables (see Food and Agriculture
Organization - FAO, 2003).
Agricultural activities contribute directly to GHG emissions through five main
different gas-emitting processes (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001):
Table 3-3: Agricultural gas-emitting processes
Source: IPCC, 2001
-
N2O emissions from agricultural soils;
N2O emissions from manure management;
CH4 emissions from manure management;
CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation in domestic livestock;
CH4 emissions from rice cultivation.
Agriculture is the most important N2O emission source (see Fig. 3-3 below). N2O is
emitted as a result of microbial processes in the soil. Substantial emissions also come
from drainage water and coastal waters, where nitrogen is converted to N2O through
bacterial processes. However, the nitrogen converted in these processes originates
mainly from the agricultural use of manure and fertilizers.
Agricultural soil N2O emissions are projected to increase 37% by 2020 compared to
2000 levels, enteric livestock CH4 emissions are projected to increase 30%, manure
CH4 and N2O to increase 24% and rice CH4 to increase 22 % (USEPA, 2006) (see
Table 3-4 below).
26
Table 3-4: N2O (1000 ton)
Years
Energy
Industrial
Processes
Agriculture
Total
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1,37
1,57
1,56
1,63
1,76
1,86
2,13
2,14
2,16
2,22
2,20
2,25
2,31
2,40
2,40
3,36
3,08
2,72
2,56
2,60
2,92
2,69
2,74
2,60
3,07
3,24
2,86
2,50
2,89
1,71
29,15
28,64
27,68
27,01
26,31
25,64
24,54
24,28
24,18
22,75
21,92
21,47
20,64
20,03
20,19
33,89
33,29
31,96
31,21
30,67
30,42
29,36
29,15
28,95
28,03
27,35
26,58
25,44
25,32
24,30
Fig. 3-3: Contribution of agriculture to N2O
Agricultural N2O emissions are projected to increase by 35-60% up to 2030 due to
increased nitrogen fertilizer use and increased animal manure production (FAO,
2002). Similarly, Mosier and Kroeze (1999) and US-EPA (2006b) estimated that N2O
emissions will increase by about 50% by 2020 (relative to 1990) (see Table 3-5
below).
Table 3-5: Projections 2020
Source: USEPA, 2006
Type of emission
Agricultural soil N2O emissions
Enteric livestock CH4 emissions
Manure CH4 and N2O
Rice CH4
27
2000 - 2020
+37%
+30%
+24%
+22 %
Table 3-6: N2O emissions projections
N2O emissions
Projection
Source
N2O emissions due to increased nitrogen
fertilizer use and increased animal manure
production
N2O emissions will increase by about 50% by
2020 (relative to 1990)
+35-60 % by
2030
FAO, 2002
+50% by 2020
Mosier and Kroeze
(1999) and US-EPA
(2006a)
Concerning the CH4 emissions, information from the UNFCCC database shows that
clearly for most countries, methane emissions decreased slightly between 1990 and
2000, with an overall reduction of around 7% or 600 Million kg CH4 yr-1. In terms of
CO2–C equivalents, the total EU-15 methane emissions for 1990 and 2000 were 54
and 50 Tg, respectively (UNFCCC database).
The factors clearly identified by field experiments as being most important are: water
regime with inorganic fertilizers (except sulphate-containing inorganic fertilizers,
which inhibit CH4 production); organic fertilizer applications; soil type, and soil
texture; cultivar; and agricultural practices such as direct seeding or transplanting.
If demand for food increases and diets shift as projected, then annual emissions of
GHGs from agriculture may escalate further. But improved management practices and
emerging technologies may permit a reduction in emissions per unit of food (or
protein) produced, and perhaps also a reduction in emissions per capita food
consumption (Greenpeace, 2008).
Fig. 3-4: Share of CH4 and NO2 in total GHG emissions by agriculture
Source: Summa, 2006
In AG2020, among the non-CO2 GHGs (N20 and CH4), the focus will be on the N2O
emissions, as the dominant and most powerful greenhouse gas emanating from
agricultural systems (see D5.3).
The proposed N2O target converted in CO2 equivalent for 2020 is:
28
CO2 2020 target: -20%
3.4.2. Second target - Biodiversity
The protection and careful use of the world's finite resources is central to the idea of
sustainable development. Biodiversity is part of those limited resources and, perhaps
more than any other aspect, can inspire and motivate people to act for the environment
(MEA, 2005).
Biodiversity is defined by UN (1992) as: “the variability among living organisms
from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems
and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within
species, between species and of ecosystems” (United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity, Article 2, 1992).
Τhe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) defines biodiversity as “… the
variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine,
and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part”.
Biodiversity underpins the delivery of a wide range of ecosystem 'services' by healthy
ecosystems, from which humans benefit. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MEA, 2005) classified such services as those presented in Table 3-7 below:
Table 3-7: Biodiversity - typology of services
Source: MEA, 2005
-
Provisioning services, e.g. food;
Regulating services, e.g. water purification;
Cultural services, e.g. recreation;
Supporting services, e.g. nutrient cycling; and
Soil formation.
Various pressures have been imposed on biodiversity such as the release of substances
(emissions); physical and biological agents; the use of resources and the use of land.
The pressures exerted by society are transported and transformed into a variety of
natural processes, which manifest themselves in changes in environmental conditions
(EEA, 2007).
Principal pressures, in the AG2020 context, are habitat fragmentation, degradation
and destruction due to land use changes, arising inter alias from (MEMO/06/212,
Brussels 22 May 2006):
- Land conversion (e.g. from non-use or agricultural use to more intensive
developed land - urban areas and rural transportation land);
- Intensification of production systems;
- Abandonment of traditional practices (often biodiversity-friendly);
- Construction works and catastrophic events including fire;
- Over-exploitation;
- The spread of invasive alien species;
- Pollution;
29
- Demand for housing; and
- Transport infrastructure.
Various pressures are set to increase in the EU, as there are many threats to Europe’s
biological diversity, which vary in intensity and relevance across regions, ecosystems
and species. These threats include changing land uses, land fragmentation and
degradation, freshwater shortages, watercourse modifications, invasive alien species,
over-harvesting, pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change. Many
of these threats are inter-connected (EEA, 2004: State of Biological Diversity in the
European Union, p.13). The relative importance of these pressures varies from place
to place and very often several pressures act in concert.
In order to clarify the concept of biodiversity and make it operational, an indicative
set of indicators for the measurement of the loss of biodiversity is proposed in the
following.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has agreed on a set of headline
indicators for assessing progress towards biodiversity targets (UNEP, 2004).
However, many of these indicators, such as ‘status and trends of linguistic diversity’,
‘numbers and costs of alien invasions’ and ‘trends in genetic diversity of domesticated
animals’ are impossible to measure. Therefore, much attention is given to the
development of measurable indicators (Biggs et al, 2008; Alkemade et al, 2006).
From the EURURALIS-project (Eickhout and Prins, 2008) the development of the
mean species abundance (MSA) is taken as an example. If the MSA indicator is
100%, the biodiversity is similar to the natural or low-impacted state. If the indicator
is 50%, the average abundance of the original species is 50% of the natural or lowimpacted state and so on. To avoid masking, significantly increased populations of
original species are truncated at 100%, although they should actually have a negative
score. Exotic or invasive species are not part of the indicator, but their impact is
represented by the decrease in the abundance of the original species they replace. The
mean species abundance (MSA) at global and regional levels is the sum of the
underlying biome values, in which each square kilometre of every biome is equally
weighted (Alkemade et al, 2006).
From a review of existing studies, it appears that an increasing pressure on
biodiversity is expected in rural areas of Europe by 2025. Biodiversity projections
exhibit a decrease in most of the EU-25 countries (SCAR Foresight – Agriculture and
Environment, 2006).
As part of the EURURALIS-I, Reidsma et al. (2006), show that the ecosystem quality
supporting biodiversity drops, especially under conditions where global economy is a
strong driver. Regionalization and the strengthening of regional markets, in this
context, could provide the best potential for supporting biodiversity in agricultural
landscapes. Within EURURALIS-2, all scenarios, excluding the protection
Continental Markets scenario, show an EU27-wide increase of the biodiversity index,
in comparison with the year 2000 situation. The main reason is the decline of the
agricultural area in the EU. This area transforms slowly into a more natural
environment. In the Continental Markets scenario, the biodiversity will decrease
because of a strong pressure on land and little attention for environmentally friendly
management. These biodiversity results refer to 2030 and provide an aggregated result
30
for the entire EU. Specific ecosystems like wetlands are not necessarily improving as
well. Therefore, for conclusions on meeting the EU target of halting loss of
biodiversity in 2010, additional analyses need to be performed (Eickhout and Prins,
2008).
EU Heads of State or Government in 2001 have set the target to halt biodiversity loss
in the EU by 2010 and restore habitats and natural systems. Recent EEA assessments
show that, without significant additional policy efforts, it is unlikely that the target
will be reached for all ecosystems.
With farmers managing almost half of the EU land area, the agricultural sector is a
major source of pressure on Europe's environment, as it is also responsible for a large
share of the pollution of surface waters and seas by nutrients, the loss of biodiversity
and pesticide residues in groundwater. Reforms of the CAP in the 1990s, and
measures taken by the sector itself, have brought about some improvements, but more
is needed to balance agricultural production, rural development, and the environment.
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/agriculture)
The 2006 Biodiversity Communication on "Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 –
and beyond; sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being" is proposing 10
priority objectives addressing most important habitats and species; actions in the
wider countryside and marine environment; making regional development more
compatible with nature; reducing impacts of invasive alien species; effective
international governance; support to biodiversity in international development;
reducing negative impacts of international trade; adaptation to climate change; and
strengthening the knowledge base [COM(2006)216 final].
The Communication also recognizes the need for four supporting measures relating to
adequate financing, strengthening EU decision-making, building partnerships and
promoting public education, awareness and participation.
In order to protect and enhance the EU’s natural resources and landscapes in rural
areas, the resources devoted to axis 2 of EU rural policy should contribute to three EU
level priority areas: biodiversity and preservation of high nature value farming and
forestry systems, water and climate change [COM(2005)304 final].
The target set in AG2020, in the light of the above discussion, is:
Target: Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2020 – High rate of halting
3.4.3.
Third target – Competitiveness / Efficiency
The issue of competitiveness has always been one of the top priorities for the
motivation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union. In legal
terms, the history of the CAP goes back to the Treaty of Rome – the founding
document of what has become the European Union, signed in 1957 by France, West
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Among other objectives,
the Treaty sets out that agricultural policy in the signatory countries should aim at:
- Increasing agricultural productivity;
- Ensuring a secure food supply at reasonable prices; and
31
- Providing the agricultural community a fair income.
These objectives would be met through a free internal market, with stable high
domestic prices. The protection of the EU markets from world markets can only be
achieved by restricting imports. In the past, the main instruments for achieving this
goal were variable import levies that bridge the gap between fluctuating world prices
and fixed domestic prices. In addition, export subsidies were used to enable excess
supplies to be disposed on world markets, and intervention purchases to remove
further excess supplies from the internal market.
However, this system of high internal prices had led to overproduction and the
associated level of public spending became a problem. The EU had to respond to
these problems several times in the last two decades of the 20th century. In the
eighties, production quotas for milk were established. The MacSharry reform in 1992
was the first reform that implemented a shift from market price support to direct
payments in the CAP. This reform has been followed by the AGENDA 2000 (1997)
and the Mid-term Reform [COM(2002)394 final], with further cuts in intervention
prices for agricultural commodities, the introduction of set-aside regulation and the
decoupling of direct payments.
One of the key arguments in the political debate was to raise the competitiveness of
European agriculture on domestic and international markets. The reform process since
1992 has shown an increasing reduction of support to production, in favour of less and
minimal trade distortive forms of income support.
European agriculture significantly improved its competitiveness vis-à-vis world
markets in a number of products. In the course of the developments, the rural
development policy gained importance. Similar objectives have also been defined for
the rural policy in the EU such as the:
- Reinforcement of the competitiveness of agriculture (and forestry);
- Sustainable management of rural areas;
- Diversification of agricultural activity and the rural economy; and
- Improvement of the quality of life in rural areas.
In order to clarify the meaning of competitiveness and efficiency in AG2020, it is
presented below a set of indicators to measure competitiveness.
There are several ways to measure competitiveness, which address the performance
per sector within a country. The selected indicators to quantify the competitiveness of
a sector, which will be used in this report, are:
- Growth of real value added for a specific sector in the total economy. This reflects
the competition for product factors between different sectors within a country;
- Growth of Balassa index. This index reflects the export specialization level in one
category of goods from one country;
- Growth of the export share (absolute deviation) on the EU or world markets. This
performance indicator reflects the outcome of the competitive process within
different regions;
- Growth of the real labour productivity. This affects the unit labour costs and thus
the relative prices;
- Growth of real value added reflects the sectoral dynamism.
32
In AG2020, the target pursued in respect to competitiveness/efficiency objective is:
Target: Strong competitiveness/efficiency in the agri-food sector
3.4.4.
Fourth target - Multifunctionality
The diversification of local economic activities based on existing local competencies
and resources is a critical issue for rural development, where the greater the
diversification of the rural economy the more the alternative opportunities for local
economic sectors.
The cultivation of land creates not only private commodity goods (agricultural
products), but also dispersed public goods. Perhaps the best-known example of this is
the creation of valuable landscapes as a by-product of farming activity. The
maintenance of valuable man-made landscapes is one of the key considerations of the
multi-functionality of land use in Europe (AGRIBLUE, 2004).
The concept of multifunctionality attempts to make explicit the different kinds of
value created by agricultural activity. Although the production of agricultural
commodities accounts for a declining share of economic activity in rural areas, it is
understood that agricultural activities have also important positive indirect effects on
other parts of the rural economy. This is most evident in the case of tourism and
leisure. Many of the beautiful landscapes that are attractive to tourists are in fact
farmed landscapes.
Not all landscapes are of equal value from the point of view of the provision of public
goods. Some countries have started to classify and monitor their landscapes in terms
of their contribution to maintaining a high level of biodiversity as well as in terms of
their cultural, recreational or other amenity values to society.
The classification of landscapes is a first step towards the management of public
goods created by activities such as agriculture (AGRIBLUE, 2004).
The contribution of multifunctionality to the rural economy does not stop at
landscapes with tourism amenity. Landscapes also support recreational activities, such
as camping, biking, walking and hiking. They host archaeological sites and historic
monuments and constitute a heritage resource. They may have educational, religious
or other cultural significance for people. They are host to an important part of biodiversity. Certain landscapes such as reed-beds and salt marshes have an important
environmental function related to the purification of water and the provision of natural
barriers to control flooding and erosion. Other forms of intangible value provided by
certain kinds of agricultural activity are animal health and food safety (AGRIBLUE,
2004).
Multifunctionality is a way of making explicit the ways that agriculture creates value
for society, with a view to ensure that these sources of value are not eroded or
compromised by the competition to produce commodities for the lowest prices and in
the most competitive way possible. It seems clear that multifunctionality will play an
important role in the future of agriculture in Europe (AGRIBLUE, 2004).
33
Multifunctionality can be assessed from a sectoral but also from a spatial point of
view. This refers to the multiple activities taking place in rural areas. This means that
multifunctionality is not only a feature of agricultural activities, but also an essential
feature of all economic activities in rural regions. Some rural regions have started to
consider the implications of the multifunctionality of non-agricultural activities for
development policy. In particular they have been looking at activities such as energy
production, small scale industry and specialized production. Public services such as
post-offices, schools and clinics also play a multi-functional role in the rural economy
(AGRIBLUE, 2004).
The concept of multifunctionality has created a new industry for the production of
intangible public goods. Moreover, it has provided a basis for the diversification of
revenues derived from agricultural activity that are compatible with WTO rules and
enhance the viability of extensive farming (AGRIBLUE, 2004).
The resources devoted to the diversification of the rural economy and quality of life in
rural areas should contribute to the overarching priority of the creation of employment
opportunities [COM (2005)304 final - axis 3].
Multifunctionality, based on diversification of rural activities (inside and outside
agriculture), is necessary for growth, employment and sustainable development in
rural areas and thereby contributes to a better territorial balance, both in economic and
social terms. Tourism, crafts and the provision of rural amenities are growth sectors in
many regions and offer opportunities for both on-farm diversification and the
development of micro-businesses in the broader rural economy [COM(2005)304
final].
Multifunctionality in the AG2020 is subjected by the following conditions:
- Constant share of rural population; and
- Growth rate of rural employment similar to national average.
Target: Multifunctionality of rural regions – Strong emphasis
3.4.5. Fifth target - Food traceability
The food safety and quality objective is a high priority issue in the EU agenda, where
the identification of the origins of feed and food ingredients and food sources is of
prime importance for the protection of the consumer.
Therefore, the EU has implemented the Regulation EC(2002)178 setting the general
principles and requirements of food law, establishing both the European Food Safety
Authority and the procedures in matters of food safety.
The food law aims at ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health,
taking into account the protection of animal health and welfare, plant health and the
environment. This integrated "farm to fork" approach is now considered as a general
principle for the EU food safety policy.
34
Food law, both at the national and EU level, establishes the rights of consumers to
safe food and accurate and honest information. The EU food law aims at harmonising
existing national requirements in order to ensure the free movement of food and feed
in the EU.
In the White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission outlined a radical revision of the
Community's food safety hygiene rules, under which food operators’, right through
the food chain, will bear primary responsibility for food safety. This is fixed in several
EU regulations:
- Regulation (EC) 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, 29 April 2004.
- Regulation (EC) 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal
origin, 29 April 2004.
- Regulation (EC) 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of
official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, 29
April 2004.
- Directive 2004/41/EC repealing certain Directives concerning food hygiene and
health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products
of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending Council
Directives 89/662/EEC and 92/118/EEC and Council Decision 95/408/EC, 21
April 2004.
At the heart of the issue of food safety and quality is traceability. The issue of food
traceability has been considered of high importance for food safety and quality as it is
closely related to both the supply – sustainable food production keeping health
standards – and the demand side – consumers’ right to get access to clear and precise
information on food characteristics (entire food supply chain from field to final
consumers i.e. mode of production, processing, storage, etc.)
‘Traceability’ is referring to the “ability to trace and follow a food, feed, foodproducing animal or substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a
food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and distribution” (EC No
178/2002).
Traceability facilitates the withdrawal of foods and enables consumers to be provided
with targeted and accurate information concerning implicated products, based on the
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (28 January 2002) laying down the general principles
and requirements of food law.
It is therefore necessary to establish general requirements for only safe food and feed
to be placed in the market and to ensure that the internal market, in such products,
functions effectively. Experience has shown that the functioning of the internal
market in food or feed can be jeopardized in cases where it is impossible to trace food
and feed. This also enhances the need to establish a comprehensive system of
traceability within food and feed businesses, so that targeted and accurate withdrawals
can be undertaken or information given to consumers or control officials, thereby
avoiding the potential for unnecessary wider disruption in the event of food safety
problems (EC Regulation, 2002).
Food or feed, which is placed or is likely to be placed on the market in the
Community, shall be adequately labeled or identified to facilitate its traceability,
35
through relevant documentation or information in accordance with the relevant
requirements of more specific provisions (EC Regulation, 2002).
Labelling is one on the most important tools to ensure traceability and quality. The
EU has set different labelling systems for this purpose.
-
GMO products
In order to deal with the opposition of EU consumers and to guarantee freedom of
choice, food and feed, products have to be labeled to contain GMOs or GM material
in case a tolerance threshold of 0.9 % is exceeded 8 .
-
Quality products
Throughout Europe there is an enormous range of great foods. However, when a
product acquires a reputation extending beyond national borders, it can find itself in
competition with products which pass themselves off as the genuine article and take
the same name. This unfair competition not only discourages producers but also
misleads consumers. That is why, in 1992, the European Union created systems
known as PDO (Protected Designation of Origin), PGI (Protected Geographical
Indication) and TSG (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed) to promote and protect food
products 9 .
-
Organic products
Public awareness on the irreversible damage, by practices, on the environment, that
lead to soil and water pollution, depletion of natural resources and destruction of
delicate ecosystems has led to calls for a more responsible attitude towards our natural
heritage. Against this background, organic farming, once seen merely as a fringe
interest serving a niche market, has come to the fore as an agricultural approach that
can not only produce safe food but is environmentally friendly too 10 .
It must be emphasized however that unambiguous tracing of feed and food and their
ingredients is a complex issue and must take into account the specificity of different
sectors and commodities [COM (1999) 719 final].
In respect to the objective of food quality and safety, AG2020 sets the following
target:
Target: Food and feed traceability – High rate
8
See Regulation EC No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September
2003 on genetically modified food and feed; Regulation EC No 1830/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of
genetically modified organism and the traceability of food and feed products produced from
genetically modified organisms.
9
See Council Regulation EC No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs
as traditional specialities guaranteed; Council Regulation EC No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products.
10
See Council Regulation EC No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products
and repealing Regulation EEC No 2092/91.
36
3.4.6. Sixth target – Bio-based economy
Natural gas and renewable energy forms are projected to remain the fastest growing
energy forms in the EU-25 energy system (as was the case during the last decade),
growing at rates 3 times faster than overall energy needs over the projection period
(+1.7% pa in 2000-2030 for natural gas; and +1.9% pa for renewable energy forms).
Primary energy demand for liquid fuels exhibits moderate growth over this projection
period (+0.2% pa) though at a rate well below average (Mantzos et al., 2003).
According to the EU Biofuels Directives, EU Member States aim to increase the use
of renewable energy up to 12% by 2010 [EU COM (97) 599 final] and 20% by 2020.
In 2001, total biomass used for energy purposes was 56 Mtoe. It was estimated that, to
achieve the 2010 RES 12 % target, an additional 74 Mtoe biomass would be required,
with the split between sectors as follows: electricity 32 Mtoe, heat 24 Mtoe, liquid
biofuels 18 Mtoe. Total biomass used for energy production would therefore be 130
Mtoe by 2010.
The use of biomass to reduce dependence on fossil energy is expected to contribute to
reaching various key objectives, namely reducing greenhouse gas emissions, ensuring
sustainable energy supply, increasing entrepreneurship, employment, and rural
viability in agricultural areas (SCAR Foresight, 2006). This includes the utilization of
biomass crops not only in the production of liquid fuels for transportation purposes,
but also on the use of biomass as intermediate inputs in other sectors, e.g. the
electricity or the chemical sectors.
Active involvement of rural regions in biomass production by developing the
provision and innovative use of renewable energy sources may contribute to creating
new outlets for agricultural and forestry products, new job opportunities, provision of
local services and the diversification of the rural economy, more sustainable local
environments.
In AG2020, the following target has been set:
Strong Bio-based economy Target
- 10% biofuels share in overall EU road transport fuel consumption by 2020
- 7% biomass use in electricity
- 10% chemicals
37
4. IMAGES OF THE FUTURE IN AG2020
This chapter elaborates on the building of the AG2020 Images of the Future. More
precisely, in the first part, are presented: the building blocks of the Images, with
emphasis on contextual and strategic elements; and the Images of the Future. In the
second part, the Images are compared as to their key characteristics and targets’
achievement; but also as to the baseline scenario, in order to identify the gap between
the baseline projection and the target achievement for each image.
4.1.
Building Blocks of the AG2020 Images of the Future
At this stage, the AG2020 Images of the Future are built. These should meet the
following criteria:
- The images should fulfil the targets;
- Each image should be plausible, but could also be relatively extreme;
- The images should be clearly different from each other in order to indulge on a
variety of possible futures;
- The images should cover a sufficiently wide range of future possibilities;
- To keep research manageable, a small number of images have to be selected.
(POSSUM, 1998).
Apart from the above criteria, the images should also aim clearly at the targets set
inside the AG2020 framework (see chapter 3 above). The AG2020 Images should be
both feasible and sufficiently different from each other, in order to illustrate different
potential futures (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2007a; Giaoutzi et al, 2007c; Giaoutzi et al,
2008a, 2008c).
In Fig. 4-1 below, the building blocks of the images in the backasting process are
shown (see also Chapter 2). Objectives and targets to be attained by the Images in
2020 are already discussed in Chapter 3. In the following, the focus is on the
contextual and strategic elements, which, together with objectives and targets, form
the basis for building the AG2020 Images.
Fig. 4-1: The backasting process
Source: After POSSUM, 1998
Objectives and
Targets
Key Elements
Key States
PRESENT
IMAGES OF THE FUTURE
Contextual
elements
Strategic
Elements Policy Measures,
Packages and Paths
38
It should be noted that the backasting approach (Fig. 4-1 above), adopted in AG2020,
goes further than most scenario building approaches, as it also examines the means
(policy measures, packages and paths) that can drive from present state of the system
at hand to the alternative futures.
The description of the images covers issues referring to both the society at large but
also the agricultural sector per se. Validation of Images by stakeholders is important,
as visioning of the future cuts across many disciplines but also different views and
expectations of groups of stakeholders. Expert-based stakeholders workshops were
carried out in this respect, which have largely contributed to the refinement,
enrichment and consistency of AG2020 Images.
There are plenty of other “AG2020” worlds possible and probably plausible to
imagine. In order to reduce complexity and to keep the project manageable, it was
crucial to make a selection and keep the number of images as small as possible.
In the following are presented the contextual and strategic elements as well as the
rationale followed for building the Images of the Future. Finally the AG2020 Images
coming out of this process are presented.
4.2.
Contextual Elements
The rationale for building the AG2020 images should be reflected, as a first step, in
the terms of functioning (vis. hypothesis) of the contextual setting. These are the
levels of ‘cooperation’ and/or ‘polarisation’, employed as core features for the
structuring of the Images of the Future. The concepts of ‘cooperation’ and
‘polarisation’ essentially pertain to the way society copes with market failure and public
“goods” and “bads”. Here agreements and common policies besides the market are often
needed. The climate for ‘cooperation’ is then of crucial importance. Is there a spirit of
‘cooperation’ and social responsibility or is the dominant behaviour free-riding? Do
people act like citizens or like self-interested profit maximisers? This will affect what
policies are possible and suitable and what targets can be achieved.
Many environmental problems are related to the so called social dilemmas. The
attitudes to cooperation in such situations will be crucial to the possibilities of solving
the problem at stake. Here, different assumptions are made in different Images of the
Future.
As contextual element, can also be listed the spreading of an international lifestyle,
where people increasingly travel to exotic places. Simultaneously, however, some
groups of people exhibit a more local lifestyle, with a taste for locally produced goods
and services as well as for exploring one’s native district. The relative strength of
these two lifestyles in the future will have a strong impact on the demand for
agricultural products.
Therefore in the images they appear two trends those of:
- A widely spread ‘local’ lifestyle; and of
- A dominant international lifestyle.
39
Another potentially important factor, in the description of the contextual elements, is
the rates and levels of spreading of the green values. Is the emerging green
consciousness more or less a fad or a profound shift in our view on man’s relation to
nature and nature’s degree of resilience against perturbations?
The following alternatives have been identified:
- The case of a strong concern for the environment and future generations among
broad groups in society. The preservation of the environment is seen as a
necessary condition for the long term wealth of human-kind, or even for its
survival; and
- The case of a well informed but pragmatic and of shorter-term view on the
environment. The relation to other societal goals is essentially perceived as a
trade-off, where the environment does not take precedence over the others.
In addition to the above aspects of the Images of the Future, there are also a series of
other issues that have to be addressed in the design process. Such issues are for
example:
- Innovations and Niche Markets - The market uptake of new technologies and
systems are often problematic, because of high costs compared to established
technologies. Uptake of new technologies may, however, be facilitated by the
creation of niche markets, where novel concepts can be introduced, start to grow
and enter a learning curve, where costs step by step will decrease, making it
possible to compete in other markets as well.
- Regional Development and Innovation - The production style of flexible
specialisation does not automatically lead to a convergence of economic
development within Europe. The success conditions are regionally embedded and
cannot easily be reproduced over the whole European territory. However,
territorialized production styles offer new opportunities for formerly backwards
regions, but there is no guarantee for regional convergence.
- Economic Efficiency in the Agricultural Sector.
- Critical issues in the Development of the European Agricultural Sector. These key
issues will form the basis for the development of the policy measures that follow
the building of the images in AG2020 (see backasting).
Successful handling of many environmental problems requires agreements and
cooperation outside the market, either by political intervention or by ‘grassroots’
initiatives by those affected, or some combination of both. Hence the attitudes
towards cooperation in society will affect the possibilities of meeting the AG2020
targets.
In AG2020, three contextual alternatives are distinguished, combining the various
elements mentioned above:
- Bilateral and EU cooperation (“top-down”);
- Local –Multilateral Cooperation (combined); and
- Local, Regional, National and EU cooperation (“bottom-up” politics).
40
More precisely in:
- Bilateral and EU cooperation (“top-down” politics): cooperation among global
players is important, with free trade and a striving for consensus on environmental
issues. At the local and regional levels the attitudes towards cooperation are more
passive, as the political agenda is mainly driven by national and EU politicians.
The focus is more on high level problems. Politicians take the lead and try to
influence opinions.
- Local - Multilateral cooperation (“combined”): all regions and nations in the
world are able to participate. It promotes an accord between local, regional and
supranational initiatives and objectives - a kind of harmony between “bottom-up”
and “top-down” politics. Green values are widespread, with both local and
international lifestyles.
- Local, Regional and EU cooperation (“bottom-up” politics): policies are mainly
driven by local and regional initiatives. Local and regional aspects are high on the
political agenda, while global environmental issues a little lower down. Green
values are pushed by ‘grassroots’ movements rather than by national or EU
politicians, who lag behind but try to meet the demand of the people. There is
polarisation at the global level, where EU the US and Japan take different stands
on questions such as global warming, and tend to protect their own markets
against competition from outside.
4.3.
Strategic Elements
The present chapter elaborates on the strategic elements used in the AG2020 policy
scenarios, namely technology and decoupling (Giaoutzi et al, 2008b).
The role of strategic elements is considered as important in supporting changes in the
key elements addressed in AG2020, namely (see section 5.2 of this Report and D5.5):
- bio-based economy;
- regulated agricultural factor markets;
- rural development;
- integration into agri-food markets;
- energy production;
- food quality and safety;
- CAP 1st pillar; and
- CAP 2nd pillar.
A short description of the strategic elements is provided in the following (for more
details see Deliverables D5.5 and D4.5).
4.3.1. Technology
Technological developments are important for supporting sustainable European
agriculture, which is facing a broad range of challenges like globalization, energy
shortage and climate change (see D4.5). Moreover, they are also important for
Europe’s farming, agri-food and forestry sectors (see D4.5), which, by means of
41
technological innovations, can further develop high quality and value added products
that meet the diverse and growing demand of European consumers and world markets
(COM, 2005).
In AG2020, technologies are considered as to their relevance for both the agricultural
sector, e.g. technologies relating to primary production and processing; but also for
other fields in rural regions, e.g. firms’ organization, service sector. These
technologies are presented in the following:
Technologies relevant to the agricultural sector can be (see D4.5):
9
Generic technologies: based on the raw material (of biological/organic origin:
Biotechnology); the methodology (Information and Communication Technology ICTs); and the scale (engineering materials and substances of size below 100 nm
(= 107 m): Nanotechnology). More specifically they can be distinguished into:
- Biotechnology
- Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
- Nanotechnology
9
Specific technologies, grouped into five categories of applications, namely:
- primary agricultural production;
- processing for consumption (food and feed);
- processing for pharmaceuticals and biochemicals;
- processing for materials; and
- processing for bioenergy.
For more detailed description on the above mentioned technologies, (see D4.5, D5.5
and Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
4.3.2. Decoupling
In this section is discussed the contribution of decoupling on each of the key elements
(areas of change) considered in AG2020. More specifically it is presented the role of
decoupling in supporting changes in key elements in AG2020.
The nature of decoupling in each key element, as considered in AG2020, is presented
in the following (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b; Van Leeuwen et al, 2009):
9
Bio-based economy
Agriculture is at the core of the transformation of rural economies into bio-based
economies by providing raw materials for commodity production but also food and
feed that are even more nutritious and safe.
Decoupling in the context of affecting bio-based economy can be expressed as
(Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b):
- decoupling of agricultural production from environmental impact through (e.g.
organic farming), as environmental quality plays a critical role in bio-based
economies; and
42
- decoupling of rural development from agri-food production, as other important
sectors are developed in bio-based economies (e.g. the energy sector, the tourism
sector).
9
Regulated agricultural factor markets
Key issue, in this respect, is considered the decoupling of agricultural production
from intensive use of resources (land, water, energy etc.), supporting a less resourceintensive or more environmentally-friendly pattern of agri-food production (Giaoutzi
and Stratigea, 2009b).
9
Rural development
Rural development nowadays has a much broader meaning than agricultural
development, especially in the developed countries (AGRIBLUE, 2004; OECD,
2005a, 2005b; OECD, 2006; Giaoutzi et al, 2006, Pizzoli and Gong, 2007; Bollman,
2007; Giaoutzi et al, 2008; Stratigea, 2010). According to Bruckmeier and Tovey
(2009), rural development, has to be approached in a way integrating its social
dimension, as a creator of sustainable livelihoods; its economic dimension as a
redistributor of economic and other resources to enable a socially inclusive
development process; and its environmental dimension, as a navigator of the link
between society and ecosystems.
In the present section, is used as (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b):
- decoupling rural development from the agricultural sector, based on a multisectoral approach of rural development that aims at a sustainable use of all
available resources; and
- decoupling agricultural production from environmental degradation, supporting a
more environmentally-friendly approach to the development of the agricultural
sector.
9
Integration into agri-food markets
In this part it is considered the role of decoupling on the integration of the sector into
the agri-food markets. This can be grasped as decoupling integration into agri-food
markets from subsidies (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
9
Energy production
Energy production and more specifically biofuels’ production, is an issue at stake in
many rural regions of the European territory and at the same time a very promising
sector for the development of these regions. Biofuels’ production is based on various
types of biomass sources namely (EC, 2006): food-type feedstock; residues or waste
of current agriculture or forestry and industry; and dedicated energy crops,
specifically grown for biofuels’ production.
Decoupling in energy production can be used along the following lines, reflecting also
the general skepticism on the issue (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b):
- Decoupling agri-food production from biofuels’ production that involves
competition for land between agri-food and biomass-biofuels’ production.
43
- Decoupling bio-energy production from environmental harm that deals with the
environmental burden placed by dedicated energy crops.
9
Food quality and safety
Decoupling for reaching food quality and safety is pursued by decoupling the
production of qualitative and safe food from the environmental degradation. Of
importance in this respect are organic farming, low-input agriculture and the
promotion of agri-forestry systems (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
9
CAP 1st pillar
Decoupling is used here as (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b):
- decoupling direct payments to farmers from volume of agri-production; and
- decoupling agri-food production from environmental harm.
9
CAP 2nd pillar
In this context, decoupling is used as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b):
- Decoupling of rural development from the agricultural sector, and
- Decoupling of agricultural production from environmental impacts (agrienvironmental measures supported under the CAP 2nd pillar).
4.4.
Images of the Future in AG2020
The Images of the Future were constructed by combining contextual and strategic
elements in the form of a matrix (see Table 4-1 below), which results in nine
combinations of possible Images of the Future (Giaoutzi et al, 2008c; 2008e).
Table 4-1: Strategic and contextual elements for building blocks of images in
AG2020
Strategic Elements
Contextual
elements
Technology
+++
Decoupling
+
Technology
++
Decoupling
++
Technology
+
Decoupling
+++
Top-down
T1
TD1
D1
Combined
T2
TD2
D2
Bottom-up
T3
TD3
D3
The resulting Images had a great degree of overlapping. Among them, three were
selected representing, as distinctly as possible, settings and futures of agricultural
development in Europe for the year 2020.
In order to identify the most desired and plausible options of Images, two types of
assessments were carried out:
44
- In the first type was assessed the relative importance of each objective in each of
the nine images (see Table 4-1 above); and
- In the second, the combination of the strategic and contextual elements in each
image.
Table 4-2 below shows the values assigned, in a scale from one to three (3 is of
highest importance), to each objective, for each possible Image of the Future. This is
exhibiting the importance of each objective in each specific image. Each objective
received 18 points in total and each set of images with the same strategic elements
(T1-3, TD1-3 and D1-3) received 36 points. However a different number of points can
be assigned for different policy contexts.
Table 4-2: Relative importance of objectives in each of the images
Images
T1
T2
T3
TD1
TD2
TD3
D1
D2
D3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
Sum
Objectives
Environment
Economic
efficiency
Regional
development
Social
cohesion
Food quality
and safety
Energy
18
18
18
18
18
18
When the focus is on local and regional initiatives e.g. the ‘bottom-up’ context, it can
be expected that objectives such as regional development are of higher importance.
On the other hand, in a “top-down” context, the case of a bio-based economy will
have an advantageous position, since measures developed on a comparative advantage
base will be easily promoted, for example, for bio-mass production.
The combined context (“bottom-up” vs “top-down”) had insights on both local and
supranational levels. The food quality and safety objective, in this context, was best
served, because they were present: the pressure from local organizations but also from
the national and EU governments. In the case of a balanced strategy of fast
technological development and a considerable degree of decoupling, great
possibilities appeared for all the objectives.
When there is emphasis on technological improvements and the level of decoupling is
low, a strong focus on economic efficiency is assumed. As a result, it becomes
relatively easy to increase food traceability and to monitor food quality. Bio-based
economy could also develop for the same reasons.
Figure 4-2 below visualizes the values of Table 4-2, according to the contextual
alternatives: “top-down”, “combined” and “bottom-up” (Giaoutzi et al, 2008c).
Figure 4-2 shows the relatively strong focus of the T images on economic efficiency,
and to a lesser extent on energy and food quality. Also the clear focus of the D images
is on the environment, social cohesion and to a lesser extent on regional development,
while the emphasis of the TD images on energy becomes apparent.
45
In summary, three Images of the Future are selected for investigation, which are
shown in Table 4-3 below.
In the first column (Table 4-3), the emphasis is on technological improvement rather
than on decoupling. The general strategy emphasises a fast technological evolution
and dissemination, while the degree of decoupling is low. Option T1 seems to require
global cooperation on such issues as regulation of CO2 emissions. Option T3 lacks
international agreements in this area, and appears as not prevailing. Option T2 would
be possible, but here the conditions are similar, as in scenario TD2 in column 2
therefore could be better handled in the TD2 context. Consequently, image T1 has
been chosen as the most internally coherent case in the first column (Image I).
Fig. 4-2: The three AG2020 Images of the Future
In the second column (Table 4-3) all images exhibit a balanced strategy of fast
technological development and a considerable degree of decoupling. However, in
TD3 the conditions for really fast technological improvements are not so favourable,
while in TD1 the popular engagement, which seems to be necessary for a far reaching
decoupling, is not present. Both conditions are fulfilled best in the case TD2, and this
is the choice from column 2 (Image II).
46
Table 4-3: Three selected Images of the Future
Source: Giaoutzi et al, 2008c
Strategic Elements
Contextual
elements
Technology
+++
Decoupling +
Technology
++
Decoupling
++
Technology +
Decoupling
+++
Top-down
T1
TD1
D1
Combined
T2
TD2
D2
Bottom-up
T3
TD3
D3
In the third column (Table 4-3), the emphasis is on decoupling rather than on
technological improvement. Radical decoupling demands behavioural changes, which
in turn requires ‘grassroots’ involvement and commitment. This is prevalent in D3,
but not so much in D1. Whenever there is cooperation among all levels, a balanced
strategy (TD2) would seem to be preferable to image D2. Hence, the choice from this
column is D3 (Image III).
As a next step appropriate titles were given to the above images. More precisely
(Giaoutzi et al, 2008c):
The title of the first selected T1 image is “High-tech Europe: Global Cooperation for
Sustainable Agriculture”, where science and technology is of utmost importance,
together with a focus on “top-down” initiatives.
The title of the second selected TD2 image is ‘In search of Balance: Accord on
Sustainability’, where a “combined approach” is related to medium technology and
medium decoupling, and the focus is on economy and energy.
The title of the third selected Image D3 is “Active Regions and Reflexive Lifestyles”,
with a strong decoupling and a “bottom-up” approach. Here emphasis is placed on
behavioural change, while involves strong public participation.
In the following, a short description of the three AG2020 Images for the future is
presented.
47
Image I: ‘High-tech Europe: Global Cooperation for Sustainable Agriculture’
(“Top-down” approach)
Europe is politically and economically the strongest block in the world, playing a leading role
in climate change policy. Europe is rich; its wealth is mainly based on its leading role in the
High-Tech sector.
The EU is a very strong and cohesive institution, while the national member states have lost
part of their influence. EU has developed strong partnerships with other global players as
India, Russia, China, Brazil, etc., while multilateral institutions (UNO, WTO) are rather weak,
with a fragmentation in the rest of the world.
GDP growth is high (around 2.3 % at EU average) and large investments in science and
research activities are being realised. In particular, clean energy technologies are of utmost
importance for the European wealth, with efficient and CO2-lean energy technologies being
the basic pillar of economic growth. At the same time, EU policy strongly promotes energy
efficiency and renewables for climate change, energy security and economic competition.
The population is slightly growing. Standards of living are comparatively homogeneous
throughout Europe at a high level. Lifestyles are consumption-oriented exhibiting a high
degree of trust in technology. Cheap mass products are quite popular and there is a focus on
status symbols and brands. The international lifestyle has gained strength. Prices are playing
an important role in consumption patterns, while there is a preference for convenience,
functional, ethno and fast food, with emphasis on out-of-home consumption.
ICTs dominate in international relations. The development and adoption of ICTs has
contributed to the strong networking and cooperation among EU businesses and citizens,
which brings the various actors closer and diffuses knowledge and information throughout the
whole EU territory. In this context, agri and food sectors are intensive users of high tech
(precision farming, biotechnology, GMO, traceability – labelling), which results into an
increased efficiency of the sector. Adoption of technological advances has remarkable
consequences for food quality, meeting thus the increasing demand of customers for
qualitative and nutritive products. Intensive use of technology has increased efficiency in the
agricultural sector, with strong market orientation.
As a result, support to farmers is phased-out. More precisely, CAP (1st pillar) places
emphasis on efficiency in agricultural production, enforcing measures for phasing out support
to farmers, while, in the second pillar of the CAP, the core of the EU measures focus on the
support for investments in new technologies.
The energy sector is setting high blending targets of biofuels, placing emphasis on the 2nd
generation of biofuels and the enhanced use of biomass (energy crops or exploitation of
agricultural waste), by means of technological advances, although no mandatory targets exist.
There is a high degree of integration of agri-food systems in the international markets, where
trade liberalisation is based on bilateral agreements. There is a low regulatory framework in
agricultural factor markets. WTO is far less powerful and ineffective due to a fragmented
world, where there is no enhancement of multilaterally agreed international rules.
Green issues are not pushed by a broad support, while public participation is led by
centralized initiatives (national and EU). It is rather the politicians trying to find solutions at
the EU and global level. Nevertheless, there is some degree of green consciousness and an
acceptance of policy measures intended to mitigate the environmental problems. Low
emphasis is placed on regionally targeted policies to protect flora and fauna.
48
Image II: In Search of Balance: Accord on Sustainability
(“Combined” approach)
A balance of power has been reached between local, regional and supranational initiatives and
objectives, a kind of harmony between “bottom-up” and “top-down” politics. The overarching
political structures of Europe are powerful due to consensus among economic leading powers
of the world on global issues, such as environment and energy.
A kind of balance of power has evolved based on strong public involvement in local and
regional affairs. Strong local identity and regional/national governments have emerged. A
more passive support has also evolved for EU coordination and policies on high level issues.
EU is a network of European nations closely cooperating and does not exert political
enforcement.
Strong multilateral institutions and governance (WTO, UNFCCC) with consensus on
international regulations to combat climate change has also emerged. Finally there is strong
public participation at all levels of governance and decision making.
GDP growth is moderate (around 1.9 % at EU average). International division of labour is
medium. Considerable technological progress is triggered by focussed technological
developments.
Energy production, with emphasis placed on the development of bio-based economy, creates
a balanced supply.
The population is slightly increasing due to regulated migration to and from other parts of the
world, taking into account market and societal needs. A cooperation spirit permeates all levels
of interaction among individuals, locally, regionally, at national and EU levels as well as
globally. Though some political problems are still difficult to handle, there is a respect for
other parties’ interests and a willingness to find win-win solutions. There is a strong support
for the principle of subsidiarity due to the high level of interest and initiatives in societal
matters by the general public. Social stratification is balanced, despite the continuing
heterogeneity with very rich and very poor people living in Europe.
Green values are widespread with both local and international lifestyles, while food
preferences appear to be mixed, ranging from local to international.
ICTs play an important role in everyday life and facilitate mobility. It also contributes to the
quality in production, communication and mobility.
The agri-food sector is exhibiting a continuous trend in technological cost-saving progress,
traceability and monitored labelling. There is an enhanced use of biotechnology and GMO.
There is a medium focus on food quality, expected throughout the whole range of preferred
food products (regional, international food) and a strong belief in labelling.
There is a sufficient mass of public investments in bioenergy and biomaterials (bio-based
economies). Balance between regional and international agri-food markets.
There is a continued CAP (1st pillar) reform process and an increase in modulation of direct
payments. There is also a continuation of current policy in CAP 2nd pillar and an increase in
transfer of funds from the 1st pillar.
Agriculture regains importance for the development of rural regions due to the increasing
production of renewable resources, e.g. biofuels, and rural development is supported by
appropriate policy measures.
There is a high mandatory blending target of biofuels, with special emphasis on the 2nd
generation of biofuels.
Main aim of WTO is the enhancement of international rules contributing to the exchange of
knowledge and free trade. Therefore, strong WTO and other international organizations are
enforcing international regulations on standards.
There is a medium level of regulatory framework in the agriculture factor market, based on
international rules.
Finally, there is moderate emphasis on regionally targeted policies to maintain protected flora
and fauna.
49
Image III: Active Regions and Reflexive Lifestyles
(“Bottom-up” approach)
Policies are mainly driven by local and regional initiatives. Local and regional aspects are
high on the political agenda, while global environmental issues are more down on the list.
Strong public participation, especially led by community initiatives and regional decision
making has emerged.
EU, China, Japan and other global players take different stands on key environmental issues
and protect their markets against competition from outside.
Strong regions/nations exist at the expense of strong multinational institutions. It’s more US
or EU or Japan first to protect nature and markets but w/o multinational coordination. At the
global level no agreement on harmonizing standards is achieved.
GDP grows at a moderate pace (around 1.9 %), and has a high potential, but green GDP
develops faster. There is a medium degree of international division of labour and a tendency
to export knowledge instead of goods (dematerialization).
A tax base reform (in line with the dematerialization strategy) has taken place in the EU
countries, shifting taxation from labour to the use of natural resources and energy, with the
aim to stimulate conservation of resources. This in parallel with green demand, have made
producing firms to reduce their use of energy, materials and hazardous substances. Overall
demand is affected and people are willing to pay for greener products as well as for locally
produced goods.
Production is more local and mainly serves local markets, but is based on licences and the
know-how of the big international firms and networks (global production).
There is also an increasing share of the service sector, with traditional manufacturing industry
showing a declining share of total production.
Population is slightly decreasing; people live longer; migration to and from other parts of the
world is hampered by legal and social barriers.
Settlement patterns and location of workplace and service functions are also affected.
Many urban sub-centres have developed to a higher degree of self sufficiency and city centres
are being re-urbanized People are pushing the politicians to adopt stricter environmental
regulations and standards, especially at the local level (urban areas).
There has been a trend towards more ‘local life-styles’ and widespread green values among
the general public. People increasingly take responsibility for the common goods, and
attitudes towards collective actions are positive, especially at the local and regional levels.
Reflexive slow lifestyle; slow food; slow travelling are established.
Green values are pushed by grassroots movements rather than by national or EU politicians,
who lag behind but try to meet the demand of the people.
A high awareness of consumers for regionally produced food is developing and organic
farming – ethno food is important. There is strong focus on quality of life, health, well being,
recreation, safety and on different routes to achieve these goals.
Counter-movements emerge, relating to stress - dominated life styles in the beginning of the
century. There is a critical view on technologies.
There is strong networking and cooperation with emphasis on green activities. Increased
accessibility in ICTs networks is pursued to reduce mobility, while there is a certain
preference for cyber and virtual applications
There appears a decreased need for transport of agricultural products and inputs.
Technological progress is oriented towards food quality (e.g. nanotechnology) and improving
regional products. There is a low use of biotechnology and no GMO is allowed. Low
technological developments make it difficult to produce for example enough food and
biomass at the same time. Local investments are directed in low-tech bio-energy and
biomaterials (local bio-based economies).
There is high focus on food quality, especially in terms of green and cultural values. Local
and organic food is therefore preferred.
50
There is continuation of the current CAP, although payments are more coupled to land use
and environmental issues. There is strong support to organic farming.
There is an increase in support to rural development policies and also support to regional and
local networking. Programmes are directed to small scale farmers to enhance social cohesion.
The current mandatory blending of targets of biofuels continues, based on EU regional
production.
There is a low level of integration into the international markets with strong emphasis on
quality criteria (tracing, labelling).
Multilateral institutions are weak. Main aim of WTO is the watching of how consensus for
multilateral rules can be reached. National regulations on food, health, environment and
labour standards dominate in the international markets.
There exists a strong regulation in agricultural factor markets, with quantitative restrictions
(e.g. quota) and strong emphasis on regionally targeted policies to maintain flora and fauna.
Rural population is working mainly on tourism, gastronomy, etc. Rural areas are specialized
in “regionality” (e.g. providing offers for tourists looking for traditional landscape and
regional events; producing regional food specialities).
Rural areas are also serving as residential areas, as people like living in rural areas (recreation,
safety, counter-movement to an otherwise stress-dominated lifestyle).
Sustainable rural development is feasible due to a strong regional and “green” focus of
consumers and producers.
4.5.
Comparison of the Images of the Future
In the present section, a comparison among the three AG2020 Images of the Future
takes place, as follows (see Giaoutzi et al, 2008f, D5.3; and Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5):
In the first step, the three Images are compared on the basis of different criteria, such
as level of “cooperation”; type of approach (e.g. “top down” or “bottom up”) etc. (see
Table 4-4 below). Through such a comparison can be seen the distinct differences
among the three Images in respect to the selected criteria.
In the second step, the three Images are compared as to their performance towards the
targets’ achievement (see Table 4-5 below).
More precisely, the above steps are described as follows (see Giaoutzi et al, 2008f,
D5.3; Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
4.5.1. First step – Comparison among images
In this step, the AG2020 Images of the Future are compared on the basis of a set of
criteria, such as “level of cooperation”; importance of technology in target
achievement; nature and extent of decoupling, etc. (see Table 4-4 below).
In Table 4-4 below can be seen the output of comparisons among the images as to the
above criteria (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
51
Table 4-4: Comparison of the AG2020 Images of the Future
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5
Three Images for 2020
Image I
Image II
Image III
High-tech Europe:
Global Cooperation
for Sustainable
Agriculture
(Top-down Approach)
In Search of
Balance: Accord on
Sustainability
(Combined
Approach)
Active Regions and
Reflexive Lifestyles
Science and
Technology
Economics and
Energy
Behaviour
Global
(Top-down)
+20 %
compared to baseline
Local – Global
(combined)
Same as baseline
Local
(Bottom-up)
-20%
compared to baseline
(implies high growth in
the sector)
(Low growth)
High level of
biotechnology
adoption/use
(Medium growth focus technological costsaving progress)
High level of
biotechnology
adoption/use
GMO allowed
Full liberalization until
2020
Same as baseline
GDP growth rate 2.0%
(same as baseline)
GMO allowed
Continuation of current
policy trends
Same as baseline
GDP growth rate 1.7% (15% relative to baseline)
GMO not allowed
Constant in current terms
Medium level
High level
High level
Global orientation
Mixed orientation
(Global and Local)
Local orientation
International
Emphasis on nutrition
Mixed
Emphasis on labeling
No mandatory targets
Very advanced energy
production technologies
High focus on efficiency
High level
of integration
High mandatory blending
targets
Local
Emphasis on green and
regional food
Current mandatory
blending targets
Balance between regional
– global
Low level
of integration
Constant in current terms
Low
WTO agreement on
multilateral trade
liberalization
Medium
Low
Medium
High
Low
Low
Medium
High
High
High
Images
Set of criteria
Level of cooperation
Level of
technological
advances
Adoption/use of
biotechnology
(Bottom-up
Approach)
Low level of
biotechnology
adoption/use
Allowance of GMO
Level of CAP
support
Population growth
Rate of GDP 11
Growth
Level of
environmental
consciousness
Market orientation of
the EU agriproduction system
Life-style patterns
Food preferences
Energy production
Integration into
global agri-food
markets
Trade policies
Regulated factor
markets (land, labour,
water)
Regionally targeted
policies
Rural development
Public participation
Bilateral trade agreements
outside WTO
Same as baseline
GDP growth rate 1.7% (15% relative to baseline)
11
GDP annual growth rates 2007-20: EU27 +2.2%, EU15 +2.1%, EU12 +4.4%
52
High
- Level of cooperation - Images range from global cooperation (top-down approach
in Image I), to local (bottom-up approach in Image III), with Image II laying in the
middle, with a mixed top-down and bottom-up approach.
- Level of technological advances compared to the baseline (see D3.1), where
Image I shows 20% more advanced, Image II same as in baseline scenario, while
Image III 20% lower than baseline.
- Adoption of biotechnology and allowance of GMO: shows a high level of adoption
in Images I and II while GMOs are allowed. In Image III, on the other hand, there
is a low level of biotechnology adoption, and GMOs are not allowed.
- The level of CAP support: it is assumed, in Image I a full liberalization until 2020;
in Image II a continuation of current policy trends, while in Image III CAP is
considered as constant in current terms (baseline).
- Population growth: is considered as being the same as in baseline for all Images.
- Rate of GDP growth: is considered 2% in Image I (same as in baseline), and for
Images II and III respectively, a growth rate of 1.7%.
- Level of environmental consciousness in the population: in Image I is considered
of medium level, while in Images II and III of high level.
- The orientation of the EU agri-production system: it ranges from global, in Image
I, to local in Image III, of a mixed orientation pattern (both global and local) in
Image II.
- Life-style patterns: they range from international in Image I to local in Image III,
with Image II is standing in the middle i.e. both international and local life style
patterns are present.
- Food preferences (quality): these are different in the three Images, based on where
the emphasis is placed. In Image I the emphasis is on nutrition, in Image II on
safety of food and labeling, while in Image III on food quality (organic food at the
forefront).
- Energy production: Image I assumes no mandatory targets, but very advanced
energy production technologies and high focus on energy efficiency; Image II
high mandatory targets of biofuels; while Image III maintains the present
mandatory targets of biofuels.
- Integration of the EU agricultural production into the global agri-food markets:
the Images range from high integration into the global markets – Image I – to low
in Image III, while Image II keeps a balance between global and regional markets.
- Trade policies: in Image I bilateral trade agreements outside WTO prevail; while
in Image II a WTO agreement on multilateral trade liberalization; and finally in
Image III policies are considered as remaining constant, following current terms
(baseline).
53
- Regulation of factor markets (land, water): images range from a low regulation
regime in Image I to a high regulation regime in Image III, with Image II standing
in the middle i.e. medium regulation regime.
- Regionally targeted policies: they range from low focus in Image I, medium in
Image II and high in Image III.
- Rural development: low pace of rural development in Image I, due to the
increasing inequality between accessible and less accessible regions and the lack
of appropriate regional policies; medium pace of rural development in Image II,
based on increasing multifunctionality levels in rural regions (bio-based economy)
and the enforcement of rural development policies; and high pace of rural
development in Image III, based on the high level of multifunctionality (rural
regions as hubs of high quality of living, recreation, culture, etc.).
- Public participation: a low level of public participation is exhibited in Image I,
while in Images II and III, public participation is further motivated.
The above results (see Table 4-4 above) appear mostly on a qualitative scale. These
need to be enriched with a number of quantitative variables provided by the baseline
(D3.1). These outline a draft indication of the expected changes and the relative
importance of a broad range of policy factors.
It is worth noticing though that the range of options available, could potentially
contribute directly but also indirectly to the achievement of sustainable agriculture.
4.5.2. Second step – Target achievement
At this stage it is of importance to assess both the effectiveness of the proposed
Images of the Future in reaching the AG2020 targets, but also the level of policy
efforts that have to be undertaken for fulfilling these targets.
In the following table (Table 4-5 below) can be seen the level of targets’ achievement
in each of the three Images of the Future (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Table 4-5: Summary of the performance of Images as to the targets’ achievement by
2020
AG2020 Targets
CO2 : -20%
High rate of halting
biodiversity by 2020
Strong competitiveness –
efficiency in the agri-sector
Strong emphasis in
multifunctionality
High rate in food and feed
traceability
Criterion
Direction
of criterion
Image
I
Image
II
Image
III
Minimize N2O emissions
(in CO2 equivalent)
Cost (-)
++
++
+++
Minimize the loss of
biodiversity
Benefit (+)
+
++
+++
Increase productivity in the
agri-sector
Benefit (+)
+++
++
++
Benefit (+)
+
++
+++
Benefit (+)
+++
++
+++
Increase interaction
between the different
sectors
Enhancement of integrated
quality control
54
AG2020 Targets
Criterion
10% biofuels share in EU
road transport fuel
consumption
Maximize the rate of
change for biofuels’ share
7% biomass use in
electricity
change for biomass use in
electricity
10% bio-chemicals
change for bio-chemicals
Direction
of criterion
Image
I
Image
II
Image
III
Benefit (+)
++
+++
++
Benefit (+)
+++
+++
++
Benefit (+)
+
+++
++
Direction of criterion: (+): the higher the better (-): the less the better
Qualitative grades refer to +: low level, ++: medium level and +++: high level of performance
Note: the above estimations are the outcome of the 2nd Athens validation workshop Athens 25 February, 2009 (converging opinions among experts).
In the following, a qualitative description of the performance of each Image in respect
to the AG2020 targets is presented (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
- Target 1 - Minimize N2O emissions
In respect to the first target (N2O emissions in CO2 equivalent), Image III seems to
perform best (+++) than the other two Images [Image I (++) and Image II (++)
respectively], namely:
In Image III the emphasis is placed on crop and livestock management (AG2020,
D4.2b), which has the largest performance in respect to the N2O emissions (less
emissions) in combination with the restoration of native ecosystems on currently
cultivated organic soils and the restoration of all degraded lands.
Image I shows a medium performance (++), based on technological improvements of
fertilizers (both mineral and organic), while the same holds for Image II (++) based on
energy crops (D4.2b; Smith et al, 2007).
- Target 2 - High rate of halting biodiversity by 2020
As to the second target, Image III performs best (+++), followed by Image II (++) and
finally Image I (+).
In Image III, the expansion of organic farming, as an environmentally friendly
farming practise, has shown positive signs towards biodiversity protection. Moreover,
mixed farming and livestock production of smaller scale that are supported in Image
III, strengthen the presence of more species in the landscape compared to the
intensive plant production with lower diversity structure (Di Giulio et al, 2001),
favoring thus the protection of biodiversity. At the same time, environment in general
has a high priority in Image III, implying a more thoughtful attitude and behaviour of
both farmers and population that enhances the potential of protection of habitats and
rare ecosystems.
55
Image I, on the other end, is characterized by the intensification of agricultural land,
land use changes as well as partial farmland abandonment (less land more intensively
used). Intensification of agricultural land based on the extensive use of fertilizers,
pesticides, additives etc. as a farming practice presents severe harms to biodiversity.
Moreover, large scale farming, seeking for increasing efficiency, limits the rural
patchwork, which has proven to be vital for biodiversity protection. Even though the
intensification of agriculture leaves more land for nature (through farmland
abandonment), the impact of intensified production on overall biodiversity is
generally negative. At the same time, land abandonment and change of land uses, in
Image I, has further enhanced a considerable change of farmland and landscape,
reinforcing thus biodiversity loss. This is mainly due to expanding infrastructure,
urbanization etc. in the high-tech society of Image I, combined with the medium
priority attached to the environmental issues,
Finally, Image II is placed between Images I and III, based on the high value attached
to the environment and the mixed orientation of agricultural production (global and
local), which gives space for organic farming as well, and leaves more ‘room’ for
biodiversity protection.
- Target 3 - Strong competitiveness – efficiency in the agri-sector
As to the competitiveness - efficiency target in the agricultural sector, Image I has the
highest performance (+++) based on an industrialized, highly mechanized and
technology-intensive agricultural sector; increasing inputs of chemical origin;
fertilizers and pesticides; and more recently on the development of GMOs. All the
above are driven by a permanent search for technological improvement and economic
profitability.
Image II rates second (++), based on a continuous progress in technological cost
saving advancements, as well as the enhanced use of biotechnology and GMOs.
Image III (++) performs at the same level as Image II (second) in terms of efficiency –
competitiveness of the agri-sector, as the technology used is mostly food quality
oriented. This aims at gaining the competitive advantage of qualitative production
(differentiation), versus lower cost (cost competitive). Moreover, in Image III (++) the
agri-sector gains in competitiveness due to the lower energy costs of shorter supply
chains and local production over the high energy costs involved in industrialized
longer agri-food chains (FFRAF Report, 2007).
- Target 4 - Strong emphasis in multifunctionality
The target of increasing multifunctionality finds Image III to perform best (+++),
followed by Image II (++), while Image I (+) keeps the lowest place.
Rural areas in Image III are developing as hubs of agricultural production, bioproduction of local scale, manufacturing, tourism, culture, traditional cuisine, worth
living areas based on the quality of their assets etc.
Image II keeps the second place as to the multifunctionality target, based on the
development of the bio-based economy. A certain diversification of the use of
56
agricultural land is present, aiming at the production of a larger scale of bioenergy and
biomaterials.
Image I performs worst than Images II and III, focusing only on the intensive
cultivation of land for biofuels’ production.
- Target 5 - High rate in food and feed traceability
In respect to the target of heightening the rate of food and feed traceability, Image I is
rating first (+++), together with Image III (+++), while Image II follows (++).
Technology and ICTs are of extreme support for introducing traceability in Image I
(+++), providing the potential for various traceability applications, both at the farm
level but also along the chain of agri-food processing.
Image III is performing also very well (+++), based on traceability of the organic
production, but also on other types of labelled food e.g. Products of Designated Origin
(PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality
Guaranteed products (TSG) of rural regions. Moreover, in this Image is produced a
range of environmentally-friendly products, including non-food products, labelled by
the eco-label (EU, 1992) as products with a reduced environmental impact.
Image II performs also well (++), mostly based on a strong belief in labeling, driving
traceability activities of food and feed. Nevertheless, as progress in technology is
rated lower than in Image I and focus on green values is also lower than Image III,
Image II is rated lower than Images I and III.
- Target 6 - Biofuels’ production
Image II (+++) performs best than the rest, based on the focused technological
developments on energy production and the development of a bio-based economy; the
public investments in bioenergy and biomaterials that are supporting efforts in the
field; and the high mandatory blending targets in force in this Image.
Image I (++) performs quite well, based on the application of innovative biomass crop
systems from dedicated bioenergy crops, agri-forestry residues and waste, and forest
growth.
Image III (++) performs also well, as high diversity of plant species, present in this
Image (small scale diversified production), can be the best source of biomass for the
production of biofuels (Tilman et al, 2006).
- Target 7 - Maximize rate of change for biomass use in electricity
Concerning this target, Image I (+++) is ranking highest in performance, as
technology provides solutions to cost-effective forms of electricity generation from
biomass, serving also environmental purposes, as biomass in electricity has the
greatest greenhouse gas benefits. Moreover innovative biomass crop systems, waste
management techniques, etc. are valuable tools in Image I by use of developments in
technology.
57
Image II is ranking also at the highest rank (+++), as progress in this Image is
triggered by technological developments placing emphasis on energy production and
the development of the bio-based economy. On the other hand, public investments
and policies implemented in Image II, together with lower labour costs in rural
regions and high resource availability (biomass), support the production of biomass
for use in electricity production.
Finally, Image III (++) shows a relatively lower performance, motivated by green
values driving this image and the increasing awareness of local population on the
environmentally friendly production of electricity from biomass.
- Target 8 - Maximize rate of change for bio-chemicals
The present target refers to the production of bio-chemicals from biomass processing.
Image II is best performing (+++) in respect to the rest of the two Images, due to the
emphasis placed on public investments on bio-materials (bio-based economy). At a
lower level rates Image III (++), where local investments are directed to the
production of bio-materials (local bio-based economy), while Image I rates at the
lowest level (+) in respect to the rest of the two images.
4.6.
Identification of the Gap between Baseline Scenario and the Images
At this level, the performance of the Images is compared to that of the baseline
scenario, where the gap between the baseline projection and target achievement for
each image is identified. This potentially may drive the selection of the appropriate
policies that are needed to bridge this gap (Tables 9-7, 9-8 and 9-9 for Images I, II and
III respectively) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
4.6.1. The baseline scenario
In the following, a summary of the baseline assumptions is provided (Table 4-6
below).
Table 4-6: Assumptions on agricultural policy development in the baseline scenario
Source: Banse et al, 2008, D3.1
Topic
Assumption
Market Policies
Intervention
‐
‐
‐
Regulations for quota
products (milk, sugar)
Changes in consumption
subsidies (skimmed milk
powder (SMP), butter)
Changes in biofuels’
policies
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Current system of intervention prices
Exclusion of maize from intervention in 2009
Adjustment of intervention prices to balance markets
where necessary in order to comply with WTO
restrictions on export subsidies
Reform of the sugar MO
Maintenance of quotas
Withdrawal of consumption subsidies
Withdrawal of SMP feed subsidy
Extension of the area eligible for crop premium to 2
million ha (including the NMS)
58
‐
Human demand shifters set such as to reach a biofuels’
share of 5.75% in total EU fuel consumption by 2010
‐
‐
‐
No changes in current levels
No changes in current levels
Constant level of current TRQs, no new TRQ
Trade Policies
Tariffs
Export subsidies
TRQs
Direct Payments
Development of direct
payments
Modulation rate
Distribution of funds
from modulation
Decoupling of direct
payments
Application of the Single
Farm Payment in EU-12
Obligatory set aside rates
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
SAPS and SFP per ha payments constant in nominal
terms (deflated by EU inflation rate)
5%
80% within the MS
20% reallocation among MS
Partially coupling of direct payments in various member
states unchanged until 2020
Prolongation of the SAPS system until 2011 as recently
decided by the Council
Set-aside rate of 0% decided in 2008 is set back to 5%
after 2008 and kept constant until 2020
4.6.2. Comparison between Image I to the baseline scenario
In Table 4-7 below, it is presented the comparison between Image I and the baseline
scenario. This may reveal the gap that needs to be bridged within Image I, for the
period 2007-2020, as to the AG2020 targets (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Table 4-7: Gap identified between baseline scenario and Image I
Source: Further elaboration of D3.1 results
AG2020
Targets
Criterion
CO2 : -20%
Minimize N2O
emissions (in
CO2
equivalent)
High rate of
halting
biodiversity
by 2020
Loss of
biodiversity
Indicator
Direction of Baseline
criterion (2007-2020)
Nitrate surplus
per hectare
Cost (-)
Share of
organic
farming
Benefit (+)
Land use
change – loss
of agri-land
Strong
competitiveness –
efficiency of
the agrisector
Volume of
production in
the agri-sector
Productivity in / Employment
the agri-sector
Structure of
agri-food value
added (labour,
capital, land)
Strong
emphasis in
multifunctionality
Interactions
between
different agrirural sectors
Level of
multifunctionality
Cost (-)
Benefit (+)
Benefit (+)
Benefit (+)
59
Slight decline
in N2O
emissions
Constant share
in organic
farming
Constant rate
in decline of
agric. land for
non-agric.
purposes
Medium
growth rate of
agric.
productivity
Constant
decline in
agric.
Employment
No change in
level of
multifunctionality
Image
I
Gap
Lower N2O
emissions
Lower
Slight increase
in organic
farming
Higher rate in
decline of
agric. land for
non-agric.
purposes
Lower
Higher
Strong growth
rate of agric.
productivity
Lower
Strong decline
in agric.
Employment
Higher
Decline in
level of
multifunctionality due to
specialization
in agric.
Higher
AG2020
Targets
High rate in
food and feed
traceability
Criterion
Indicator
Direction of Baseline
criterion (2007-2020)
Integrated
quality control
Share of
products
labelled with
national or
European
quality labels
No ‘additional‘
initiative to
raise
traceability
Benefit (+)
10% biofuels
share in EU Maximize rate
road transport of change for
fuel consum- biofuels’ share
ption
Share of
agricultural
area used for
bio-fuel crops
Benefit (+)
7% biomass
use in
electricity
Optimize rate
of change for
biomass use in
electricity
Share of
biomass used
for bioelectricity
Benefit (+)
10%
chemicals
Optimize rate
of change for
chemicals
Share of
biomass used
for biochemicals
Benefit (+)
Image
I
Gap
Improvement
in traceability
due to
technical
innovations
Lower
Strong increase
due to
Less land used
implementatio for transportan of the EUtion fuel due to
abolition of
Renewable
Energy
binding
mandates
Directive
(RED)
Lower rate in
land use for
bio-electricity
Increase due to
due to
RED
abolition of
binding
mandates
Slight increase
in biomass
Moderate
increase due to utilization of
biomass for
development of
bio-based
chemicals due
to technol.
economy
innovations
Higher
Higher
Lower
4.6.3. Comparison of Image II to the baseline scenario
Table 4-8 below presents the comparison between Image II and the baseline scenario.
This may reveal the gap that needs to be bridged within Image II, for the period 20072020, as to the AG2020 targets (Table 4-8) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Table 4-8: Gap identified between baseline scenario and Image II
AG2020
Targets
CO2 : -20%
High rate of
halting
biodiversity by
2020
Strong
competitiveness –
efficiency of
the agri-sector
Criterion
Minimize N2O
emissions (in
CO2
equivalent)
Loss of
biodiversity
Indicator
Direction
Baseline
of criterion (2007-2020)
Nitrate surplus
per hectare
Cost (-)
Share of
organic
farming
Benefit (+)
Land use
change – loss
of agri-land
Volume of
production in
the agri-sector
Productivity in / Employment
the agri-sector
Structure of
agri-food value
added (labour,
capital, land)
Cost (-)
Benefit (+)
Benefit (+)
60
Slight decline
in N2O
emissions
Constant share
in organic
farming
Constant rate
in decline of
agric. land for
nonagricultural
purposes
Medium
growth rate of
agricultural
productivity
Constant
decline in
agricultural
employment
Image
II
Gap
Lower N2O
emissions
Lower
Constant share
in organic
farming
-
Lower rate in
decline of
agric. land for
non-agric.
purposes
Lower
Same as in
Baseline
-
Similar to
baseline
-
Strong
emphasis in
multifunctionnality
High rate in
food and feed
traceability
Interactions
between
Level of
multifunctionality
Integrated
quality control
Share of
products
labelled with
national or
European
quality labels
Benefit (+)
No change in
level of
multifunctionality
Higher in level
of multifunctionality
Higher
Benefit (+)
No ‚additional‘
initiative to
raise
traceability
Improvement
in traceability
due to stricter
rules
Lower
Similar to
baseline
-
Similar to
baseline
-
10% biofuels
share in EU
road transport
fuel
consumption
Maximize rate
of change for
biofuels’ share
Share of
agricultural
area used for
bio-fuel crops
Benefit (+)
Strong
increase due to
implementatio
n of the EURenewable
Energy
Directive
(RED)
7% biomass
use in
electricity
Optimize rate
of change for
biomass use in
electricity
Share of
biomass used
for bioelectricity
Benefit (+)
Increase due to
RED
Benefit (+)
Slight increase
in biomass
Moderate
utilization of
increase due to
biomass for
development
chemicals due
of bio-based
to
economy
technological
innovations
10% chemicals
Optimize rate
of change for
chemicals
Share of
biomass used
for biochemicals
Lower
4.6.4. Comparison of Image III to the baseline scenario
In Table 4-9 below, it is presented the comparison between Image III and the baseline
scenario. This may reveal the gap that needs to be bridged within Image III, for the
period 2007-2020, as to the AG2020 targets (Table 4-9) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5).
Table 4-9: Gap identified between baseline scenario and Image III
AG2020
Targets
CO2 : -20%
High rate of
halting
biodiversity by
2020
Strong
competitiveness –
efficiency of
the agri-sector
Criterion
Indicator
Nitrate surplus
Minimize N2O per hectare
emissions (in
CO2
Share of
equivalent)
organic
farming
Loss of
biodiversity
Land use
change – loss
of agri-land
Volume of
production in
the agri-sector
/ Employment
Productivity in
Structure of
the agri-sector
agri-food value
added (labour,
capital, land)
Direction
Baseline
Image
I
Gap
Cost (-)
Slight decline
in N2O
emissions
Higher N2O
emissions
Higher
Benefit (+)
Constant share
in organic
farming
Strong
increase in
organic
farming
Lower
Lower rate in
the loss of
biodiversity
Lower
Cost (-)
Benefit (+)
61
Constant rate
in decline of
agric. land for
non-agric.
purposes
Medium
growth rate of
agricultural
productivity
Constant
decline in
agric.
Employment
Lower growth
rate of
agricultural
productivity
Declining
agricultural
employment
but lower
Higher
Lower
AG2020
Targets
Criterion
Indicator
Direction
Baseline
Image
I
Gap
comp. with
baseline
Strong
emphasis in
multifunctionnality
High rate in
food and feed
traceability
10% biofuels
share in EU
road transport
fuel
consumption
7% biomass
use in
electricity
Interactions
between
Integrated
quality control
Maximize rate
of change for
biofuels’ share
Level of
multifunctionnality
Share of
products
labelled with
national or
European
quality labels
Share of
agricultural
area used for
bio-fuel crops
In crease in the
level of
multifunctionality
Lower
Benefit (+)
No ‚additional‘ Improvement
initiative to
in traceability
raise
due to stronger
traceability
rules
Lower
Benefit (+)
Strong
increase due to
implementatio
n of the EURenewable
Energy
Directive
(RED)
Lower
Benefit (+)
Optimize rate
of change for
biomass use in
electricity
production
Share of
biomass used
for bioelectricity
Benefit (+)
Optimize rate
of change for
biomass use in
chemicals’
production
Share of
biomass used
for biochemicals
Benefit (+)
10% chemicals
4.7.
No change in
level of
multifunctionality
More land
used for
transp. fuel
due to higher
binding
mandates
More land use
for bioIncrease due to electricity due
to higher
RED
binding
mandates
Slight increase
Moderate
of biomass
increase due to utilization of
development
biomass for
chemicals due
of bio-based
economy
to political
rules
Lower
Lower
Conclusions
The above discussion, revealing the gap identified between the baseline scenario and
the three AG2020 Images of the Future, aims at orienting the emphasis to be placed
on policy interventions, by the most appropriate level of enforcement, towards the
fulfilment of the targets set. More specifically, this will guide the selection of policy
measures and the building of policy packages and paths that will drive developments
towards the desired end, bridging the gap between baseline scenario and the desired
Images.
62
5. POLICY MEASURES, PACKAGES AND PATHS
This chapter presents the methodological approach adopted for identifying policy
measures and building policy packages and paths, and its application in the AG2020
context.
The adopted methodology has the following stages (see Fig. 5-1) (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- First stage – identification of critical issues (‘hot spots’) for developing
agricultural policy in AG2020. These are used to support the selection of policy
measures that enable the structuring of the appropriate policy packages and paths
designed to reach the AG2020 targets.
- Second stage - the identification of policy measures and subsequent policy
packages and paths requires the review of different types of policy measures and
their potential contribution (ranking) to the achievement of the AG2020 targets.
- Third stage - the construction of a comprehensive list of policy measures is carried
out, following the above two stages. This list of policy measures is presented in
the format of a matrix.
- Fourth stage - policy packages are developed by combining sets of policy
measures that are likely to work well together (i.e. create synergies). Each of the
policy packages is designed to relate to a specific dimension of the Images of the
Future.
- Fifth stage - the development of policy paths is the stage where policy packages
are grouped in Image-related combinations.
- Sixth stage - finally, issues of acceptability and the implications of the selected
Image are considered.
The various stages of the process are illustrated in Figure 5-1 below.
63
Fig. 5-1: The process of identifying policy measures, packages and paths in AG2020
Source: POSSUM, 1998
Critical Issues and Key Elements
(Sections 5.1 & 5.2)
The Role of Different types of
Policy measures
(Section 5.3)
Policy Measures
(Section 5.4)
Images of the
Future
(D5.3, D5.5 and Section 4
of this report)
Policy Packages
(Including synergies and
impacts on stakeholders)
(Section 5.5)
Policy Paths
(Including timing, roles, complementary
measures and first steps)
(Section 5.6)
Discussion
(Including acceptability and
implications for selected Image)
CONCLUSIONS
(Including next steps)
In the following is presented the application of the above steps in the AG2020
context.
5.1.
Critical Issues in AG2020
At this stage, it is of importance to identify the critical issues and key elements that
will enable the structuring of the policy scenario design process.
As critical issues, are considered a number of issues that have been addressed in the
design process of the Images of the Future (Fig. 5-1 above). In Table 5-1 below is
presented an indicative set of these issues (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
An in depth description of critical issues in AG2020 can be found in Deliverable D5.5
64
Table 5-1: Critical issues in AG2020
Critical Issues
- Global Environmental Issues
- Balance between agriculture and biodiversity
at stake
- Food quality and safety
- Integration into global agri-food markets
- Regulated agricultural factor markets (land,
water etc.)
- Land use conflicts
- Rural development
5.2.
Key Elements in AG2020
For the description and analysis of the changes required to take place for the
achievement of the AG2020 targets by the year 2020, it is rather important to
distinguish broad areas of change, namely key elements, motivating policy
orientations. These key elements in AG2020 have as follows (Table 5-2) (Giaoutzi
and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
Table 5-2: Key elements as areas of change
Key Elements
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5 Technological improvements
Bio-economy
Regulated agricultural factor markets
Rural development
Integration into agri-food markets
Energy production
Food quality and safety
CAP 1st pillar
CAP 2nd pillar
The above key elements can be further diversified into a number of topics that are of
interest for each key element (see Table 5-3 below). These represent important issues
that should be influenced by policy measures, within each of the three AG2020
Images of the Future. These key elements could be used as a check list, for the
identification and selection of policies (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Table 5-3: Key Elements addressed by the AG2020 Policy Paths
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5 KEY ELEMENTS
Technological
improvements
(See Deliverable 4.5a)
-
TOPICS
Primary agricultural technological applications
Animal husbandry technological applications
Food and feed processing applications
Bio-energy production
Heat and electricity
Nanotechnologies - sensors
Biotechnology
Information and Communication Technology (ICTs)
65
KEY ELEMENTS
Bio-based economy
Regulated factor
markets
Rural development
Global agri-food
markets
Energy production
Food Quality and safety
-
TOPICS
Food and feed production and processing
Value added food processing
Agri-environmental products and services
Energy and bio-processing
-
Land
Labour
Water
Consumption patterns
Social cohesion
Land use patterns
Regionalization (regional specialization)
Accessibility (Transport and ICTs)
Food and beverage
Health and nutrition
Branding
Science-based companies
Large Research-Performing Companies vs High tech SMEs
Niche markets
Renewable Energy
Bioenergy production
Energy consumption patterns
Energy efficiency
Health and nutrition
Packaging and process technologies – Logistics
Traceability
An in depth description of key elements considered in AG2020 can be found in
Deliverable D5.5 (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
5.3.
The Role of Different Policy Measures
For a systematic presentation of the role of different policy measures in pursuing the
AG2020 targets, four distinct policy orientations are considered. As policy orientation
is meant the generic rationale, found behind the different policy measures (Giaoutzi
and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Policy
Orientations
Table 5-4: Policy orientations in AG2020
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5 - Lifestyle
- Market
- Regulation
- Public infrastructure - services
The policy orientations adopted in AG2020 are presented in Table 5-4 above, where
(Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
-
Lifestyle-oriented policy measures: are policy interventions supporting ongoing
changes of lifestyles. A basic element of such lifestyles is the shift in the attitude
of people towards a more qualitative life style in general that strongly affects agrifood consumption, way of living, understanding of the role of agriculture as a
66
nature safeguard, etc. Quality of life aspects play a central role in this context. Part
of this is an increasing understanding and acceptance of the claims that sustainable
development has on lifestyles, which changes the balance between material
consumption, resource use and environmental degradation. Public policy
intervention may favour such post-material quality-oriented lifestyles. The
dynamics might be basically bottom-up. Information diffusion policies are an
important element of this policy approach. Knowledge of the effort placed for the
production of a certain product in an environmentally friendly way, e.g. an organic
product, but also the value of this product in searching for qualitative life-style
consumption patterns, helps people to reconsider their consuming behaviour and
reorient their attitude towards environmentally responsible production processes
and products.
- Market-oriented policy measures: are policy interventions supporting a market
system that promotes best environmental practices, by means of shedding light on
the linkages between environmental sustainability, economic profitability and
competitiveness. Such a policy orientation places emphasis on a number of market
incentives that may prove more effective into the competitive environment, within
which the agri-sector works. It can be basically considered as a top-down
approach, but is has also to rely on the general acceptance.
- Regulation-oriented policy measures: are policy measures relying upon technical
standards and norms (e.g. pesticides upper limits, traceability, GMO allowance),
on innovative planning methodology (e.g. spatial planning, land use planning.)
and government reform. The general approach is rationalistic, target and criteria
led and top-down.
- Public infrastructure/services-oriented policy measures: are strongly associated
with policies relating to the provision/upgrading of infrastructure and services in
rural regions, thus improving their accessibility. The state provides built
infrastructure such as roads, rail, telecommunication – ICTs networks, irrigation
infrastructure etc. serving the needs of rural areas; as well as services such as
training, access to information, marketing tools, R&D services, technology
systems and successful agri-practices etc.
5.4.
Policy Measures
Having identified the set of critical issues and key elements, which have been used to
support the selection process of policy measures, it follows the assessment of the
potential contribution of these policy measures to the achievement of the AG2020
targets, in order to construct a comprehensive list of policy measures.
Indicative policy measures that may have an impact on the key elements (areas of
change) are presented, in a systematic way, Moreover it is presented the impact of
each policy measure on the key elements, based on the (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5):
- strategy(ies) - served by the policy measure;
67
- policy orientation - the generic rationale underlying each policy measure i.e.
lifestyle, market, regulation and public infrastructure-services orientation (see
section 6);
- level of impact - on the AG2020 targets: small, medium and large effect; and
- time-scale of impact – short, medium and long term.
It is also explored the influence of strategic elements, namely technology and
decoupling on the key elements of AG2020. Indicative policy measures are presented
relating to technology and/or decoupling that may have an impact on the key elements
(areas of change). Similarly, for each policy measure - relating to technology or
decoupling strategic elements - is presented the impact of these policy measures on
the key elements, based on the (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- strategy(ies) - served by the policy measure;
- policy orientation - the generic rationale underlying each policy measure (see
section 6);
- level of impact on the AG2020 targets - small, medium and large effect; and
- time-scale of impact - short, medium and long term.
Finally, it is explored the impact of the above presented indicative lists of policy
measures on the:
- agricultural sector;
- critical issues (hot spots); and
- AG2020 targets.
Based on the above discussion, a pool of 257 policy measures is
constructed. For each policy measure is assessed its (see Table I-1,
APPENDIX I) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- impact on the proposed AG2020 targets (level of impact and time-scale);
- policy orientation i.e. lifestyle, market, regulation and public infrastructureservices orientation;
- impact on the agricultural sector;
- impact on the critical issues (hot spots) considered in the AG2020 context;
and
- relationship to technology and/or decoupling i.e. the strategic elements in
AG2020.
It should be noted that all the impacts of policy measures on key elements, presented
in the Table I-1 (APPENDIX I), were validated at the Athens AG2020 workshop on
the 5th of July, 2010.
For more details on the policy measures proposed in AG2020 see Deliverable D5.5
5.5.
Policy Packages
Policy packages are developed by combining sets of policy measures that are likely to
work well together (i.e. create synergies) in the context of the Images, already
68
constructed at an earlier stage of the backasting process. Each of the policy packages
is designed to contribute to one or more Images of the Future.
Policy packages are (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- Sets of measures to be introduced for discussion in a decision center;
- Addressing a specific issue;
- Providing a convincing contribution to the solution of a problem;
- Exhibiting a balanced impact on the various groups of concerned stakeholders
- Well received combinations of measures, with foreseeable implications.
For structuring a policy package, as in practical politics, it is useful to start
from a triggering issue, to continue with a central measure and to add
complementary measures, so as to form a balanced package, which is not too
large and has an inner logic. New or modified types of measures are likely to
be proposed in this process. The conceptual backasting framework (e.g.
AG2020) can then be used for a more systematic appraisal of this package,
which may again lead to adjustments.
A policy package cannot be designed by simply following a schematic application of
rules; it should be the output of a creative, iterative and preferably participatory
process.
The policy packages built in AG2020 are presented in Fig. 5-2 below (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
It should be noted though that this collection of packages is illustrative rather than
comprehensive and could be extended or modified. Some of the packages appear in
two different variants intended for different Policy Paths.
The clustering of policy measures into packages presents some of the measures to
create stronger synergies and have greater impact on decoupling rather than
technology. These refer to policy measures, which go well beyond traditional
agricultural policies and require a cautious balancing of different interests.
The AG2020 policy packages presented in Fig. 5-2 below are combined, at a later
stage, in order to structure the paths leading to the AG2020 Images of the Future.
In the following are presented the AG2020 policy packages (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5).
5.5.1. Policy package 1: Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies
Construction logic
This package (PP1) aims at increasing the knowledge stock of rural economies
based on a demand-driven development of knowledge and innovations, capable of
serving the needs of a diversified pattern of rural businesses and population.
69
Fig. 5-2: Policy packages in AG2020
Source: (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5)
PP 1 - Knowledge-driven diversified Rural Economies
PP 2 - Green Entrepreneurship
PP 3 - Environmental and Resource Stewardship
PP 4 - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3Rs)
PP 5 - Ecological Tax Reform
PP 6 - Log-in the Information Economy
PP 7 - Culture of “regionality”
PP 8 - Social Responsibility (citizens and businesses)
POLICY
PACKAGES
PP 9 - Administrative innovations - e-government
PP 10 - R&D – Bio-innovations
PP 11 - Public participation
PP 12 - Knowledge-intensive farm management
PP 13 ‐ Development of human resources PP 14 - Accessibility to transport – ICTs infrastructure
PP 15 – Spatial planning
In Policy Package 1, great emphasis is placed on the development of rural regions as
hubs of knowledge and innovation, in the agri-food but also in other sectors as well,
which drive innovation and competitiveness of local economies. Rural economies are
characterized by strong links to R&D and knowledge sources (universities, research
70
institutions etc.), while high tech industries in the agri-food sector are creating
clusters, fuelling the rest of the rural economies (secondary and tertiary sector
supporting agri-food industry e.g. packaging industry, machinery, training activities,
research laboratories).
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations, serving Policy Package 1 on “Knowledge-driven
diversified rural economies”, is presented below (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5):
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation, supporting R&D, links to universities
and research institutions, establishment of broadband connection in rural areas,
life-long training to rural population, provision of specialized services, etc;
‐ Market orientation, supporting export initiatives of rural businesses and
networking;
‐ Regulation orientation elaborates on the rules for cultivation, harvesting,
processing and packaging of agri-food products (e.g. biotechnology and GMO).
Main policy measures
Key policy measures in this policy package may have as follows (Giaoutzi and
‐ Increased accessibility to knowledge infrastructure and R&D (Universities,
research institutions, etc.);
‐ Provision of broadband connection in rural areas - increased accessibility to ICTs
infrastructure;
‐ Skilled and ICTs experienced labour force - life-long training to rural population;
‐ Openness of the rural regions to the external world – strong trade orientation;
‐ Strong networking among businesses especially in the agri-food sector (agri-food
chains);
‐ Diversification of local economic structure (agri-food, trade, services supporting
the agri-food sector, other services);
‐ R&D support – development of new knowledge & technologies in the agri-food
sector;
‐ Promotion of entrepreneurship in rural regions; etc.
Impact on stakeholders
The implementation of this policy package will be to the benefit of local businesses in
rural regions as they get access to knowledge and information (re)sources that will
enhance their potential to: innovate and grasp new opportunities (e.g. new products,
new production processes, increase of market share); and increase competitiveness.
Agricultural businesses can benefit as well from the increasing knowledge stock on
agri-input, agri-food processes, plants etc. and accessibility to R&D through ICTs that
will ensure the continuous updating of relevant information, driving competitiveness
and market penetration (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
On the other hand, increasing accessibility to knowledge (re)sources may have a
positive impact on the quality of local labour force. More precisely access to life-long
training, may enable the upgrading of skills and capabilities, contributing thus to the
71
bettering of opportunities for rural population but also the increase of productivity in
local firms. The above, combined with the increasing knowledge stock and
accessibility to R&D through ICTs networks, makes the rural regions more attractive
destinations for the location of knowledge-intensive firms, which reinforces the
economic base and diversity of high added-value agri-food activities in rural regions
(Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
5.5.2.
Policy package 2: Green entrepreneurship
Construction logic
The Policy Package 2 (PP2) is concerned with the environmental integrity of
firms, aiming at integrating environmental protection, economic efficiency and
business innovation for achieving sustainable development objectives.
PP2 aims at motivating a sense of personal commitment of firms to environmental
objectives. It incorporates ideas from green technology and design, green and fair
trade marketing, organic agriculture, environmentally responsible business (adopting
an energy efficiency strategy), organizational management, etc.
At the core of this package are environmental innovations that, apart from driving
environmental responsibility of firms, are challenging efficiency objectives but also
market penetration, based on the demand for products with reduced ecological
footprint. Entrepreneurial behaviour is the engine of the package, driving the
development or adoption of innovations in the production/processing process towards
the successful integration of competitiveness and environmental objectives in the
business agenda (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Such a business attitude is gaining ground nowadays based on the: technological
developments; devastating effects on the environment; increasing pressure from
consumers for better quality and more environmentally responsible products;
enhanced role of NGOs towards increasing awareness of societal actors in
environmental threats; gradual weakening of the traditional role of the state and the
increasing role attached to bottom-up approaches and public participation; increased
contribution of the stakeholders to business ethics and corporate governance; etc.
(Kotsani and Tsakos, 2009). The above developments have driven the rise of the new
business concept of “green entrepreneurship”, as a business strategy in support of the
environmental dimension of sustainability.
The model of corporate responsibility, as a new approach to entrepreneurship, has
become a competitive advantage of today's firms, sharing the society’s concerns and
visions, by welding principles, values, social and environmental initiatives and
cultural issues, constituting thus a conscious commitment to sustainable development.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving Policy Package 2 on “Green
entrepreneurship” are (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
72
‐ Lifestyle-orientation, based on the increasing awareness and commitment of
businesses and society on environmental protection and demand for
environmentally responsible agri-food production;
‐ Market-orientation, based on incentives encouraging green entrepreneurship to
invest and produce in an environmentally responsible way; and
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation, supporting R&D and less resourceintensive technologies in the agri-food but also other sectors of rural economies;
interaction and networking among businesses through ICTs for knowledge
exchange, etc.
Key policy measures in PP2 may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5):
‐ Increase of environmental awareness;
‐ Support of green products - Eco-labelling of products;
‐ Waste management - Reduce, recycle and reuse of waste;
‐ Promote environmentally friendly agri-practices;
‐ Tax on agri-food products with high ecological footprint;
‐ Promotion of green entrepreneurship in rural regions;
‐ Promotion of innovations in the energy sector e.g. energy crops production,
biomass processing technologies, smart energy networks, and biorefineries.
PP2 is expected to have positive impacts on the competitiveness of firms and market
penetration, based on the increasing demand for environmentally responsible
products. Moreover, it will contribute to the improvement of the image of
entrepreneurs in local societies as stakeholders that share common values, visions and
expectations in rural regions, strengthening the links between firms and the local
society (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
A positive impact is also expected on the local employment and opportunities, based
on the flourishing of green activities. But, as these activities are mostly technologyand innovation driven, they are expected to act as catalysts in rural regions,
facilitating innovation adoption and diffusion in other fields as well. This in turn may
improve the attraction of new firms, but also the strengthening of local
entrepreneurship in rural regions to the benefit of new employment opportunities.
Finally, environmental quality of rural regions is also expected to improve, based on
the development of green initiatives in all sectors. This can form the base for the
development of other activities e.g. alternative tourism activities, widening thus the
economic base of rural regions and increasing the range of employment opportunities
and income creation for the local population, while better exploiting local resources
73
5.5.3.
Policy package 3: Environmental and resource stewardship
Construction logic
The focus of Policy Package 3 (PP3) is on the role of agri-food and forest
sectors as safeguards of environmental resources. In this context, it pursues the
environmental and resource stewardship of the agri-food and forest sectors,
based on the sustainable use of the natural resources.
PP3 aims at reaching a long-term sustainable development of the agri-forest sector
based on activities carried out along the lines of the ethics of a broad stewardship that
recognizes the contribution of sector for the society as a whole (Giaoutzi and
Improving the environmental performance of the agri-forest sector involves the
conservation of resources and the consideration of the off-site effects on the
environment, by refraining, among others, environmentally harmful production
processes. Decreasing ecological footprint of agri-forest production is thus a key
policy concern in this package.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP3 on “Environmental
and resource stewardship” fall into the following two variants (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5):
9 Variant 1
In Variant 1, the focus is on the use of technology for the achievement of a more
environmentally friendly management of agri-forest resources. Policy orientations
serving this variant may have as follows:
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation that promotes the development and
promotion or adoption and use of technologies relevant to an environmentally
friendly resource management;
‐ Market orientation, where emphasis is placed on labelling of the agri-forest
products;
‐ Lifestyle orientation that focuses on increasing both environmental awareness and
trust to technology of farmers and local societies;
‐ Regulation orientation, setting the rules for agri-forest farm management.
9 Variant 2
In Variant 2, the focus is on decoupling the development of the agri-forest sectors
from environmental quality by use of environmentally sound agri- (organic and lowinput) and forest-practices that are less harmful to the environment. Policy
orientations serving this variant may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5):
74
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation that may support the upgrading of
human resources on environmentally-responsible behaviour/practices in the agriforest sector;
‐ Market orientation, where emphasis is placed on eco-labelling of the agri-forest
products and the support of environmentally responsible production;
‐ Lifestyle orientation that focuses on increasing environmental awareness of
farmers and local societies.
D5.5):
9 Variant 1: Technology
‐ Promotion of R&D and technologies for environmentally friendly resource
management;
‐ Stimulation of innovation and technology transfer in the agri-forest sector;
‐ Increase in technology awareness for the agri-forest farmers’ community;
‐ Improvement of ICTs capabilities of the agri-forest farmers.
9 Variant 2: Decoupling
‐ Increase in ICTs capabilities of agri-forest farmers;
‐ Access of farmers to on-line information systems (access to knowledge and
information);
‐ Life-long training for the agri-forest labour force;
‐ Setting up farm and forest management advisory services;
‐ Raising of awareness in the farmers’ community as to environmentally friendly
agri-forest practices.
9 Variant 1
In Variant 1, technology and its applications in the agri-forest sector have positive
impacts on the environment. The adoption and wide use of technology for
environmental management in rural regions may stimulate the attraction of new firms
in this sector. This will support the development of demand-driven innovations,
bettering the sustainable use of local resources, but also increase employment and
broaden income opportunities in rural regions. As a result will be refrained, decline in
the outflow of population, especially of the younger, highly educated groups.
The adoption and use of technological developments may support the creation of a
range of manufacturing and service activities in rural regions that improve further the
employment opportunities and income generation in rural areas.
Moreover, the diffusion of technologies for environmental protection promotes further
technology trust in rural communities and facilitates the development of a ‘technology
culture’ that increases the rates of technology adoption and use in other sectors as
75
well. This may accelerate even more technology adoption rates in rural regions that
increase efficiency and competitive advantage in the market.
9 Variant 2
In Variant 2, decoupling is used as a strategy for the development of a less
environmentally-harmful agri-forest sector. The impact of such an approach has
definitely positive environmental effects. Farmers, through access to ICTs
applications but also farm and forest management advisory services can get access to
information and knowledge on environmentally friendly practises and successful
experiences of other regions, building thus a step by step better understanding of agriforest processes that are to the benefit of production and environmental resources of
rural regions. Moreover, their income is improved by agri-environmental policy
measures but also the better place of eco-products in the market.
Farmers’ attitude towards the protection of natural resources affects positively the rest
of the productive sectors in rural regions and constitutes the “seed” for increasing
environmental awareness in these regions. Based on the high quality of natural
resources, but also on the ‘image’ of rural regions as environmentally responsible
managers of natural resources, sustainable tourism is flourishing, enhancing
diversification of local economy, interaction of sectors within rural economies and
employment and income opportunities for the local population.
5.5.4.
Policy package 4: reduce, reuse, recycle
Construction logic
Policy Package 4 (PP4) focus is on a more effective and multiple-use of
resources. Such an approach is based on the 3Rs, namely Reduce, Reuse and
Recycle.
PP4 is based on a more conscious use of natural resources, based on: the attitude of
both citizens and businesses towards the protection of natural resources, where a new
culture of resource-saving and multiple use of resources is permeating the society as a
whole; and the development of respective technologies that better serve this attitude,
namely the 3Rs (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
The concept of “Reduce, reuse and recycle” is associated with the pattern of
consumption of both primary e.g. land, water; but also secondary resources, e.g.
energy and waste, at both the firm and individual level. For example, the agri-forest
and the food sectors are considered as heavy consumers of resources.
In this policy package are promoted policy measures that may serve the rational use of
natural resources in various sectors e.g. the agri-food sector by use of technologies
such as precise farming, modern water irrigation systems, sensor technology, energy
efficiency technologies. Moreover, in the agri-food sector are promoted food
packaging materials and technologies that better serve the reuse and recycle
dimensions. Management of agri-forest, household and manufacturing waste are also
76
of importance in this respect, as these may also form the grounds for energy
production.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP4 on “Reduce, Reuse,
and Recycle” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Lifestyle orientation, of key importance in this package, refers to a more
conscious use of natural resources, based on the increasing awareness of global
environmental challenges and the commitment for action at both the individual
and the business level.
‐ Market orientation that supports investments on technologies serving reduction,
reuse and recycling of resources (water, energy etc.), green activities, ecolabelling, etc.
‐ Regulation orientation, based on the pricing of the use of natural resources by both
individuals and businesses e.g. energy, water.
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation that supports knowledge and
technology diffusion on resource-saving technological solutions.
D5.5):
‐ Increase awareness of both households and firms;
‐ Stimulate waste management (household, agri-forest and manufacturing); but also
water management in the agri-sector – less water-intensive irrigation systems;
‐ Promotion of renewable energy production (biomass, wind energy, solar energy,
etc.);
‐ Promotion of energy efficiency technologies in all economic sectors and
households;
‐ Introduce farm and forest advisory services on rational resource use.
The impact of this policy package on a more effective and environmentally friendly
management of resources is definitely positive. Its implementation, though,
presupposes the consolidation of a new culture in rural regions, supporting a more
conscious management of resources. Moreover, it is of importance the adoption and
use of technologies that support the concept of “reduction, reuse and recycling” at
both the household and the business level. Such an effort requires certain investments
at the above levels (household and business), which may exert pressure on rural
regions due to limited accessibility to respective financial resources. Certain policy
support is necessary in this respect, taking the form of incentives, cost subsidization,
tax relaxation etc. Diffusion of knowledge on potential technologies is also of great
importance. This implies the need for advisory structures that have to be closely
linked to the local pattern of production and consumption.
77
5.5.5.
Policy package 5: Ecological tax reform
Construction logic
The logic behind an ecological tax reform is based on the view that externalities
of resource use and environmentally harmful activities are taxed too lightly, while
labour is taxed too heavily.
An ecological tax reform aims at shifting the tax emphasis from labour to resource use
and environmentally harmful activities in order to support a more environmentally
thoughtful behaviour. A likely basis for increasing taxes is the charging on the use of
energy and primary resources but also the emission of greenhouse gases (Giaoutzi and
The way the concept of an ecological tax reform is used presumes that the outcome is
fiscally neutral for the whole society. That is, labour taxes should be reduced
correspondingly. However, this interpretation does not imply that an Ecological Tax
Reform should be fiscally neutral for every sector of society. On the contrary, the part
of agricultural sector, for example, which is rather resource intensive, would have to
face substantially raised taxes, while labour intensive sectors would get lower taxes.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of Policy Package 5 on
“Ecological tax reform” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Market orientation that introduces incentives to resource-intensive activities for
more environmentally responsible production-processing schemes.
‐ Regulation orientation, which sets the rules for tax reform as well as rules for
restrictions on import- trade based on resource-intensive imported products.
‐ Public infrastructure/services promoting R&D on resource-saving technologies.
D5.5):
‐ Promotion of resource-saving technologies e.g. energy efficiency technologies,
water saving technologies, sensor technologies.
‐ Imposing tariffs on imported food and feed with high carbon footprint.
‐ Tax reform measures.
‐ etc.
The impact of this policy package on rural regions as a whole is expected to be
positive based on a more environmentally responsible use of resources that is
enforced by the tax reform. The impact on rural population is also expected to be
positive as they will enjoy a better and healthier environment.
78
As to the local firms, the ecological tax reform will place certain financial burden on
their cost function, depending on the nature (e.g. resource-intensive) of each specific
firm. This is expected to motivate firms to invest on technologies that may improve
their environmental performance. Such investments, in the short run, may have quite
an impact on the local economic base, while in the long run will compensate from the
gains introduced by tax relief, and decreasing production costs, but also the returns for
responsible behaviour.
5.5.6.
Policy package 6: Log-in the information society
Construction logic
The rationale behind PP6 is the promotion of ICTs and their applications in
rural regions in support of interaction and knowledge exchange within both
intra and inter rural regions (among various actors/sectors) as well as the outer
world.
Despite the rich natural and cultural resources in rural regions, they are often seen as
backward regions as to their knowledge capacity that constrains efficient exploitation
of these resources. The emergence of the Information and Knowledge Society and its
power in gathering, processing, storing, retrieving and transmitting knowledge and
information at a distance, seems to create new promising perspectives towards the
future development of rural regions (Stratigea, 2010).
ICTs may contribute to the development of multiple aspects of the rural regions, such
as: improvement of agricultural production and productivity, production of safer food,
support of firms and entrepreneurship, upgrading of skills and competencies of local
labour, strengthening of bonds in the local society, social equity in “logging-in”
opportunities, increase of public participation, more effective and sustainable use of
natural resources, etc. (Stratigea, 2010). In this respect, specific ICTs applications can
be used as strategic tools for the development of rural regions, provided that they take
into account the social context and offer tailored-made solutions to the community
needs (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
The focus of PP6 is on promoting an e-inclusion strategy in rural regions that will
introduce multiplier effects for all parts of rural societies (Stratigea, 2010).
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP6 on “Log-in the
Information Society” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation for the provision of network
infrastructure to support accessibility of rural regions to ICTs as well as the
upgrading of skills and capabilities of rural population as ICTs users.
‐ Lifestyle orientation that promotes an e-culture to the everyday individual and
business transactions.
‐ Market orientation with focus on the development of ICTs applications and
content, meeting the needs of rural regions.
79
‐ Regulation orientation, on safety aspects of electronic transactions.
D5.5):
‐ Provision of broadband access to rural regions;
‐ Support of skill acquisition of rural population in ICTs;
‐ Creation of innovative public structures as pioneers of ICTs promotion in rural
areas, serving effectively the needs of rural population (citizens and businesses)
(e-government);
‐ Familiarization of rural population with ICTs and their applications in the
everyday life;
‐ Promotion of tailor-made demand-driven ICTs applications and respective
‘content’ for rural regions e.g. e-learning platforms.
Adoption and use of ICTs applications are quite important for eliminating digital
divide between rural and urban regions. Moreover, their power for personal and
business development is widely recognized, based on successful experiences all over
the world (OECD, 2006).
Promotion of ICTs and their applications in rural regions will enhance opportunities
for cooperation and networking both among local firms e.g. agri-food chains and
between local firms and firms outside rural regions, which will further increase local
knowledge resources. A quite positive impact can be recorded in the information
technology sector, based on the demand for both hardware and software for ICTs
applications. This will result to a certain increase in job creation, widening also the
range of local employment opportunities (Stratigea, 2010).
Moreover, the expected decrease of digital divide between rural and urban regions is
considered as a rather important factor for making rural regions attractive locations
for new investments, enhancing thus employment opportunities to the benefit of local
labour force and the regions as a whole.
5.5.7.
Policy package 7: Culture of “regionality”
Construction logic
PP7 focuses on a locally-driven rural development perspective (localization),
based on the endogenous potential of rural regions. Such a perspective is driven
by behavioural patterns that place emphasis on quality and authenticity (quality
of food, quality of life, quality of social interaction, quality of environment,
etc.).
PP7 places emphasis on the value attached nowadays to rural amenities, local identity
and traditions, qualitative and peaceful rural environments, etc. Rural regions remain
80
devoted to the above principles, adopting a rural development approach based on
small-scale, traditional, green-oriented, value-adding production strategy, placing
emphasis on an agri-food production/processing model of a lower ecological
footprint, qualitative, locally produced green food, supporting food diversification,
local identity, traditional and cultural aspects of rural regions - the perspective of
“regionality”, food origin and organic farming (IFOAM, 2005). Such a strategy is
usually less technology-intensive, focusing mainly on those technological advances
serving environmental and quality aspects of agri-food production/processing (e.g.
less resource-intensive and energy-intensive, green or low-input local products)
Moreover, small-scale tourist activities are promoted, based on the valuable, quite
gently handled and preserved, natural and man-made resources, together with certain
traditional manufacturing activities such as pottery, handicraft etc. The key concept of
this policy package is to retain the local identity and uniqueness of each specific rural
context.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP7 on the “Culture of
Regionality” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation, that aims at reducing inequalities in
access to opportunities / services between rural and urban regions.
‐ Lifestyle orientation, raising awareness of local population and businesses on the
value of local resources and the need for their sustainable development.
‐ Regulation orientation, setting the rules for the protection of valuable ecosystems.
‐ Market orientation that may support local SMEs to develop and flourish.
D5.5):
‐ Improving accessibility in transport infrastructure, both intra- and inter-regional;
‐ Promote e-inclusion through the provision of broadband access;
‐ Development of ICTs applications and content that serves the local needs;
‐ Increase awareness of rural population as to the value of natural and cultural
resources and the need for their preservation.
‐ Promotion of “green” lifestyle in agri-forest and food production but also in the
rest of the local economic sectors;
‐ Promotion of incentives for the development of local ‘green’ entrepreneurship.
The present policy package (PP7) on the support of ‘Culture of Regionality’ is
expected to have positive impacts on the preservation of the natural and cultural
resources of rural regions. This will enhance their potential to generate income out of
a sustainable use of these resources. As a result certain diversification of rural
economy will be reached, placing emphasis on: green agri-food production, serving
quality objectives; and exploitation of cultural but also natural resources. Moreover,
the strong linkages among the various sectors (agri-food production, tourism and
81
cultural activities) is expected to have multiplier effects for the local economy, while
a range of e-applications, such as e-commerce, e-learning, e-training, e-banking etc.
may increase access to services and opportunities of these regions and improve their
competitiveness, by reducing the rural-urban divide, rendering rural regions attractive
destinations for the location of innovative ‘green’ entrepreneurial trials (Giaoutzi and
5.5.8. Policy package 8: Social responsibility
Construction logic
The scope of PP8 is to motivate a sense of personal commitment of both citizens
and firms in rural regions to environmental and social progress.
Unsustainable exploitation of land, water, energy and other natural and cultural
resources in rural regions may pose threats on the resource base upon which economic
and social development of these regions depends. Such threats can hamper the
fulfillment of environmental, social and economic objectives and put at risk rural
development in general (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
To cope with such risks, PP8 aims at strengthening responsibility and commitment of
both citizens and businesses to environmental and social aspects in rural regions.
Such an effort is strongly conditioned by the increase of awareness on the value of
these aspects for rural development purposes.
In PP8 action needs to be undertaken for increasing awareness both at the business
and the community level in this respect (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
At the business level, there is a need for increasing awareness on the value added
acquired from the integration of business competitiveness with the environmental
agenda. Such a benefit is nowadays fully acknowledged by the entrepreneurial world,
where modern entrepreneurs have fully realized that their future profitability depends
on issues such as resource efficiency, public trust and the capability to develop
technologies that meet the challenges of the future.
At the community level, there is a need for citizens to realize their contribution to
environmental deterioration or upgrading respectively, based on their every day
decisions e.g. pattern of interacting, consuming, using energy resources, recycling.
This trend is gradually taking shape, where citizens, as consumers, are exhibiting
steadily increasing shifts towards environmentally friendly consumption patterns i.e.
products that are distinguished for their environmental quality, being also willing to
pay more in order to buy such kind of products.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP8 on “Social
responsibility” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
82
‐ Lifestyle orientation, raising awareness of local population and businesses on the
value of local resources and the promotion of responsibility for sustainable use of
these resources.
‐ Market orientation, supporting local investments on environmentally responsible
exploitation of local resources in rural regions.
‐ Regulation orientation, setting the rules for the protection of valuable ecosystems.
D5.5):
‐ Promotion of e-inclusion through the provision of broadband access that may
support increasing access of rural stakeholders to information and knowledge
sources;
‐ Development of ICTs applications that may increase the knowledge stock in rural
regions for the development of environmentally responsible behaviour, both at the
individual/societal and the business level;
‐ Upgrade the skills and knowledge of rural population/businesses on natural and
cultural resource management/preservation.
‐ Promotion of “green” lifestyle in agri-forest and food production, but also in the
rest of the economic sectors - incentives for the development of local green
entrepreneurship.
‐ Promotion of the ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (3Rs)’ principle at the
individual/societal and business levels.
‐ Promotion of green (organic) food consumption patterns.
‐ Promotion of efficiency in both production and use of energy.
‐ Promotion of renewable energy efficient solutions in rural regions.
‐ Setting up of agri-forest management advisory services.
The implementation of PP8 is expected to impact a more responsible use of resources
in rural regions as a whole that will reduce the burden placed on their environmental
and cultural resources.
Benefits are also expected for local firms, as increasing awareness on the sustainable
use of resources is expected to motivate innovation, driven by increasing knowledge
stock and available technologies. This is expected to drive both competitiveness and
environmental stewardship in the local entrepreneurial patterns. Moreover, respect
and trust of local population for local firms is expected to increase, strengthening thus
social cohesion and building of consensus in rural regions.
Benefits are also expected from environmentally responsible behaviour of both
population and businesses, enhancing the: quality of life, access to rural amenities of
high quality, new employment opportunities based on rural amenities, etc.
83
5.5.9. Policy package 9: Administrative innovations – e-Government
Construction logic
PP9 addresses the issue of an improvement of the services provided by the
administrative institutions in rural areas, considering the introduction of a range
of innovations that will support a more timely and cost-effective provision of
services (e-government).
Rural regions exhibit limited accessibility of population and firms to public services.
This implies cost and time constraints, as the most commonly appearing barriers that
reduce accessibility to those services and have definite impacts on the development
perspective of rural regions.
The present policy package (PP9) aims at enhancing the potential of local
administrative institutions with the provision of timely and cost-effective services by
establishing on-line transactions through the development of one-stop e-Government
portal (Stratigea, 2010) that enables a better performance of the socioeconomic base
of the rural regions.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP9 on “Administrative
innovations – e-government” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5):
‐ Public infrastructure/services orientation that focuses on the development of both
the ICTs infrastructure and the adoption of the administrative innovations needed
for the provision of services.
‐ Lifestyle orientation that will support the promotion of an e-culture in rural
regions, which will facilitate trust in technology and its applications.
D5.5):
‐ Provision of access to ICTs infrastructure.
‐ Upgrading human resources by providing skill acquisition opportunities in rural
population / businesses.
‐ Restructuring of local administrative institutions.
The implementation of PP9 may have a positive impact on rural regions as a whole, as
it may remove barriers to access public services, improve quality of services,
transparency etc. making thus rural regions attractive locations for both population
and businesses (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
84
Such applications form the basis for the provision of a wider range of services that
will enable, among others, involvement of the local actors in decision processes by
increasing awareness of population and businesses on the local issues
Moreover, public administrative units adopting ICTs can play a pioneering role for a
broader adoption and use of ICTs in the population, promoting an e-culture within
their territories.
Gaining access to timely and cost-effective public services is also to the benefit of
local firms contributing to cost reduction and competitiveness.
Development of ICTs and their applications in the public sector, will create new jobs
around the sector.
5.5.10. Policy package 10: R&D – Bio-innovations
Construction logic
The focus of PP10 is the transition of the economic structures in the rural
regions into bio-based economies, relying on the development of regional
knowledge and innovations, namely R&D and bio-innovations that will support
this transition.
A worldwide trend appears where consumers increasingly seek to acquire and use
products that are more friendly to the environment. As a consequence industry,
consumers and governments are increasingly paying attention to products that claim
to be ‘green’, have a light environmental footprint, be biodegradable, and be biobased.
The agricultural sector is at the ‘core’ of the transformations taking place in rural
regions towards a bio-based economy, where. new types and uses of crops are
appearing. A combination of aggressive facilitating of national policy, public and
private investments and the development of science and technology, in context, is
required to reach the desired end (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of Policy Package 10 on
“R&D – Bio-innovations” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
Public infrastructure/services orientation that will support R&D efforts and
innovations capable of driving the transition of rural regions towards bio-based
economies.
‐ Market orientation that will support businesses towards adopting a knowledgebased, competitive and sustainable model of production and processing, with
emphasis placed on energy production, as the major commodity opportunity of the
bio-based economy.
‐ Regulation orientation that will set the rules for e.g. food/feed traceability,
blending shares of biofuels, land use etc.
85
‐ Lifestyle orientation that aims at increasing awareness on the environmental
footprint of the various products.
D5.5):
‐ Policy measures promoting a knowledge-based, innovative, competitive and
sustainable model of production and processing (4fs i.e. food-feed-fiber-fuel
production).
‐ Policy measures supporting R&D and innovation in the agri-food sector in fields
such as health and nutrition, logistics, packaging and processing technologies,
food-feed production, ‘green’ production etc., serving the production of new
innovative products.
‐ Policy measures supporting rural development of agricultural regions (both in
terms of environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency).
‐ Policy measures promoting the production of bio-energy and bio-materials in rural
regions.
Implementation of PP10 contributes greatly to the rendering of rural regions as hubs
of innovation and resource-stewardship. This makes them attractive places for the
location of new business, with impacts on employment opportunities and income.
Highly skilled labour force is attracted to these regions taking also advantage of
business opportunities and quality of life offered, reinforcing thus the innovation
potential of rural communities. The agri-food sector, being at the core of the bio-based
activities, also provides opportunities for the less skilled labour force, usually met in
these regions (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Considerable upgrading can also be expected in the infrastructure of rural regions,
both transport and ICTs, for serving the needs of the increasingly export-oriented
activity of bio-based economy.
5.5.11. Policy package 11: Public participation
Construction logic
The focus of PP11 is on the strengthening of public participation in the
decision making process, for building a broader consensus on the future
development paths of rural regions.
Stakeholders’ view is of great importance for the successful implementation of
policies emerging from any planning exercise. Involving the public in the decision
making process contributes to the (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ incorporation of a wider range of public interests,
‐ enrichment of the decision making process at all stages,
‐ better understanding of the different stakeholders’ views (learning process),
86
‐ commitment to the decisions made and the policies supporting these decisions,
‐ building of consensus among stakeholders.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP11 on “Public
Participation” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Lifestyle orientation for increasing awareness of rural population on natural and
cultural values, for building the feeling of responsibility and belonging among
rural stakeholders as well as enhancing commitment towards common sustainable
development objectives.
‐ Regulation orientation sets the framework for public participation in the decision
making processes in rural communities.
‐ Public infrastructure/services promote supporting infrastructure and ICTs
applications, facilitating participation of local population in the decision making
processes e.g. e-government, social networks.
D5.5):
‐ Measures that increase public/business awareness on green values and
environmental protection;
‐ Measures promoting quality-oriented lifestyles;
‐ Measures promoting Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP);
‐ Measures promoting social networking;
‐ Measures that support the deployment of network infrastructure;
‐ Measures promoting environmental responsibility e.g. energy efficiency,
recycling, water saving;
‐ Measures promoting ICTs applications at the local level e.g. e-government;
‐ etc.
Strengthening of public participation in rural regions contributes to the development
of a feeling of belonging in the community; sharing the same visions; respecting local
natural and cultural resources; committing themselves to joint efforts for a common
future (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5; Stratigea, 2009).
At the business level, public participation is a driving force for the development of a
more responsible entrepreneurial behaviour on both environmental and social aspects.
Finally, at the community level, joint efforts of both public and local stakeholders
may drive visions towards the future development of rural regions, built on consensus
and common efforts of all parts involved.
87
5.5.12. Policy package 12: Knowledge-intensive farm management
Construction logic
The focus of PP12 is on the promotion of a knowledge and technology
intensive farm management approach, used to support the profitability and
environmental integrity in high-productivity systems.
Rural areas nowadays, all over Europe, are in a transition phase, marked by the
transformation of farming from predominantly tradition-oriented family-run
businesses to a professionally run, science-based competitive enterprise, driven by
knowledge and linked to the markets of the world (AGRIBLUE, 2004).
In this environment, new knowledge-based farming systems are required, profitable at
the farm level, which produce competitive market-oriented food products; meet
animal health and welfare requirements, including the growing demands for
environmental and social sustainability and for regional/local ethically produced food
products; are environmentally sustainable; can cope with emerging climate changes;
and are energy efficient (Downey, 2006).
Modern agri-food production is increasingly getting a more science and technology
intensive sector. Access to specific knowledge is necessary in all stages of the agrifood production i.e. cultivation, harvesting, processing, packaging and distribution. A
lot of new knowledge is produced on the input used in agriculture e.g. new seeds, new
plants, pesticides; on the equipment used e.g. improvements in machinery; on the
farm management practices e.g. GPS and RFID; on the processing technologies etc.
The farmers of the future need to harvest knowledge just as they have to harvest crops
(AGRIBLUE, 2004).
Knowledge-intensive management focuses on bringing together segmented parts of
information (e.g. cold weather, 10 days till harvest, 12 harmful insects per rice plant)
in order to make intelligent decisions (e.g. the insects won't multiply before harvesttime due to cold weather therefore no need to spray) (AGRIBLUE, 2004).
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP12 on “Knowledgeintensive farm management” may fall into the following two variants (Giaoutzi and
9 Variant 1
In Variant 1, the focus of policy orientation is on the provision of access to farmers to
all kinds of knowledge and technologies that may serve efficiency objectives of farm
management. These may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Public infrastructure/services orientation that promotes R&D in the agri-food
sector, with emphasis on GMO in order to increase field productivity;
88
‐ Market orientation, that supports agri-food businesses for the development or
adoption/use of cost-efficient technological innovations in the production process;
‐ Regulation orientation, setting the legal frame for cultivation, harvesting,
processing and packaging of agri-food products (e.g. biotechnology and GMO).
‐ Lifestyle orientation, that promotes trust to technology and ICTs culture in the
farmers’ community.
9 Variant 2
In Variant 2, the focus of policy orientation is on the provision of access to
environmentally responsible agricultural practices and knowledge in support of
decoupling of farm activities from environmental burden. These may have as follows
‐ Public infrastructure/services orientation promoting R&D and innovations in the
agri-food sector that facilitate decoupling agri-activities from environmental
impact (e.g. new pesticides, new plants), and information diffusion on successful
experiences (e.g. agricultural practices);
‐ Market orientation, motivating and rewarding innovative behaviour that drives
environmentally responsible agri-food production;
‐ Regulation orientation that sets the rules for environmentally responsible agriproduction;
‐ Lifestyle orientation that focuses on increasing environmental awareness of
farmers and local societies.
D5.5):
9 Variant 1
‐ Measures promoting R&D in the agri-food sector (agri-food technological
innovations e.g. novel pesticides, GMO-based less water-intensive crops, precise
farming technology, satellite surveillance), with emphasis on GMO to increase
field productivity;
‐ Measures increasing technology awareness e.g. new machinery, fertilizers, plants,
seeds.
‐ Measures promoting the deployment of ICTs infrastructure in rural regions;
‐ Measures supporting life-long training for the upgrading of human resources;
‐ etc.
9 Variant 2
‐ Measures diffusing knowledge and information on successful experiences;
‐ Measures providing access to training opportunities on environmentally
responsible agricultural practices;
‐ Measures promoting the deployment of ICTs infrastructure in rural regions;
‐ Measures increasing awareness on the positive impacts of long term sustainability
of agricultural production;
89
‐ Access of farmers to information and knowledge systems supporting the
acquisition of various kinds of farm-specific information, e.g. weather information
for irrigation, seed options, information for field work purposes, which support
decisions at the farm level and improve sustainable farm management.
‐ etc.
9 Variant 1
Knowledge-intensive farm management greatly affects farm productivity and
competitiveness. But not all farmers in rural regions are able to cope with the required
investments in knowledge and technology. Therefore farmers should receive support
in order to assure equal access to knowledge and technological advances needed for a
more effective farm management. Such a farm management approach is more costeffective in the case of large scale farming, facilitating restructuring in farm size
patterns in rural areas, leading though to a loss of biodiversity (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5).
Additionally, environmental aspects of knowledge intensive farm management need
to be considered, in order to avoid new technology-related environmental hazards
(Downey, 2006). Although knowledge and technological advances are in most cases
considering the environmental dimension, intensive farm management may lead to the
downgrading of land productivity and can question availability of water resources.
This in turn will affect the very existence of the agricultural sector in rural regions, as
it can drive to land abandonment and desertification, but will also affect the quality of
natural resources in rural regions.
In respect to the local population, a knowledge and technology intensive farm
management may raise certain objections as to the quality and safety of agri-food
production and the environmental burden placed in rural regions. Moreover, it can
place local agricultural population in a disadvantageous position due to the lack of
knowledge and expertise in technology-driven farm practices.
9 Variant 2
Knowledge-intensive farm management focusing on decoupling agricultural
production from environmental degradation contributes to the flourishing of:
‐ agricultural firms as it results to a better management of natural resources; less
harmful agri-production; preservation of biodiversity based on the continuity of
diversified cultivation patterns; support of farm income based on the increasing
demand for qualitative products etc.; and
‐ rural communities as it results to the creation of a more environmentally
responsible image, which, based on the quality of local resources, supports the
development of a range of other activities in rural regions, reinforcing thus
multifunctionality of rural land. This in turn enhances employment and income
opportunities at the rural level.
Moreover, based on the adoption and use of environmentally friendly practices, it may
result to resource preservation and production of high quality agricultural products.
90
5.5.13. Policy package 13: Development of human resources
Construction logic
The rationale of PP13 focuses on strengthening the knowledge and skills of
human resources in rural regions (knowledge and technology driven production
processes, ICTs skills etc.)
Policy orientations
The policy orientations serving the objectives of PP13 on “Development of human
resources” have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Public infrastructure/services orientation that aims at establishing proper
communication infrastructure for knowledge and information transmission to rural
areas;
‐ Lifestyle orientation, aims at promoting an e-culture in rural regions, inspiring
trust to technology and its applications for capacity building.
Key policy measures in this policy package are (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Deployment of proper network infrastructure (ICTs) relevant to the customized
needs of each rural region;
‐ Measures that increase skills of rural population;
‐ Infrastructure for local labour force training (e-learning platforms, e-seminars, elibraries, access to information and knowledge services etc.);
‐ Access of farmers to on-farm services for the provision of on-farm personalized
information (Stratigea, 2010);
‐ etc.
Capacity building of human resources in rural regions is to the benefit of both the
individual and the business level (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
At the individual level, capacity building leads to personal development and
development of skills that improve accessibility of local population to employment
opportunities.
At the business level, more skilled and knowledgeable workers support the raising of
labour productivity, but also the rate of adoption and use of knowledge- and
technology-driven production processes that support competitiveness of local
businesses. Additionally, capacity building may promote entrepreneurial behavior in
rural regions, taking advantage of existing but also new business opportunities.
Moreover, exploitation of new business opportunities may broaden the range of
employment opportunities, restraining thus decline and out-migration of rural
population.
91
Finally, capacity building in these regions contributes to the establishment of a skilled
labour force pool attracting new investments, increasing thus employment and income
opportunities, population growth, adoption and use of technology, etc.
5.5.14. Policy package 14: Accessibility of rural regions to ICTs and transport
infrastructure
Construction logic
PP14 aims at increasing accessibility of rural regions to ICTs and transport
infrastructure, supporting thus mobility of persons and goods but also
information exchange both at the intra-regional (interaction within the rural
region) and inter-regional levels (interaction of rural regions with the outer
world).
Rural regions are considered traditionally as serving the needs of population for food.
Moreover, they are attractive locations for various kinds of leisure and entertainment
activities, based on the presence of valuable natural and cultural resources. The above
imply that certain mobility of goods and people, but also information exchange is
taking place from/to the rural regions (Stratigea, 2010). The present policy package
aims at improving accessibility of rural regions to both ICTs and transport
infrastructure.
Policy orientations
The policy orientations serving the objectives of Policy Package 14 on “Accessibility
to ICTs and transport infrastructure” may have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5):
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation that aims at the provision of the
necessary ICTs and transport infrastructure, serving mobility purposes of persons
and goods as well as information exchange in rural regions.
‐ Regulation orientation, that aims at setting the rules for ICTs and transport
infrastructure development and use (pricing).
Key policy measures in this policy package are (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Development of ICTs and transport infrastructure;
‐ Land use planning;
‐ Integration of the local to the regional/national transport network.
‐ Pricing of ICTs and transport infrastructure;
‐ etc.
Improvement of ICTs and transport infrastructure in rural regions is to the benefit of
both rural population and businesses, as they enable interaction of rural regions with
the rest of the world (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
92
At the citizens’ level, it may improve accessibility of rural population to various
services, e.g. health, education, reducing thus both time and costs involved.
At the business level, it may enable interaction among firms and broadening of trade
opportunities, while network cooperation is stimulated. Finally, it reduces transport
costs and supports competitiveness in local production.
At the community level, ICTs infrastructure supports marketing in rural regions, by
supporting both e market penetration of agri-food products but also the attraction of
visitors based on local assets. This has positive impacts on the development of various
sectors e.g. agriculture, manufacturing and tourism, enhancing multifunctionality in
rural areas, while broadens local employment opportunities and enhances income
generation.
5.5.15. Policy package 15: Spatial planning
Construction logic
PP15 deals with the issue of spatial development in rural regions. Spatial
planning is important for defining spatial patterns, enabling agricultural land to
function among strongly competing uses, towards a balanced spatial distribution
better serving local objectives.
Policy orientations
The ranking of policy orientations serving the objectives of PP15 on “Spatial
planning” are as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Regulation orientation that sets the strategic land use planning framework in rural
areas.
‐ Public infrastructure / services orientation dealing with the development of the
necessary infrastructure, both transport and ICTs, taking into account the land use
patterns in rural regions.
Key policy measures in PP15 are (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
‐ Protection of agricultural land.
‐ Delineation of residential areas.
‐ Development of transport infrastructure.
‐ Development of ICTs infrastructure.
‐ Preservation of natural and cultural heritage.
‐ Preservation of NATURA regions and other valuable ecosystems.
‐ Delineation of land uses for economic activities (e.g. industrial areas)
‐ etc.
Spatial planning contributes largely to a balanced well functioning spatial
organization of both residential and business sectors in rural regions. It improves
accessibility of rural regions and their interaction with the outer world, based on the
93
integration of local and regional transportation networks, improving thus the potential
for unimpeded movements of goods and people. Effective land use planning may also
contribute towards rationalizing the use of networks, impacting thus energy
consumption patterns in rural areas. Finally, it may also set the rules for the protection
of valuable natural and cultural resources (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
5.6.
Policy Paths in AG2020
A policy path is made up of both policy packages and policy measures. The
construction of policy packages and policy paths is an iterative process, which could
go on over many cycles.
Both policy packages and paths can be developed by involving stakeholders, at all
stages of the policy making process, enriching thus the produced output (see also
Giaoutzi et al, 2009a, D5.4).
The construction of policy packages has been one of the most important steps in the
backasting process, since it allows:
- Focused discussions, producing results within limited time; and
- Intuitive creativity, enabling the development of new perspectives within a
specific participatory framework.
The construction of policy paths, on the other hand, will contain a large number of
policy measures necessary for achieving the pursued targets, set in the images.
Towards this end, a two-step approach has been adopted (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b, D5.5).
- First, several measures are combined into policy packages covering issues or
addressing target groups, falling under the directions of interest defined by the
critical issues and key elements in the previous stages.
- Second, several of these policy packages are combined to form a path.
The approach for the construction of policy paths is presented in Fig. 5-3 below,
where the measures within a package and the packages within a path are meant to be
interrelated.
Basic attitudes of the responsible policy makers will always shape the course of
developments. Therefore it seems reasonable to take the policy orientations,
introduced in the previous stages, as construction principles for the different paths. In
practice these orientations always overlap.
In the following are presented the AG2020 policy paths, paving the way to the
AG2020 Images of the Future. The structuring of the policy paths involves the proper
combination of policy packages, enabling the fulfilment of the AG2020 objectives for
each Image. The outcome of this process, in the AG2020 context, consists of three
policy paths, each one corresponding to a specific policy scenario in AG2020, namely
Image of the Future, and the sets of policy packages and policy measures better
serving each one of these packages (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
94
Fig. 5-3: Methodology for the construction of policy paths
Source: POSSUM, 1998
Policy
Packages
Policy
Measures
Policy
Paths
policy measure
measure
policy measure
policy measure
measure
measure
measure
measure
policy measure
policy measure
measure
measure
measure
measure
measure
policy measure
measure
policy measure
It should be kept in mind, though, that the policy paths presented in this section are
not unique trajectories towards the Images of the Future, as there are many other
possible paths towards the same end. Worth noting also is that the policies presented
above should be seen as indicative, rather than prescriptive means to an end. The
emphasis of the present section is on the methodological aspect of building the policy
paths in AG2020 rather than on the presentation of an exhaustive list of potential
paths.
The policy paths to follow are based on the policy packages presented above, taking
also into account the key states that describe the pace of changes necessary in order to
reach each specific Image.
The ‘key states’ refer to the level of change required in order to achieve the AG2020
targets within each Image. The ‘key states’ are, linked to the key elements involved in
each image, focusing, at the same time, on the main assumptions concerning each key
element in the Images. Key states, in this respect, are indicative rather than
prescriptive tools for identifying the gap between baseline scenario and the images.
For bridging this gap, different combinations of policy packages and measures should
be addressed, based on their potential to affect changes in key elements, towards the
desired end (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
In AG2020, for bridging this gap, are combined: sets of policy measures that affect
changes in the key elements; and policy packages, selected on the base of the level of
change required, in order to close the gap, towards each of the images as policy
directions serving specific strategies. The selection of policy measures is based on
their performance as to the agri-food sector, the AG2020 targets and the critical issues
for the future of the EU agricultural sector (see Table I-1, APPENDIX I).
For more information on the key states (level of change) required to achieve the
AG2020 targets, see Deliverable 5.5 (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
In the following are presented three distinct paths that drive developments towards the
respective AG2020 Images of the Future (Table 5-5 below), based on the policy
95
orientations already described in previous section (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5).
Table 5-5: Policy paths in AG2020
Image
Policy orientation
- Life-style orientation
- Market orientation
- Regulation orientation
- Public infrastructure /
service orientation
5.7.
Image I
(top-down)
Image II
(combined)
Image III
(bottom-up)
Path 1
Path 2
Path 3
Policy Path 1 (Image I)
5.7.1. The context
In Image I, Europe is politically and economically the strongest block in the world,
playing a leading role in climate change policy. Europe is rich; its wealth is mainly
based on its leading role in the High-Tech sector.
GDP growth is high and large investments in science and research activities are being
realised. In particular, clean energy technologies are of utmost importance for the
European wealth, with efficient and CO2-lean energy technologies being the basic
pillar of economic growth. At the same time, EU policy strongly promotes energy
efficiency and renewables for serving climate change mitigation, energy security and
economic competition.
Lifestyles are consumption-oriented, exhibiting a high degree of trust in technology.
The international lifestyle has gained strength. Prices are playing an important role in
consumption patterns, while there is a preference for convenience, functional, ethno
and fast food, with emphasis on out-of-home consumption.
ICTs dominate in international relations. The development and adoption of ICTs has
contributed to the strong networking and cooperation among EU businesses and
citizens, which brings the various actors closer and diffuses knowledge and
information throughout the whole EU territory.
The agri-food sector is intensive user of high tech (precision farming, biotechnology,
GMO, traceability – labelling etc.), resulting into an increased efficiency of the sector,
with strong market orientation. Adoption of technological advances has remarkable
consequences for food quality, meeting thus the increasing demand of customers for
qualitative and nutritive products. As a result, support to farmers is phased-out. More
precisely, CAP, in the 1st pillar, places emphasis on efficiency in agricultural
production, enforcing measures for phasing out support to farmers; while, in the
second pillar, the focus of the core of the EU policy measures is on the support for
investments in new technologies.
The energy sector is setting high blending targets of biofuels, placing emphasis on the
2nd generation of biofuels and the enhanced use of biomass (energy crops or
exploitation of agricultural waste), by means of technological advances, although no
mandatory targets exist.
96
There is a high degree of integration of agri-food systems in the international markets,
where trade liberalisation is based on bilateral agreements. There is a low regulatory
framework in agricultural factor markets. WTO is far less powerful and ineffective
due to a fragmented world, where there is no enhancement of multilaterally agreed
international rules.
Green issues are not pushed by a broad support, while public participation is led by
centralized initiatives (national and EU). It is rather the politicians trying to find
solutions at the EU and global level. Nevertheless, there is some degree of green
consciousness and an acceptance of policy measures, intended to mitigate the
environmental problems. Low emphasis is placed on regionally targeted policies to
protect flora and fauna.
5.7.2. Main policy packages / areas of change
The main policy packages incorporated into Policy Path 1, leading developments
towards Image I, have as follows (see Table 5-6, also Figure 5-4 below) (Giaoutzi
Table 5-6: Policy Path 1
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5 PATH
PATH 1
POLICY PACKAGE
Policy Package 1: Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies
Policy Package 3: Environmental and resource stewardship – Variant 1
Policy Package 6: Log-in the Information Society
Policy Package 9: Administrative innovations – e-government
Policy Package 12: Knowledge-intensive farm management – Variant 1
Policy Package 13: Development of human resources
Policy Package 14: Accessibility of rural regions to ICTs and transport
infrastructure
Policy Package 15: Spatial planning
5.7.3. Priorities in policy orientations
The prevailing policy orientation of this path is the “Public infrastructure/services
orientation” (see Athens II and III validation workshops, July 2010). Key policy areas
(packages) in this orientation, based also on the study of key elements and key states,
are (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- PP1 - Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies: in support of the
development of new knowledge and innovations in fields such as renewable
energy and energy efficiency, biofuels, nanotechnology and biotechnology, valueadded food processing, etc.
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: supports the promotion of an e-culture in
rural regions by means of a set of policy measures that will support skill
acquisition for ICTs, by the rural population.
- PP9 - Administrative innovations – e-government: in support of local
administration, in rural areas, that will improve the quality and credibility of
public services and decrease the existing inequalities in access to basic services.
- PP12 - Knowledge-intensive farm management – Variant 1: for the provision of
knowledge and technological innovations to farmers that support cost-efficient
agri-food production.
97
- PP13 - Development of human resources: for the upgrading of rural human
resources in order to create the “grounds” for the adoption and use of
technological advances and innovations.
- PP14 - Access to ICTs and transport infrastructure: in support of mobility of both
people and goods and of intensity/cost effectiveness in information exchange.
Second most important policy orientation is the market orientation, where as key
policy areas are considered (see Athens II and III validation workshops, July 2010)
- PP1 - Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies: provide market incentives
towards the adoption and use of technology and innovation by farm but also other
businesses, supporting among others the diversification of activities in rural
regions.
- PP3 - Environmental and resource stewardship: promotes the market penetration
of agri-food and other businesses in rural regions by means of an environmentally
responsible behaviour, based on technological innovations.
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: supports businesses to log-in the
information society and reap the benefits of e.g. innovative organizational
structures, networking, teleworking, links to R&D and Research Centers, ecommerce applications.
- PP12 - Knowledge-intensive farm management: provides incentives to farm
businesses to join innovative, knowledge-intensive farm management approaches.
Moreover, of minor importance are:
Life-style orientation expressed via (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: promotes an e-culture to the everyday
individual and business transactions in rural regions; and
- PP3 - Environmental and resource stewardship – Variant 1: in support of
increasing trust to technology and environmental awareness among the farmers’
community.
Regulation orientation expressed via:
- PP15 - Spatial planning: in support of defining land use patterns so that valuable
natural resources are protected;
- PP3 – Environmental and resource stewardship: in support of setting
environmental quality standards in order to be achieved an environmentallyfriendly resource management, based on the use of technology; and
- PP14 – Access to ICTs and transport infrastructure: facilitating use of ICTs and
transport infrastructure by use of pricing.
98
Fig. 5-4: Path to Image I (Path 1)
Lifestyle orientation
Market orientation
Policy Package 1
Knowledge-driven diversified rural
economies
Regulation orientation
Public Infrastructure /
services orientation
Policy Package 3
Environmental and resource
stewardship – V 1*
Policy Package 6
Log-in the Information Society
Lifestyle
orientation
Policy Package 9
Administrative innovations – egovernment
Market
orientation
Image I
Policy Package 12
Knowledge-intensive farm
management – V 1*
Regulation
orientation
Policy Package 13
Development of human resources
Public
infrastructure
/ services
orientation
Policy Package 14
Access to ICTs and transport
infrastructure
Policy Package 15
Spatial planning
*V1: Variant 1
99
5.7.4. Linkages and Synergies
In Image I, High-tech Europe: Global Cooperation for Sustainable Agriculture,
initiatives. The prevailing policy orientation of this path is the “Public
infrastructure/services orientation”. Furthermore, also the market orientation is
important (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
At the core of this path is Policy Package 6 (Log-in the information society), provided
that a proper network infrastructure (PP 14 – Access to ICTs and transport
infrastructure) is already available in the rural regions. An important aspect is the
creation of a communication platform to increase interaction among stakeholders in
rural regions; and the establishment of links with R&D institutions, research centers,
universities etc. Adoption and use of ICTs applications in rural regions may support
the development of an e-culture, beneficial for rural areas, laying at the core of
personal and business development (Stratigea, 2010).
Additionally, PP6 is closely linked to PP1 (Knowledge-driven diversified rural
communities) and PP12 (Knowledge-intensive farm management), establishing thus a
‘bridge’ for the diffusion of knowledge and information among the various
stakeholders. PP6 also forms the backbone for the implementation of PP13
(Development of human resources). At the same time, fulfillment of PP13 will
facilitate the pursuit of PP1 (Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies) and
PP12 (Knowledge-intensive farm management), as it lays the ‘grounds’ for both
adoption and use of technology and innovation (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
Furthermore, PP6 is very important for the implementation of PP9 (administrative
innovations - e-government), as e-government applications support all kinds of eservices, provided by public institutions. Adoption and use of ICTs and their
applications supports trust to technology and skill acquisition, which in turn facilitates
the development and use of e-government applications (Giaoutzi and Stratigea,
2009b).
Another important policy package, in this respect, is the upgrading of the quality of
ICTs and transport infrastructure. PP14 (Accessibility to transport – ICTs
infrastructure) promotes the deployment of the necessary transport and
telecommunications infrastructure that may facilitate the in and out smooth flow of
persons, goods, and information from rural regions to the outer world. This supports a
better exploitation of local resources and the flourishing of a variety of economic
activities, contributing to the diversification of rural economies (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b).
Finally, PP15 (Spatial planning) is setting the rules for a balanced land use
distribution in rural regions, serving as a tool for land management; protection of
valuable natural resources in rural regions; control of competition among land uses;
etc., contributing among others to the bettering of social and economic cohesion of
rural population (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
100
5.7.5. Indicative list of policy measures serving Path I
In the following, an indicative list of policy measures, falling within each policy
package in Path 1, is presented (see Table 5-7 below) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5).
Table 5-7: Indicative list of policy measures serving Path 1 (Image I)
Indicative
Policy
Measures
PATH 1
Policy Package
Policy Package 1:
Knowledge-driven
diversified rural
economies
Policy Package 2:
Environmental and
resource stewardship –
Variant 1
Policy Package 6:
Log-in the Information
Society
- Promotion of R&D in GMO, to increase yields and plant resistance
to certain external factors e.g. drought
- Promotion of R&D – agri-food technological innovations e.g. novel
pesticides suited for organic farming
- R&D development for less water-intensive crops
- Promotion of R&D investments on energy efficiency (for both
households and firms in rural regions)
- Promotion of green biotechnology to improve quality and value of
crop plants
- Development of certified organic ingredients with technological
effects on food and positive effects on human health
- Development of new labelling concepts for food processing
- Stimulate innovation and technology transfer in the agri-sector e.g.
creation of agri-technology platforms
- Development / promotion of eco-labelling technologies
- Promotion of traceability technologies (e.g. Radio Frequency
Identification – RDIF tags)
- Promotion of plant and animal breeding technologies – molecular
breeding
- Promotion of innovations on alternative or complementary
medication for organic livestock
- Support SMEs to develop novel products, equipment, software and
diagnostic tools for managing organic livestock – novel veterinary
treatments
- Support developments in improvement of food processing,
preservation and storage to reduce loss of agri-product quality
- Promotion of R&D in additives, adding value to functional food
- Development of appropriate surveillance systems for controlling
illegal abstraction of water
- Development / promotion of energy efficiency and water saving
technologies in agriculture
- Promotion of technologies for soil, crop and animal management
(smart crop rotation, cultivation and soil preparation technologies).
- Promotion of eco-businesses as environmental innovationbusinesses, producing goods and services for environmental
protection (e.g. waste management businesses)
- Promotion of agricultural sensing technologies, with focus on
environmental protection
- Promotion of e-commerce
- Promotion of e-marketing
- Promotion of e-banking, teleworking etc.
- Promotion of ICTs hubs diffusing agri-related information in rural
regions (technologies, farm management practises, agri-policies,
market opportunities, etc.)
101
Indicative
Policy
Measures
PATH 1
Policy Package
Policy Package 9:
Administrative
innovations – egovernment
Policy Package 12:
management – Variant 1
Policy Package 13:
Development of human
resources
Policy Package 14:
Accessibility of rural
regions to ICTs and
transport infrastructure
Policy Package 15:
Spatial planning
- Provide access of farmers to on-line information systems
- Promotion of networking among rural businesses
- Promotion of ICTs applications for forest protection (sensor
systems for fire protection)
- Create innovative administrative structures to serve effectively the
needs of both population and businesses in rural regions
- Increase capability of human resources in ICTs
- Establishment of structures for life-long training of agri-food and
forest labour resources
- Set up farm management and forest advisory services – Forest
management
- Financial or other support to sectoral or commodity-specific groups
developing and marketing new, environmentally sustainable crops
- Promotion of smart-sensing devices for agriculture-environment
interaction e.g. nano-delivery systems for pesticides
- Promotion of nano-particles offering the potential to administer
pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers more efficiently and safely
- Promotion of incentives for greater use of alternative water supplies
e.g. waste water, grey water and “harvested” rain water
- Promotion of agri-technology e.g. precise farming
- Promotion of clusters of science-based agri-food and forestry
businesses in rural regions for efficient exploitation of natural
resources
- Support new revenue-generating opportunities in the agri-sector e.g.
capturing of by-products from agriculture for energy production
- Support investments of modernization of agricultural holdings
- Support investments at the level of holding/farming e.g. harvesting
equipment
- Promotion of specialization of agriculture by training farmers to
new approaches to management, production and marketing
- Provision of information on food quality/safety issues
- Upgrading of human resources by enhancing training and skill
acquisition opportunities (e.g. e-training)
- Increase technology awareness (new machinery, fertilizers, plants,
seeds etc.) to increase efficiency
- ICTs infrastructure provision – broadband accessibility in rural
regions
- Improvement / upgrading of intra- and inter-regional transport
networks in rural regions
- Improvement of accessibility to agri-forest land
- Promotion of interaction via ICTs and transport infrastructure by
properly pricing these services
- Land use planning for the protection of valuable ecosystems and
agricultural land
- Support the renewal of rural settlements
- Support the preservation of cultural resources and rural heritage
102
5.8.
Policy Path 2 (Image II)
5.8.1. The context
In Image II, a balance of power has been reached between local, regional and
supranational initiatives and objectives, a kind of harmony between “bottom-up” and
“top-down” politics. Strong multilateral institutions and governance (WTO,
UNFCCC) have also emerged, reaching consensus on international regulations to
combat climate change.
A kind of balance of power has evolved, based on strong public involvement in local
and regional affairs. Strong local identity and regional/national governments have
emerged.
Considerable technological progress is triggered by focussed technological
developments. Energy production, with emphasis placed on the development of biobased economy, creates a balanced supply. There is a high mandatory blending target
of biofuels, with special emphasis on the 2nd generation of biofuels. There is a
sufficient mass of public investments in bio-energy and bio-materials, with rural
regions to develop as bio-based economies. In such a context, the agricultural sector
regains importance for the development of rural regions, based on renewable energy
production, e.g. biofuels, and rural development is supported by appropriate policy
measures.
A cooperation spirit permeates all levels of interaction among individuals, i.e. the
local, regional, national, EU as well as the global level. Green values are widespread,
while food preferences appear to be mixed, ranging from local to international. There
is a medium focus on food quality, expected throughout the whole range of preferred
food products (regional, international food) and a strong belief in labelling.
ICTs play an important role in everyday life and facilitate knowledge and information
exchange. They also contribute to the production / processing of agri-food products,
aiming at the support of qualitative production.
The agri-food sector is exhibiting a continuous trend in technological cost-saving
progress, traceability and monitored labelling. There is a balance between regional
and international agri-food markets. There is also an enhanced use of biotechnology
and GMO.
There is a continued CAP (1st pillar) reform process and an increase in modulation of
direct payments. There is also a continuation of current rural development policy in
CAP 2nd pillar and an increase in transfer of funds from the 1st to the 2nd pillar.
There is a medium level of regulatory framework in the agricultural factor market,
based on international rules.
Finally, there is moderate emphasis on regionally targeted policies to maintain
protected flora and fauna.
The main policy packages incorporated into Policy Path 2, leading developments
towards Image II, have as follows (see Table 5-8, also Figure 5-5 below) (Giaoutzi
103
A certain balance of different policy orientations is necessary for the implementation
of Path 2 (Table 5-8 and Figure 5-5 below), although the public infrastructure/services
policy orientation seems to slightly overweight the rest three policy orientations (see
Athens II and III validation workshops, July 2010).
In public infrastructure/services orientation, the key policy packages, based on the
study of key elements and key states, have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5):
- PP1 - Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies: PP1 refers to public
investments in R&D, supporting the development of new knowledge and
innovations in fields such as: sensor technology, nanotechnology and
biotechnology, traceability and food labelling, energy production and energy
efficiency technologies etc., serving the agri-food production, but also the
production of other economic sectors in rural societies.
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: as rural regions are, in this Image,
developing as bio-based economies, the issue of knowledge and information
exchange is of crucial importance. This PP refers to the promotion of an e-culture
(adoption and use of ICTs applications) in rural regions that will support local
population and businesses to log-in the information society and its applications.
- PP9 - Administrative innovations – e-government: in support of local
administration, in rural regions, to adopt and use ICTs-based communication in
order to improve the quality and credibility of public services and decrease
inequalities in access to basic services.
- PP10 – R&D innovation – Bio-innovations: rural regions in this Image are
developing as bio-based economies. PP10 supports public investments on the
development of new knowledge and bio-innovations. Fields of interest in this
respect are: environmentally friendly cost-effective production and processing
innovations for the production of bio-products (biofuels – biomaterials),
innovations that support the less energy-intensive and waste-generating biofuels
production, environmentally friendly energy crops, bio-refineries, waste
management innovations, etc.
- PP13 – Development of human resources: in support of upgrading of local human
resources for knowledge acquisition on, among others, bio-based activities in
rural regions and skills in ICTs.
- PP14 – Accessibility to ICTs and transport infrastructure: in support of the
deployment of the necessary ICTs and transport infrastructure in rural regions that
facilitates interaction.
In the market orientation, key policy packages, based on the study of key elements
and key states are (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- PP1 - Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies: promote measures that
motivate businesses to invest on R&D and innovations for the development of
new, knowledge-based, innovative, competitive and sustainable production and
processing systems (biotechnology, traceability, labelling, energy efficient
production/processing systems, etc.).
- PP2 - Green entrepreneurship: motivates green entrepreneurial behaviour, which,
based on the development and/or adoption of innovations in the production /
104
processing process, integrates successfully competitiveness and environmental
objectives in the business agenda.
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: promotes intra-business innovations (e.g.
new organizational structures) and/or inter-business innovations (cooperation in a
network business structure) that support in firms competitiveness, efficiency,
sharing of resources, risks management etc.
- PP10 - R&D innovations – Bio-innovations: encourage the adoption – use of
various types of bio-innovations at the business level, by promoting a set of policy
measures e.g. financial incentives.
- PP12 – Knowledge intensive farm management: this PP stimulates the adoption –
use of knowledge-intensive farm-related innovations, aiming at both a more
effective but also an environmentally less-harmful agri-food production.
PATH 2
POLICY PACKAGE
Policy Package 1 - Knowledge-driven diversified rural economies
Policy Package 2 - Green Entrepreneurship
Policy Package 3 - Environmental and resource stewardship – Variants 1
and 2
Policy Package 4 - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3Rs)
Policy Package 6 - Log-in the Information Society
Policy Package 9 - Administrative innovations – e-government
Policy Package 10 - R&D innovations – Bio-innovations
Policy Package 12 - Knowledge-intensive farm management – Variants
1 and 2
Policy Package 13 - Development of human resources
Policy Package 14 - Accessibility of rural regions to ICTs and transport
infrastructure
Policy Package 15 - Spatial planning
As to the rest three policy orientations, holds the following:
In the regulation orientation of importance are the following policy packages
- PP3 – Environmental and resource stewardship: promotes the regulation
orientation for setting rules for agri-forest management in order to assure the
sustainable exploitation of natural resources.
- PP4 – Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: promotes rational use of resources by imposing
the reduction and multiple uses of resources, as well as waste management at the
household and business level.
- PP14 – Access to ICTs and transport infrastructure: introduces pricing regulations
in order to ensure equal access to ICTs and transport infrastructures.
- PP15 – Spatial planning: this PP introduces land use planning frameworks, in
support of sustainable development i.e. environmental protection, economic
efficiency and social and economic cohesion in rural areas.
Finally, in respect to the lifestyle orientation, key policy packages are (Giaoutzi and
105
- PP3 - Environmental and resource stewardship: promotes increasing awareness as
to resource preservation and management, based on both technological progress
and decoupling policy measures.
- PP4 - Reduce, reuse, and recycle: promote changes in the patterns of resource use
and management, by inspiring reduction and multiple use of these resources, but
also the management of waste in rural communities (both households and
businesses).
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: promote trust in technology and encourage
adoption – use of ICTs and their applications in the everyday transactions in rural
population.
In Image II - In search of Balance: Accord on Sustainability - the focus is on the
economy and energy. A certain balance of different policy orientations is necessary
for the implementation of this path, although the public infrastructure/services
orientation seems to be ranked higher in importance than the other three policy
orientations (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b).
For reaching Image II, is necessary to combine technology and decoupling elements.
This requests improvement of the rates of adoption/use of technology, where an
emphasis is placed on the support of R&D and knowledge-driven innovations (PP1 –
Knowledge-driven diversified economies), but also on knowledge-intensive farm
management innovations (PP12). In addition, PP3 on ‘environmental and resource
stewardship’, dealing with the use of technological innovations for a more
environmentally-friendly management of the agri-forest resources, is of great
importance. Moreover, PP10 (R&D innovations – bio-innovations) places emphasis
on all kinds of innovations relating to the bio-based economy. The application of the
above PPs creates synergies, that motivate rural communities towards acquiring a
broader knowledge base and available technologies for an effective rural resource
management. Moreover, the upgrading of human resources (PP13 – development of
human resources), combined with the adoption – use of ICTs and their applications
(PP6 – Log-in the information society), create the appropriate conditions for
unimpeded flow of information and knowledge among rural stakeholders, expected to
positively impact entrepreneurship, job creation and support of local income. Finally,
good access of rural regions to transport infrastructure (PP14 – access to transport and
ICTs infrastructure) may support interaction and trade of agri-food and forest
products.
As to the decoupling element, in Image II a more conscious attitude towards
preserving natural and environmental resources is adopted, with stakeholders taking
active roles for the protection and preservation of these resources. PP2 (green
entrepreneurship), PP3 (environmental and resource stewardship – Variant 2), and
PP4 (reduce, reuse and recycle) are promoting a more conscious attitude towards
consumption patterns of natural resources, which implies the development of a new
culture of resource-saving and multiple use of natural resources in rural regions.
These also introduce a new spirit of resource management at both the household and
the business level that may also impact positively job creation and local income
generation. Moreover, it forms the basis for the creation of agri- and non agri-based
activities, supporting the levels of multifunctionality in rural regions.
106
Fig. 5-5: Path to Image II (Path 2)
Policy Package 1
Knowledge-driven diversified rural
economies
Policy Package 2
Green Entrepreneurship
Policy Package 3 Environmental and resource
stewardship – V 1, 2*
Lifestyle
orientation
Policy Package 4
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Market
orientation
Image
II
Regulation
orientation
Public
infrastructure
/ services orientation Lifestyle orientation
Market orientation
Infrastructure /
Public
*V 1, 2: Variants 1 and 2
Policy Package 6
Policy Package 9
Policy Package 10
R&D innovations – Bio-innovations
Policy Package 12 Knowledge-intensive farm
management – V 1, 2*
Policy Package 13
Development of human resources Policy Package 14
Access to ICTs and transport infrastructure
Policy Package 15
Spatial planning
107
Finally, spatial planning (PP15) sets the framework for a more effective spatial
organization of rural regions (residential areas, spatial pattern of economic activities,
infrastructure etc.), that aims at serving the needs of both population and activities,
preserving at the same time local valuable ecosystems.
5.8.5. Indicative list of policy measures serving Path II
In the following, is presented an indicative list of policy measures, falling within
policy packages in Path 2 (see Table 5-9 below) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5).
Table 5-9: Indicative list of policy measures serving Path 2 (Image II)
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5 Indicative Policy
Measures
PATH 2
Policy Package
Policy Package 1:
Knowledge-driven diversified
rural economies
Policy Package 2:
Green Entrepreneurship
- Promotion of R&D in GMO to increase yields and plant
resistance to certain external factors e.g. drought
- Promotion of R&D – agri-food technological innovations
e.g. novel pesticides suited for organic farming
- R&D development of less water-intensive crops
- Promotion of R&D investments on energy efficiency for
both households and businesses in rural regions
- Promotion of green biotechnology to improve quality and
value of crop plants
- Development of certified organic ingredients with
technological effects on food and positive effects on
human health
- Development of new labelling concepts for food
processing
- Stimulate innovation and technology transfer in the agrisector e.g. by creation of agri-technology platforms
- Development / promotion of eco-labelling technologies
- Promotion of traceability technologies (e.g. Radio
Frequency Identification – RDIF tags)
- Promotion of plant and animal breeding technologies –
molecular breeding
- Promote innovations on alternative or complementary
medication for organic livestock
- Support SMEs to develop novel products, equipment,
software and diagnostic tools for managing organic
livestock – novel veterinary treatments
- Support developments on improvement of food
processing, preservation and storage to reduce loss of
agri-product quality
- Promotion of R&D in additives adding value to functional
food
- Promotion of innovations relating to co-existence of crops
(conventional, organic and TGM food production)
- Development of proper systems for quality control of food
- Provision of effective irrigation infrastructure – water
resource management
- Promotion of R&D serving “coexistence” of genetically
modified (GM) and organic farming
- Support organic agriculture and organic food
- Promote RE in agricultural regions (energy crops, biomass
108
Indicative Policy
Measures
PATH 2
Policy Package
Policy Package 3:
stewardship – Variants 1 and 2
Policy Package 4:
Policy Package 6:
Policy Package 9:
Policy Package 10:
R&D innovations – Bioinnovations
production, wind, solar energy)
- Fostering entrepreneurship in green activities/products
e.g. support of specialized retail shops for selling organic
and regional of special quality products
- Promotion of waste management in household,
manufacturing and agri-forestry
- Development of appropriate surveillance systems
controlling illegal abstraction of water
- Development / promotion of energy efficiency and water
saving technologies in agriculture
- Promotion of technologies for soil, crop and animal
management (smart crop rotation, cultivation and soil
preparation technologies)
- Promotion of eco-businesses as environmental innovationbusinesses, producing goods and services for
environmental protection (e.g. waste management
businesses)
- Promotion of agricultural sensing technologies, with focus
on environmental protection
- Increase public-business awareness on green values and
environmental protection – promote quality-oriented life
styles
- Setting sustainability standards for biofuels and energy
crops
- Promotion of strict emission standards
- Enforcement of rules for nutrient applications
- Promotion of “reduce, reuse and recycle” technologies
- Waste management
- Reduce, reuse and recycle of agri-food packaging
- Reduce energy consumption in both the household and the
business sector
- Promotion of ICTs hubs diffusing agri-related information
in rural regions (technologies, farm management practises,
agri-policies, market opportunities, etc.)
- Promotion of ICTs applications for forest protection
(sensor systems for fire protection)
- Create innovative public structures to effectively serve the
needs of both population and businesses in rural regions
- Promote consensus-building mechanisms at the local level
- participation
- Promote R&D investments for the creation of a portfolio
of biomass processing technologies
- Promote R&D investments towards increasing costeffectiveness of biofuels
- Promotion of regional biomass action plans
- Promotion of ‘smart energy networks’
- Promotion of combined heat and power installations
(CHP)
- Promotion of biofuels in public transportation
- Public procurement of heating and cooling systems based
on biomass use
109
Indicative Policy
Measures
PATH 2
Policy Package
Policy Package 12:
management – Variants 1 and 2
- Promotion of biofuels by tax exemption or differentiation
of fuel VAT pricing on behalf of biofuels
- Support of investments on biomass district heating
schemes, as cost-efficient modern plants, for heating in
rural regions
- Promote recovering of animal by-product energy (biogas,
bio-diesel production)
- Establish sustainable biofuels certification for biofuels
production in the EU as well as for biofuels imports
- Establishment of structures for life-long training of labour
resources on agri-food and forest management issues
- Set up farm management and forest advisory services –
forest management
- Financial or other support to sectoral or commodityspecific groups developing and marketing new,
environmentally sustainable crops
- Promotion of smart-sensing devices for agricultureenvironment interaction e.g. nano-delivery systems for
pesticides
- Promotion of nano-particles offering the potential to
administer pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers more
efficiently and safely
- Promotion of incentives for greater use of alternative
water supplies e.g. waste water, grey water and
“harvested” rain water
- Promotion of agri-technology e.g. precise farming (use of
IT, GPS, sensors etc.)
- Promotion of satellite technology for crop surveillance
- Promotion of clusters of science-based agri-food and
forestry businesses in rural regions for more effective
exploitation of natural resources
- Support of new revenue-generating opportunities in the
agri-sector e.g. capturing of by-products from agriculture
for energy production
- Support investments in modernization of agricultural
holdings in order to comply with Community standards
- Support investments at the level of holding/farming e.g.
harvesting equipment
- Promote specialization of agriculture by training farmers
in new approaches to management, production and
marketing
- Promotion of crop rotation – support a minimum diversity
of cropping patterns
- Promotion of low-intensity pasture systems
- Further reduction / control of the use of pesticides
- Promotion of sustainable agricultural practises on sloping
lands e.g. proper irrigation systems, soil-protecting
monocultures, presence of hedges and trees .
- Promote the production of low-impact bio-energy crops
- Promotion of the right crop mix and cropping practise for
bioenergy production
- Promotion of fallow and set aside practises for resource
conservation
- Financial support to environmentally responsible agripractises
110
Indicative Policy
Measures
PATH 2
Policy Package
Policy Package 13:
Policy Package 14:
Accessibility of rural regions to
ICTs and transport infrastructure
Policy Package 15:
Spatial planning
5.9.
- Eco-labelling of regional food products
- Support agricultural production for non-food purposes
(e.g. forestry)
- Promote incentives for agri-waste collection at the farm
level
- Promotion of standard quality low price agri-food
production
- Promotion of highly nutritive healthy food (functional
food)
- Protection of regional food in EU (PDO, TGI, TSG)
- Upgrading of human resources by enhancing training and
skill acquisition opportunities (e.g. e-training)
- Increase technology awareness (new machinery,
fertilizers, plants, seeds etc.) to increase efficiency
- ICTs infrastructure provision – broadband accessibility in
rural regions
- Improvement / upgrading of intra- and inter-regional
transport networks in rural regions
- Improve accessibility of agri-forest land
- Promote interaction via ICTs and transport infrastructure
by properly pricing these services
- Land use planning for the protection of valuable
ecosystems and agricultural land
- Support the renewal of rural settlements - renovation and
development of villages
- Support the preservation of cultural resources and rural
heritage
Policy Path 3 (Image III)
5.9.1. The context
In Image III, policies are mainly driven by local and regional initiatives. Local and
regional aspects are high on the political agenda, while global environmental issues
are more down on the list. A strong public participation, led by community initiatives
has emerged.
A tax based reform has taken place in the EU countries, shifting taxation from labour
to the use of natural resources and energy, with the scope to stimulate conservation of
resources. This, in parallel with green demand, has led to the reduced consumption
patterns of energy, materials and hazardous substances. Overall demand is affected
and people are willing to pay for greener products as well as for locally produced
goods.
Production is more locally oriented and serves mainly the local markets, but is also
based on licences and know-how from the large international firms and networks
(global production).
There is also an increasing share of the service sector, with traditional manufacturing
industry showing a declining share in total production.
Settlement patterns and location of workplace and service functions are also affected.
Many urban sub-centres have developed to a higher degree of self sufficiency and city
111
centres are being re-urbanized. People are pushing the politicians to adopt stricter
environmental regulations and standards, especially at the local level (urban areas).
There has been a trend towards more ‘local life-styles’ and widespread green values
among the general public. People increasingly take responsibility for the common
goods, and attitudes towards collective actions are positive, especially at the local and
regional level. Reflexive slow lifestyle, slow food, slow travelling etc. are established.
Green values are pushed by grassroots movements rather than by national or EU
politicians, who lag behind, but try to meet the demand of people.
A high level of consumers’ awareness for regionally produced food is developing and
organic farming as well as ethno food are important. There is strong focus on quality
of life, health, well being, recreation, safety and different paths to achieve these
objectives.
There is strong networking and cooperation, with emphasis on green activities.
Increased accessibility to ICTs networks is pursued to reduce mobility, while there is
a certain preference for cyber and virtual applications. Based on that, there appears a
decreased need for transport of agricultural products and inputs.
Technological progress is oriented towards food quality (e.g. nanotechnology) and
improving regional products. There is a low use of biotechnology and GMOs are not
allowed. Low technological developments make it difficult to produce, for example,
enough food and biomass at the same time. Local investments are directed in low-tech
bio-energy and biomaterials (local bio-based economies).
There is high focus on food quality, especially in terms of green and cultural values.
Local and organic food is therefore preferred.
There is continuation of the current CAP, although payments are more coupled to land
use and environmental issues. There is strong support to organic farming.
Finally, emphasis is placed on rural development policies, as well as regional and
local business networking. Specific policies are directed to small scale farmers to
enhance social cohesion.
The main policy packages incorporated into Policy Path 3, leading to developments
towards Image III, have as follows (see Table 5-10, also Figure 5-6 below) (Giaoutzi
and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Key policy orientation in this path is the lifestyle orientation (see Athens II and III
validation workshops, July 2010), implemented in order to widen the already existing
rigorism on green values, environmental responsibility, regionality and respect for
local resources, culture etc. as well as the importance of quality of life and the local
environment, qualitative and safe food, etc. It follows the market orientation that
places all market policy measures aiming at motivating businesses to follow a “green”
behaviour and develop / adopt all kinds of innovations that support this direction. Of
relative importance is also the public infrastructure / services orientation that aims at
the provision of the necessary infrastructure in rural regions, the upgrading of human
resources and the investments on R&D in order to develop the required technological
innovations used for the sustainable management of natural resources. Finally, the
regulation orientation is setting the framework for spatial development and
environmental stewardship (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
112
POLICY PACKAGE
PATH 3
Policy Package 2 - Green entrepreneurship
Policy Package 3 - Environmental and resource stewardship
Policy Package 4 - Reduce, reuse and recycle (3Rs)
Policy Package 5 - Ecological tax reform
Policy Package 6 - Log-in the Information Society
Policy Package 7 - Culture of “regionality”
Policy Package 8 - Social responsibility
Policy Package 9 - Administrative innovations – e-government
Policy Package 10 - R&D innovations – Bio-innovations
Package 11 - Public participation
Policy Package 12 – Knowledge-intensive farm management - Variant 2
Policy Package 13 - Development of human resources
Policy Package 14 - Accessibility of rural regions to transport and ICTs
infrastructure
Policy Package 15 - Spatial planning
In the lifestyle orientation, the key policy packages, based on the study of key
elements and key states, have as follows:
- PP3 - Environmental and Resource Stewardship - Variant 2: promotes resource
preservation and management, based on policy measures that support decoupling
of the environmental quality from agri-food and forest activities.
- PP4 - Reduce, reuse and recycle: promotes an environmentally responsible
attitude of resource-use by inspiring the reduction and multiple use, but also the
management of waste in rural communities (both households and businesses).
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: in support of trust in technology that
promotes the adoption and use of ICTs and their applications in the everyday
transactions in rural areas.
- PP7 - Culture of “regionality”: supports changes in behavioural patterns, placing
emphasis on quality and authenticity (quality of food, quality of life, quality of
social interaction, quality of natural and cultural environment, etc.).
- PP8 - Social Responsibility: supports the strengthening of responsibility in the
management of environmental, cultural and social resources, in rural areas.
- PP11 - Public participation: in support of participatory decision making at the
local level, increasing thus mutual understanding and reaching of consensus
among local stakeholders on issues of local interest, which enhance successful
implementation of various policies and commitment of citizens and businesses to
common goals.
In the market orientation, the key policy packages, based on the study of key elements
and key states, have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- PP2 - Green Entrepreneurship: provides policy measures that motivate business
innovations, capable of supporting the integration of environmentally-friendly
business behaviour and competitiveness.
- PP3 - Environmental and Resource Stewardship -Variant 2: provides measures
motivating agri-food and forest businesses to adopt in production/processing
environmentally-friendly practises, which support the decoupling of
environmental quality from economic activities.
113
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: promotes the adoption of intra-business
innovations (e.g. new organizational structures) and/or inter-business innovations
(cooperation in a network structure) that support in firm’s competitiveness,
efficiency, sharing of resources and risks etc. based on the potential offered by
ICTs and their applications.
- PP8 - Social Responsibility: contributes to motivation of business behaviour that
takes into account local environmental and social resources.
- PP10 - R&D innovations – Bio-innovations: contributes to business motivation
for the development and adoption of all kinds of innovations that may support
production of bio-materials.
- PP12 - Knowledge-intensive farm management – Variant 2: motivates businesses
to adopt knowledge-intensive farm management that supports the decoupling of
agricultural production from environmental quality.
In the public infrastructure/services orientation, the key policy packages, based on the
study of key elements and key states, have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5):
- PP6 - Log-in the Information Society: promotes the development of various types
of rural-specific ICTs applications, which support the agri-food and forest sectors,
but also other sectors of rural economies towards an ICT4D 12 approach.
- PP9 - Administrative innovations – e-government: support local administration to
adopt and use ICTs-based communication in order to improve the quality and
credibility of public services and decrease, at the same time, inequalities in access
to basic services.
- PP10 - R&D innovations – Bio-innovations: promotes investments in R&D for
the development of the necessary technological innovations that support the
transition of rural regions to bio-based economies.
- PP12 - Knowledge-intensive farm management – Variant 2: promotes the
development of environmentally-responsible agri-food and forest practices and
knowledge to support decoupling of production and processing from
environmental quality.
- PP13 - Development of human resources: promotes the creation of educational
structures for the upgrading of local human resources.
- PP14 - Access to transport and ICTs infrastructure: in support of the deployment
of ICTs and transport infrastructure, that improves accessibility in rural regions.
Finally in the regulation orientation, the key policy packages, based on the study of
key elements and key states, have as follows (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- PP3 - Environmental and Resource Stewardship -Variant 2: promotes the setting
of rules for agri-forest management in order to assure the sustainable exploitation
of natural resources.
- PP4 - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: in support of a more rational use of resources by
imposing the reduction and multiple use of resources, as well as waste
management practices at the household and business levels.
- PP5 - Ecological tax reform: promotes a reform of taxation, following a shift
from a labour tax to a resource-intensive business tax.
- PP14 – Access to transport and ICTs infrastructure: enforces pricing regulations
in order to ensure equal access to infrastructure.
12
ICT4D – ICTs for Development.
114
- PP15 – Spatial planning: introduces land use planning frameworks, in support of
sustainable development i.e. environmental protection, economic efficiency and
social and economic cohesion in rural areas.
The focus of Image III - Active Regions and Reflexive Lifestyles - is on behavioural
changes and involves strong public participation. Key policy orientation in this path is
lifestyle orientation, for widening the already existing rigorism on green values,
environmental responsibility, regionality, respect for local resources, culture etc., but
also quality of life and the local environment, food, etc. This is followed by the
market orientation, which adopts market policy measures motivating business to
follow “green” behaviour and develop / adopt innovations accordingly (Giaoutzi and
Stratigea, 2009b).
In Path 3, where lifestyle orientation is important, participatory decision making
(PP11 - Public participation) forms the platform for interaction among local
stakeholders and the creation of a vision for the future development of rural regions,
based on respect to social, cultural and natural resources. This is facilitated by the
adoption and use of ICTs and the creation of an ICTs platform, supported by PP9
(Administrative innovations – e-government). Of importance is also the dedication to
values, authenticity, cultural heritage, social interaction and demand for quality,
expressed via PP7 (Culture of “regionality”) that drives behavioural patterns in rural
regions; but also the taking of responsibility of both population and business in
respect to the management of environmental, cultural and social resources, expressed
by PP8 (Social responsibility). The above mobilize environmental and resource
stewardship, based on: resource preservation and management (PP3); a reduction,
multiple use of resources and recycling (PP4). Moreover, the spirit of e-culture,
which is well established among local population, is a key driver for access to
information and knowledge that supports decisions on sustainable resource
management (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Of additional importance is the provision of incentives to business for gaining respect
and competitiveness in the rural context. More precisely, PP2 (Green
Entrepreneurship) promotes policy measures that motivate business innovations,
capable of supporting the integration of an environmentally-friendly business
behaviour and competitiveness objectives; PP3 (Environmental and Resource
Stewardship) promotes policy measures that motivate agri-food and forest business to
adopt environmentally-friendly product and process practises that may support the
decoupling of environmental quality from these activities; PP8 (Social
Responsibility) motivates business behaviour that takes into local environmental and
social resources; PP12 (Knowledge-intensive farm management) motivates business
to adopt knowledge-intensive farm management techniques that may support the
decoupling of agricultural production from environmental quality; finally PP10
(R&D innovations – Bio-innovations) motivates business to develop / adopt
innovations that may support bio-material production.
115
Fig. 5-6: Path to Image III (Path 3)
Policy Package 2
Green Entrepreneurship Policy Package 3
Environmental and Resource
Stewardship -V 2* Lifestyle
orientation
Policy Package 4
Policy Package 5
Ecological tax reform
Market
orientation
Policy Package 6
Policy Package 7
Culture of “regionality”
Image
III
Policy Package 8
Social Responsibility
Regulation
orientation
Policy Package 9
Policy Package 10
R&D innovations – Bio-innovations Public
infrastructure
/ services
orientation
Policy Package 11
Public Participation
Policy Package 12
Knowledge-intensive farm management
– V 2* Policy Package 13
Lifestyle orientation
Policy Package 14
Access to transport and ICTs Market orientation
infrastructure
Public Infrastructure /
Policy Package 15
Spatial planning
*V2: Variant 2
116
Of importance is the contribution of PP6 (Log-in the Information Society), which
creates the potential for both intra-business and/or inter-business innovations (network
cooperation) that may support firms’ competitiveness, efficiency, sharing of resources
and risks, etc. (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Moreover, investments on public infrastructure and services are also important in
order to strengthen the economic base of rural regions, by improving accessibility of
rural regions (PP14 - Access to ICTs and transport infrastructure), their knowledge
base (PP6 - Log-in the Information Society), but also quality of local human
resources (PP13 - Development of human resources) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b,
D5.5).
Finally, of importance is a certain regulatory framework for the spatial organization of
rural settlements (PP15 – Spatial planning) that may form the basis for strengthening
of linkages among activities, and an upgraded network infrastructure (PP14 – Access
to transport and ICTs infrastructure). The protection of valuable natural systems (PP3
- Environmental and resource stewardship) is also of great importance. The above
framework is setting the directions for a sustainable exploitation of resources (PP4 Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) and a set of financial measures as disincentives for
developing resource-intensive activities (PP5 - Ecological tax reform) (Giaoutzi and
5.9.5. Indicative list of policy measures
In the following, an indicative list of policy measures, falling within policy packages
in Path 3, is presented (see Table 5-11 below) (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Table 5-11: Indicative list of policy measures serving Path 3 (Image III)
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5 Indicative
Policy
Measures
PATH 3
Policy Package
Policy Package 2:
Green entrepreneurship
Policy Package 3:
stewardship – Variant 2
- Support organic agriculture and production of organic food
- Promote Renewable Energy (RE) production in agricultural
regions (energy crops, biomass production, wind, solar energy)
- Fostering entrepreneurship in green activities/products e.g.
support of specialized retail shops for selling organic and
regional - of special quality - products
- Promotion of waste management in household, manufacturing
and agri-forestry
- Promotion of green entrepreneurship in other sectors e.g.
manufacturing, tourism
- Promotion of corporate responsibility of firms
- Fostering entrepreneurship in biomass energy production (waste
processing installations, forestry farming etc.)
- Promotion of private-public partnerships (PPP) in biomass
energy production
- Development / promotion of energy-efficient and water-saving
technologies in agriculture
- Promotion of eco-businesses as environmental innovationbusinesses, producing goods and services for environmental
protection (e.g. waste management businesses)
117
Indicative
Policy
Measures
PATH 3
Policy Package
- Promotion of agricultural sensing technologies, with focus on
environmental protection
- Increase public-business awareness on green values and
environmental protection – promote quality-oriented lifestyles
- Setting sustainability standards for biofuels and energy crops
- Promotion of strict agri-emission standards
- Enforcement of rules for nutrient applications
- Promotion – maintenance of farmed landscape for the protection
of biodiversity
- Promotion of eco-conditionality – harmonization of standards of
good farming practises
- Promotion of compulsory long-term set aside on arable land
(instead of rotational set aside)
- Promotion of partial coupling in order to prevent land
abandonment
- Enforcement of rules in nutrient applications (fertilizers and
manure)
Policy Package 4:
Reduce, reuse, recycle
Policy Package 5:
Ecological tax reform
Policy Package 6:
Log-in the Information
Society
Policy Package 7:
Culture of “regionality”
Policy Package 8:
Social responsibility
Policy Package 9:
Administrative innovations
– e-government
- Promotion of “reduce, reuse and recycle” supporting
technologies
- Promotion of waste management technologies
- Reduce, reuse and recycle of agri-food packaging
- Reduce energy consumption in both the household and the
business sector
- Promote incentives for agri-waste collection at the farm level
- Differentiation of fuel VAT pricing on behalf of biofuels
- Promotion of biofuels by tax exemption
- Reform of taxation, following a shift from labour tax to resourceintensive business tax
- Promotion of ICTs hubs diffusing agri-related information in
rural regions (technologies, farm management practises, agripolicies, market opportunities, etc.)
- Promotion of ICTs applications for forest protection (sensor
systems for fire protection)
- Promote green consumerism
- Promotion of the “bio-region” concept as a new partnership
among organic farmers, processors, traders, gastronomy, tourism
and local communities
- Promote lifestyles based on quality of life, natural resources,
local food, traditions and culture
- Support innovation in food processing techniques, pursuing
minimum destruction and maximum authenticity of rural
qualitative products
- Promotion/protection of regional food products (PDO, PGI,
TSG)
- Increase public / business awareness on green values and
environmental protection – promote quality-oriented lifestyles
- Create innovative public structures to serve effectively the needs
of both population and businesses in rural regions
- Promote consensus-building mechanisms at the local level –
118
Indicative
Policy
Measures
PATH 3
Policy Package
Policy Package 10:
R&D innovations – Bioinnovations
Policy Package 11:
Public participation
Policy Package 12:
management – Variant 2
enhance public participation in decision making processes
- Support R&D in organic farming
- Promotion of regional biomass action plans
- Promotion of biofuels in public transportation
- Promotion of biofuels by tax exemption or differentiation of fuel
VAT pricing on behalf of biofuels
- Support investments on biomass district heating schemes as costefficient modern plants for heating in rural regions
- Promote recovering of animal by-product energy (biogas, biodiesel production)
- Establish sustainable biofuels certification for biofuels’
production in the EU as well as for biofuels imports
- Establish community platforms for communication and exchange
of views and ideas of local stakeholders
- Promotion of building shared community values through the
establishment of participatory mechanisms
- Establishment of structures for life-long training of agri-food and
forest labour resources
- Set up farm management and forest advisory services – forest
management
- Financial or other support to sectoral or commodity-specific
groups developing and marketing new, environmentally
sustainable crops
- Promotion of incentives for greater use of alternative water
supplies e.g. waste water, grey water and “harvested” rain water
- Promotion of agri-technology e.g. precise farming (use of IT,
GPS, sensors etc.)
- Support new revenue-generating opportunities in the agri-sector
e.g. capturing of by-products from agriculture for energy
production
- Promotion of specialization of agriculture by training farmers to
new approaches to management, production and marketing
- Promotion of crop rotation – support a minimum diversity of
cropping pattern
- Promotion of low-intensity pasture systems
- Further reduction / control of the use of pesticides
- Promotion of sustainable agricultural practises on sloping lands
e.g. proper irrigation systems, soil-protecting monocultures,
presence of hedges and trees.
- Promote the production of low-impacts bio-energy crops
- Promotion of the right crop mix and cropping practises for bioenergy production
- Promotion of fallow and set aside practises for resource
conservation
- Financial support to environmentally-responsible agri-practises
- Eco-labelling of regional food products
- Support agricultural production for non-food purposes (e.g.
forestry)
- Promote incentives for agri-waste collection at the farm level
- Promotion of highly nutritive healthy food (functional food)
- Protection of regional food in EU (PDO, TGI, TSG)
- Promotion of extensification of agri-production – maintain
existing sustainable extensive systems
119
Indicative
Policy
Measures
PATH 3
Policy Package
Policy Package 13:
Development of human
resources
Policy Package 14:
Accessibility of rural
regions to transport and
ICTs infrastructure
Policy Package 15:
Spatial planning
- Promotion of undersowing and cover crops, strips (e.g. farmed
buffer strips) (positive impacts on water and soil quality as well
as biodiversity)
- Establishment of buffer strips in areas of special biodiversity
- Promotion of mixed farming and traditional crop rotations,
including organic rotations (more environmental benefits than
greater specialization of farming)
- Promotion of small scale farms with diversified production
(instead of large, specialized and intensified farming)
- Promotion of traditional and low input farming
- Promotion of environmental maintenance of abandoned land
- Support the combination of extensive agriculture and forestry
systems for high quality livestock, food and forestry crops
- Reduction of land-use intensity – promotion of organic farming,
reduction of productivity of arable crops
- Improvement of quality assurance systems to improve integrity
of organic food, including new strategies for inspecting and
traceability
- Promotion of cost-effective standard setting and certification
systems in organic farming
- Support SMEs to reach niche food markets for organic and
traditionally produced food products
- Support eco-labelling of “green” products
- Upgrading of human resources by enhancing training and skill
acquisition opportunities (e.g. e-training)
- Increase awareness on environmentally friendly agricultural
practises as well as on supporting products e.g. low input
pesticides, fertilizers.
- Increase capacity of local labour resources in ICTs
- Provide direct access to up to date information systems on agrifood issues
- ICTs infrastructure provision – broadband accessibility in rural
regions
- Improvement / upgrading of intra- and inter-regional transport
networks in rural regions
- Improve accessibility of agri-forest land
- Promote interaction via ICTs and transport infrastructure by
properly pricing these services
- Land use planning for the protection of valuable ecosystems and
agricultural land
- Support the renewal of rural settlements - renovation and
development of villages
- Increase awareness on the value of natural and cultural heritage –
support preservation of these resources
- Expand NATURA protected natural areas’ network – more strict
restrictions on farming activities within and around NATURA
areas
120
5.10. Backasting Policy Scenarios in AG2020
The output of the above discussion is the backasting policy scenarios built in
AG2020, as depicted in Fig. 5-7 below (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5).
Fig. 5-7: Backasting policy scenarios in AG2020
Source: Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5 Path 3
PP 2 - Green entrepreneurship
PP 3 - Environmental and resource stewardship
PP 4 - Reduce, reuse and recycle
PP 5 - Ecological tax reform
PP 6 - Log-in the Information Society
PP 7 - Culture of “regionality”
PP 8 - Social responsibility
PP 9 - Administrative innovations – e-government
PP 10 - R&D innovations – Bio-innovations
PP 11 - Public participation
PP 12 – Knowledge-intensive farm management - Variant 2
PP 13 - Development of human resources
PP 14 - Accessibility of rural regions to ICTs and transport
infrastructure
PP 15 - Spatial planning
IMAGE III
“Active Regions and
Reflexive Lifestyles”
IMAGE I
“High-tech Europe:
Global Cooperation for
Sustainable Agriculture”
Present
State of EU
Agriculture
POLICY
SCENARIO
III
IMAGE II
“In search of Balance:
Accord on Sustainability” Path 1
Path 2
PP 1: Knowledge-driven diversified rural
economies
PP 3: Environmental and resource stewardship –
Variant 1
PP 6: Log-in the Information Society
PP 9: Administrative innovations – e-government
PP 12: Knowledge-intensive farm management –
Variant 1
PP 13: Development of human resources
PP 14: Accessibility of rural regions to ICTs and
transport infrastructure
PP 15: Spatial planning
PP 1 - Knowledge-driven diversified rural
economies
PP 2 - Green Entrepreneurship
PP 3 - Environmental and resource stewardship
– Variants 1 and 2
PP 4 - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
PP 6 - Log-in the Information Society
PP 9 - Administrative innovations – egovernment
PP 10 - R&D innovations – Bio-innovations
PP 12 – Knowledge-intensive farm
management – Var. 1 and 2
PP 13 - Development of human resources
PP 14 – Accessibility of rural regions to ICTs
and transport infrastructure
POLICY SCENARIO I
POLICY SCENARIO II
PP: Policy Package
121
6. VALIDATION METHODOLOGY IN AG2020
In this section is presented the validation methodology and participatory tools used to
validate results in AG2020. More details on the application of the proposed
methodology and results can be found in Deliverable D5.4.
6.1.
Validation in AG2020
In AG2020, foresight analysis makes diligent use of extensive consultations in the
stakeholder community through questionnaires, meetings, validation workshops,
involving a wide range of actors and stakeholders. Stakeholders’ participation, apart
from being a dissemination activity per se, communicating the message and efforts
undertaken in AG2020, provides insights and validates the obtained results.
Stakeholders’ knowledge adds also value to the learning process of the system at
hand.
In order to fulfil the pursued objectives, AG2020 seeks to gather intelligence on long
term trends, in world agricultural markets, that will help to identify possible /
desirable futures of the EU agriculture and respective policy paths to reach them.
Stakeholders’ validation is a key element throughout the whole project that supports
the scenario backasting process development by integrating the stakeholders’ views
and priority setting on the proposed issues.
In AG2020 were validated: the methodological approach as well as objectives/targets,
external and strategic elements; the Images of the Future; and the policy measures,
packages and paths (see Figure 6-1 below).
Fig. 6-1: Validation in the AG2020 backasting framework
Validations 1 and 2 Objectives/Targets
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Strategic Elements External Elements
Environmental protection Economic
efficiency
Regional development Social cohesion Food quality-safety
Energy
Validation
3 Images of the
Future
Key Elements
- Technology
Policy Measures
1. Lifestyle oriented
2. Market oriented 3. Regulation oriented
4. Public infrastructure/services
etc.
Case Studies
- Decoupling Policy
Packages
Key Issues
Validation
4
122
Policy
Paths
6.2.
Validation Methodology
In order to plan and structure the validation approach in AG2020, a number of
successive steps were followed (see Fig. 6-2 below) that would define the (Giaoutzi et
al, 2009a, D5.4; Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5):
- Purpose of the workshop;
- Selection of the appropriate participatory method for each workshop;
- Selection process of stakeholders according to the participatory method adopted in
each workshop;
- Validation of the structure and material for the workshops;
- Running of the workshop;
- Production of the report;
- Selection and application of the qualitative data analysis model ATLAS-ti.
Fig. 6-2: Steps of the validation methodology in AG2020
Source: Giaoutzi et al, 2009a, D5.4
Purpose of the
Workshop
Selection of the appropriate
participatory method
The selection process of the
participants
Validation of the Structure
and Material
Running of the
workshop
Production of
Report
Selection and Application of
the “content analysis method”
Final Output
123
6.2.1. Define the purpose of the workshops
A clear definition of the purpose of the workshop is important at this step, as it can
largely define the participatory approach to be used, the type of participants, etc.
In AG2020 the purpose of each workshop is depicted in Fig. 6-1 above.
6.2.2. Selection of participatory method for each workshop
Each participatory method is serving a different purpose. Therefore at this stage, the
selection of the appropriate method for each workshop has been carried out.
The selection was based on the following criteria (Steyaert and Lisoir, 2005):
- The objective of the whole exercise (reason for involvement and expected
outcome);
- The nature and scope of the issue under study (e.g. complex, highly controversial
issue);
- The participants involved (public, experts, stakeholders etc.); and
- The time and resource constraints.
6.2.3.
The selection process of stakeholders
The selection of stakeholders in the AG2020 validation workshops was based mainly
on the criterion of the expertise available on issues relating to the AG2020 context.
Stakeholders for each workshop were selected, among others, from the following
groups:
- Researchers;
- Professionals;
- Members of Associations in the agricultural sector; etc.
All stakeholders were considered as experts in their fields of interest, who were also
distinguished as to their ability to think 'out of the box' or their ability of being
visionary (for more information on the selection process of stakeholders see
Deliverable D5.4, Giaoutzi et al, 2009a).
6.2.4. Validation of the structure and material for the workshops
Important issue in a participatory process is the structure and the material of each
validation workshop in order to successfully create a platform for fertile dialogue
among stakeholders. A crucial aspect in this respect is the participatory approach
adopted.
In this step are also validated both the participatory process and the type of the
resulting material.
Validation of the participatory process may shed light on the limitations of the
potentially adopted participatory tool, which may in turn influence the quality of the
results. The type of the obtained results, on the other hand, is also validated as to their
value added to the issues raised in the workshop.
Further processing of results was carried out by use of qualitative approaches e.g.
qualitative data analysis (for more details see Deliverable D5.4, Giaoutzi et al, 2009a).
124
6.2.5.
Running of the workshop
In this stage, the application of the already selected participatory methods is taking
place, following the specific requirements of each method in terms of the material
presented at the information stage of each process, but also of the
coordination/moderation expertise of the persons running the workshops.
The produced output, in each case, is formulated in a way that enables a concise
presentation of the produced results at each stage of the process in order to be used at
the next stage of the iterative process.
6.2.6. Production of the report
In most participatory methods the expected output of the process has the form of a
report (written, audiovisual, visual arts, etc). This contains, according to the process
and structure of the selected method, one or more of the above outputs, which have to
be processed further in order to provide useful results for the pursued end in each
particular case.
6.2.7. Selection and Application of the Qualitative Data Analysis Model ATLASti
The aim of the present step is the identification of the appropriate “qualitative data
analysis method” for the processing of the produced output report from each
workshop, so that further useful information to be extracted from the original
material.
The obtained results from the previous steps can be used as an input to the ATLAS-ti
model - a qualitative data analysis model - in order to enrich or even modify elements
of the AG2020 Policy Scenario backasting process (Giaoutzi et al, 2009a, D5.4).
The output produced from the workshops, be it written, tape or video recorded,
collage etc. is used as an input to the ATLAS-ti model that will extract the hidden
information for use in refining the already produced information in the AG2020
project.
On that basis were explored ways for further refinement of the AG2020 process based
on the validation results (for more details see Deliverable D5.4).
6.3.
Validation Workshops in AG2020
Six validation workshops were organized, in AG2020, focusing on different parts of
the Policy Scenarios Backasting Process. More specifically (Giaoutzi et al, 2009a,
D5.4):
- The first workshop aimed at validating the AG2020 methodological approach as
well as external, internal and strategic elements and objectives (Copenhagen, May
2007), which would be used for building the AG2020 Images of the Future.
Validation of the above elements was of great importance, since it further
supported the refinement of the AG2020 objectives; identified the decision
environment (external/internal elements) and added further insights on policy
elements.
125
- The second workshop aimed at elaborating further on the external and internal
elements, strategic elements as well as the finalization of objectives and targets
(Athens, 2008);
- The third workshop validated the baseline scenario and the Images of the Future in
AG2020 (Florence, October 2008);
- The fourth workshop aimed at validating policy measures in AG2020 (Chania,
September 2009).
- Finally, the fifth and sixth workshops aimed at validating policy measures,
packages and paths proposed in the AG2020 context (Athens, July 2010).
Three participatory methods were adopted in the validation workshops in AG2020,
namely (Giaoutzi et al, 2009a, D5.4):
- The expert panel method, used as an advisory participatory approach that aims at
reaching consensus among stakeholders;
- The focus groups methodology, used as a platform for social learning that brings
together scientific knowledge and behavioural patterns of citizens; and
- The world cafe method, used as an advisory participatory tool mapping diversity
among stakeholders.
More specifically:
In the first validation workshop the emphasis was placed mostly on brainstorming and
exchanging of expert ideas on the founding concepts of the policy backasting
framework. In this respect the “expert workshops” method was adopted, as most
appropriate for bringing new ideas into the scene and identifying the level of
convergence among the various scientific streams, and the opinion making on the
likely to emerge futures of agriculture in Europe.
In the second validation workshop the focus group methodology was selected, as more
capable of dealing with complex issues, using knowledge from various scientific
disciplines and/or stakeholders. The output of a structured participatory process, at
this stage, was the integrated insights that are made available to the AG2020
consortium.
In the third validation workshop, the world café participatory method was adopted as
a useful participatory tool for:
- Engaging large groups (more than 12 persons) in an authentic dialogue process;
- Generating input, sharing knowledge, stimulating innovative thinking and
exploring action possibilities around real life issues and questions;
- Conducting in depth exploration of key strategic challenges or opportunities;
- Deepening relationships and mutual ownership of outcomes in an existing group.
In the fourth validation workshop the focus group methodology was adopted in a
variation that enables to inform stakeholders by preparing a rather detailed report, far
in advance, and give the opportunity to the participants to express in a written form
their views and assessments on the discussion issues. The output of the reflections to
this report, including various other issues at stake was registered as the basis for
discussion in the focus group methodology during the fourth validation workshop.
126
Finally, in the fifth and sixth workshops aimed at validating policy measures,
packages and paths the focus group methodology was adopted.
6.4.
Validation Results
The validation workshops have largely contributed to the (Giaoutzi et al, 2009a,
D5.4):
- Acquirement of further insight into each specific step of the backasting
methodology (internal/external elements, strategic elements, Images of the Future,
policy measures, packages and paths) (see also Deliverable D5.4).
- Enrichment/indulgement into the content of each step (see also Deliverable D5.4);
- Refinement of the objectives/targets, Images of the Future, policy measures,
packages and paths structured in AG2020 (see also Deliverable D5.4).
- Better understanding and communication both among project partners and
stakeholders on the scope and approach of the project.
127
7. THE AG2020 CASE STUDIES
In this part of AG2020, regional development scenarios are presented in four
European regions. These are assessed and validated at the local level, in order to
reveal the different types of challenges and threats faced by the different regional
agricultural systems at the EU level (see Fig. 6-1 in the previous chapter). These in
turn, will bring into AG2020 the peculiarities of the different EU agricultural systems
in the respective countries and the policies required in order to cope with the resulting
challenges and threats.
In the following are presented shortly the four case study regions and the
methodological approach adopted in this part of the project (for more details see D6.4
for each specific case study).
7.1.
Foresight Analysis on a Regional Basis – The AG2020 Case Studies
In AG2020, a foresight analysis at the regional level was carried out, based on four
case studies, presenting four distinct regional agricultural contexts at the EU level.
Foresight analysis, at this level, focused on the structuring and assessment of regional
development scenarios of the respective regions that bring into AG2020 the regional
perspectives of the agricultural sector, but also the challenges and threats faced, in the
context of the AG2020 Images of the Future. Regional scenarios are also validated by
local stakeholders and policy measures are proposed, which are used to enrich the
pool of policy measures of AG2020.
The steps, at the case study level, are as follows (AG2020, Annex I):
- Identification and selection of representative regional case studies.
- Identification of stakeholders, to be invited to participate in workshops organized
by each specific case study.
- Collection of data on regional influential factors (key factors) either market and/or
non-market related.
- Sensitivity analysis of regional policy scenarios that involves understanding of the
regional stakeholders’ priorities, and identification of the prevailing attributes in
each regional context (e.g. state of development of technologies, importance of
agriculture for rural development, impact of climate change).
- Validation of the results of the regional based sensitivity analysis.
Representative regional case studies are selected based on the following criteria:
- Challenges posed by a diversified EU agricultural sector.
- Presence of factors that are expected to have a strong influence on the agricultural
development.
- Presence of factors that are identified as most challenging and influential at the
regional level.
- Balanced geographical representation.
Based on these criteria, the following four Case Studies (CSs) were selected:
‐ the Rhodope Mountainous region in Bulgaria (CS1),
‐ the Kastelli region (Herakleion Crete) in Greece (CS2),
‐ the Central Denmark region in Denmark (CS3), and
128
‐ the Tuscany region in Italy (CS4).
In the following are presented: a short description of the above four regional case
studies, the objectives set in each case study, the regional scenarios constructed and
the policy framework relevant to reach each specific regional scenario. Finally, some
conclusions are drawn as to the contribution of the case studies to the AG2020
context.
7.2.
The Rhodope Mountainous Region in Bulgaria (CS1)
In this section the Rhodope mountainous region is shortly presented (for more details
see the D6.4 AG2020 Rhodope Region Report).
Population
Rural regions cover 98.8% of the Bulgarian territory and account for 84.3% of the
total population. The rural population has been declining and the age structure of rural
population exhibits a lower share of the working age cohort, while a higher share of
retired people in the population. The educational level of the rural population is
significantly lower than that of the urban areas.
Employment in rural areas is highly dependent on agriculture and forestry, while a
very small number of farms have diverted into non-agricultural activities. Non
agricultural employment in rural areas is mainly related to retail trade and catering.
Local Economy
‐ The agricultural sector
The agri-sector in Bulgaria is divided into two distinct groups: in the first group
belongs a large number of small farms, cultivating very small parcels of land; while
in the second group is found a small number of large private agricultural units, of
relatively much bigger size, in control of arable land. As a result, a remarkable
fragmentation of land plots in the country can be observed.
There are also substantial differences between the size of the holdings managed by
individuals and those managed by legal entities (cooperatives, limited companies,
sole traders, partnerships).
Moreover, Bulgaria is a net exporter of agricultural products, thanks to its favorable
climate conditions for the main agricultural products, but also the cultivating
traditions that hold in the agrarian sector. Despite the fact that Bulgaria has kept its
position as a net exporter, the unfavorable trends holding in the development of the
sector have already been reflected in the trade turnover. A serious drawback of the
agri-sector is the very low level of adoption of new technologies and the low
investments.
‐ Food industry
The food processing industry is the most important market for the agricultural
products of Bulgaria. In 2004, the food processing industry contributed to 15% of
the industrial production. The most developed food processing industry sectors are
bread and bakery production, beverages, meat processing and tobacco.
129
Moreover there is a growing interest for organic products, where a large amount of
production is processed and exported, but there is also a growing domestic market
as well.
‐ Food safety and quality
Considerable efforts are made for the modernization of food industry in order to
comply with the EU quality, hygiene, and work safety standards. Milk and meat
food companies are outstanding in this process, with almost 75% of the firms in
these sectors having completed or initiated modernization projects.
‐ Energy sector
There is a large potential for production of energy crops.
Objectives set for the Rhodope region
In line with the AG2020 objectives, the following objectives are pursued for the
Rhodope mountainous region:
‐ Environmental protection: the emphasis is placed on the protection of biodiversity
and landscape quality, as the region posses outstanding natural characteristics and
rich/unique biodiversity.
‐ Economic efficiency: increase in competitiveness is pursued by this objective, so
that sustainability in the sector is pursued without state support.
‐ Regional development: namely increase in employment, accessibility of rural
regions and a shift towards more value-adding agricultural production.
‐ Food quality and safety: where the emphasis is placed on the production of high
quality and safe products, the production of gourmet products, organic products,
labeled products etc.
‐ Energy: refers to the improvement of the energy efficiency in the agri-food
production sector.
7.3.
The Kastelli Region (Herakleion nomos) in Greece (CS2)
In the following is presented a short description of the Kastelli region (for more
details see in D6.4 the AG2020 Kastelli Region Report)
The municipality of Kastelli is located at the western part of the Herakleion nomos in
the Crete administrative division (Map 7-1 below). The city of Kastelli is the
economic and administrative center of the municipality.
The region consists of a mountainous part, near the Dikte Mountain, and a flat part at
the north of the region, where the Kastelli plain is located.
Municipality’s population amounts up to 6.819 inhabitants, distributed at the fourteen
municipal compartments. The region of Kastelli municipality covers about 12.332
hectares, while 25% of the population lives in the city of Kastelli (1629 inhabitants).
The total number of working population at the municipality of Kastelli is
approximately 2.518. The employment structure in the area is presented in Table 7-1
below.
130
Map 7-1: The Kastelli region
Heraklion Nomos
Kastelli
region
Unlike the majority of working population at the nomos level, employed in the tourist
and trading sector, the majority of working population at the municipality of Kastelli almost 1/3 of the working population - is occupied in the primary sector..
Table 7-1: Employment structure in the Kastelli region
Type of employment
Number of
employees
%
Higher administrative and managerial executives of public and
private sector
Employment in various sectors such as scientists, artists or other
Technologists - technical assistants and employers: (%)
Desk clerks
Employees in shops, outdoor markets and service sector
Specialized farmers, stock-farmers and foresters
Specializing technicians
Unskilled workers, manual workers and small scale tradesmen
Not sufficiently declared
Young people
Not declared
85
3.4
158
92
138
313
855
227
283
7
194
60
6.3
3.6
5.5
12.4
33.9
9
11.2
0.2
7.7
2.4
The rather fertile quality of soil in the Kastelli plain encourages the development of
the primary sector. The tourist sector has a low level of development, despite the
presence of valuable cultural and archaeological resources in the area. As a result,
employment related to the tourist sector is very low. The rest of the tertiary sector has
also a low presence in the Kastelli region, as there are no important urban or semiurban centers in the area. As a result, the majority of the working population in the
area is mainly employed in agricultural activities.
Local Economy
- Primary sector
The main source of the regional income comes from the agricultural production, like
in the majority of municipalities located in the hinterland of the Herakleion nomos.
More specifically, in the Kastelli region the main source of agricultural income
comes from the cultivation of olive trees, but also from the production of grapes,
wine, vegetables, honey, traditional cheese etc.
131
- Service sector
The settlement of Kastelli is the administrative and service center of the Kastelli
municipality, serving the needs of local population. A health centre, two small
hotels, traditional restaurants, small tourist shops and two traditional hostels are the
main activities of the service sector located in the area.
- Environment and Culture
The natural environment of the region is of outstanding quality. The landscape is
characterized by small streams, low sprouting, plane-trees, springs, rocky mountain,
and trails, which offer the possibility for walking tours (e.g. the European trail
“E4”). Moreover, there are places of astonishing natural beauty (e.g. “Agia Anna”
in the village Geraki, “Mesada” in Kastamonitsa”).
Apart from natural are also present remarkable cultural resources in the region, such
as historical Byzantine churches but also two ancient cities, namely the “Acropolis
of Smari” and the “Ancient Lyttos”, which have not yet been properly restored.
The local tradition of the region is also very important such as local cuisine, local
fetes and customs but also traditional products (e.g. Cretan cheese).
- Areas of Aesthetic Value
In the municipality of Kastelli there are also many areas, characterized as “areas of
aesthetic value” but also “national parks”. The land morphology of the municipality
of Kastelli is offered for walking tour activities, through landscapes where forestry
areas are alternating with rocky mountains.
Objectives set for the Kastelli region
The main goal of the Kastelli case study is the Integrated Agricultural Development
for the Kastelli region, taking into account both the potential of the agricultural sector
but also the upcoming relocation of the main airport of the island in the Kastelli area,
which is at present located within the urban area of the Herakleion capital city of
nomos.
In this context, the following objectives are pursued for the Kastelli region:
‐ Environmental protection: the development of the region will be pursued on the
basis of a rational exploitation of resources, placing emphasis on the protection of
natural and cultural environment.
‐ Economic efficiency: efficiency aspects of economic activities are the focus, with
emphasis on innovation diffusion and entrepreneurship in all sectors.
‐ Regional development: refers to broadening the range of activities in all sectors in
order to enlarge employment and income opportunities in the study area.
Emphasis is placed on promoting multifunctionality, by means of both tourist
development - oriented towards environmentally friendly tourist activities – and
manufacturing of agricultural products; but also improvement of accessibility.
‐ Social cohesion: aims at ensuring equal access to opportunities in e.g. labour
market, health, education, other services.
‐ Food safety and quality: aims at increasing competitiveness of the agri-food sector
on the basis of qualitative agricultural products.
‐ Energy: aims at enhancing energy production in the Kastelli region by means of
RES (biomass, solar and wind energy).
132
7.4.
The Central Denmark Region in Denmark (CS3)
In this section is shortly presented the Central Denmark region (for more details see in
D6.4 the AG2020 Central Denmark Region Report).
Population / regional inequalities
Central Denmark Region has 1,250,000 inhabitants and covers an area of 13,124
square kilometers (30 % of the Denmark's land). The region stretches across from the
North Sea to the Kattegat, that is around 200 km from one end to another (Map 7-2).
The great distance means significant differences among different people and culture,
as for example employments rates (larger proportion of the population in employment
in the western part than in the eastern part). Conversely, educational attainment is
higher in East Jutland than in West Jutland (27.2 and 21.0 per cent respectively).
Generally, regional inequalities between the eastern (high) and western (lower) part of
the region are addressed in respect to:
- population growth,
- personal income,
- employment rates,
- education level, and
- number of advanced educational institutions.
Map 7-2: The Central Denmark region (CS3)
Local Economy
‐ The agricultural sector
Danish agriculture has become increasingly specialized. Half of all Danish farms are
today without livestock and 80 % of all milking cows and pigs are already in
specialized farms. This development leads to an industrialization of the landscape but also to new reflections on corporate branding and social responsibility.
As a result, the number of farms in Denmark is declining steadily. Over the last 50
years, the total number of farms decreased by 75 %. In 2006, there were 47400
farms in Denmark. Today there are 42000, and the expectation is that the number in
2015 will drop to 29000. Of those, only 9700 being full-time farming. In 2015, a
full-time farmer is expected to have a farm of 220 hectares.
133
Due to the low prices on the national and global markets, Danish farmers search for
the production of new crops. This might change the landscape dramatically. Less
profitable fields will increasingly become fallow and turn into shrub and woodland,
while energy shortages and climate policy objectives stimulate the production of
crops such as willow and elephant grass for energy production to the detriment of
grain, oilseed rape and grass. Generally there is a trend for large, highly specialized,
farms.
At the same time, the proportion of part-time and hobby farms has increased
markedly. Part-time farmers now represent the two thirds of all Danish farms and
have mainly settled in the peri-rural areas around Copenhagen, Aarhus and Odense
(Source: UMM19side11-16_MandagMorgen 13-05-2010 18:52 Side 11).
‐ The industry sector
The Central Denmark Region has a vibrant economic life, strong competencies in
knowledge environments, research and education, and rapid population growth. The
region thus accounts for almost a fourth of the total Danish workforce.
In the eastern part of the region, the growth zone of Aarhus attracts manpower and
investments, thanks partly to the numerous institutions of higher education, which
include the university, business school and engineering academy. Aarhus also has
Denmark's largest container port for overseas container transport. In the west, the
growth centers around the cities of Holstebro and Herning are particular industrial
strengths, with food processing, wood and furniture industries, textiles and clothing,
metal and production technology.
‐ The energy sector
The Central Region Denmark has a has a particularly strong position in this sector,
based merely on:
9 The presence of a strong business cluster in bioenergy, which supports
innovations in the field and brings the Central Denmark Region already above
the EU target for 2020 (22 % of the total regional consumption).
9 The presence of the Denmark’s first test centre for hydrogen technologies,
which is involved in the development and rollout of fuelling facilities.
nd
9 The presence of the world’s first plant producing 2 generation biodiesel.
9 The presence of the CO2 neutral island of Samsø, the electric power
consumption of which is 100% covered by an offshore wind farm, while solar
heating, biofuels and wind turbines are also in use.
9 The presence of some of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers in the
region.
‐ Natural / cultural resources
The landscape of Central Denmark Region is quite varying and beautiful, ranging
from the North Sea and its dunes in the west and the beautiful lakes in the lake
highlands to attractive bays and idyllic inlets in the eastern part of the region. The
region also offers a broad range of cultural attractions, from the internationally
recognized art museum Aros in Aarhus to a medieval festival and large-scale
concerts featuring international names in Horsens, living-history events at Hjerl
Hede Open Air Museum and fantastic experiences at Aqua in Silkeborg, the
Kattegat Centre in Grenaa and Randers Rainforest Tropical Zoo.
134
Objectives set for the Central Denmark region
The main goal of the Central Denmark Region case study is the Regional
Development for the region, taking into account the potential of the agricultural sector
for the development perspective of the area.
The objectives, towards this end, were the following:
‐ Environmental protection: Central Denmark Region aims to be an active player in
energy and environmental matters. Within this objective are considered issues
such as the protection of water resources and the nature preservation, but also the
establishment of eco-efficient agricultural technology for certification purposes.
‐ Economic efficiency: of importance in this objective are the training of labour
force, the establishment of links between agri-businesses and R&D firms, the
promotion of innovation and entrepreneurship and the strengthening of
cooperation among agri-food businesses.
‐ Regional development: under this objective are addressed the upgrading of: human
potential, export activity of the region, network infrastructure and built
environment.
‐ Social cohesion: that aims at the decrease of inequalities within the study area.
‐ Food quality and safety: as the food sector is a strong sector in the local economy
of the Central Denmark region, within this objective is pursued the diversification
in food production, placing emphasis on two types of food, namely ‘clever
everyday food’ and ‘cultural food’, based on the competitive advantage of the
region at hand.
‐ Energy: the focus here is on the further exploitation of renewable energy, based
merely on the development of proper technology for effectively exploiting
renewable energy sources (e.g. manure and biomass); and the gradual lessen of
dependency from fossil fuel.
7.5.
The Tuscany Region in Italy (CS4)
In this section is shortly presented the Tuscany region. The key attributes of the
Tuscany region are depicted in Fig. 7-1 below and are shortly described as follows
(for more details see the D6.4 AG2020 Tuscany Case Study Report).
Population
Tuscany is one of the twenty Italian regions - fifth in size, with a population of
3,677,048 inhabitants over 22,992 square kilometres. Population growth rates were
rather stable until the end of the nineties. The increase in immigration rates, both from
southern Italian regions and from foreign countries produced a significant increase in
the population (+5.1% in the period 1999-2008), which in ten years exceeded the
3,600,000 inhabitants (from less than 3,500,000). This trend is in line with the Italian
national population growth, which has been stable (and close to no growth) during the
eighties and nineties, and started again to increase at the beginning of the new
millennium.
The 40% of the Tuscan population is living in rural areas, covering the 75% of the
total regional area, producing one third of the total regional added value, and
contributing to the 35% of employment.
135
Fig. 7-1: Key elements for the Tuscany region
Local economy
In Italy the GDP per capita was € 25,100.00 in 2008, slightly higher than EU average
(€ 23,600.00). The GDP of Tuscany in 2006 was the 6.72 % of the national GDP and
the 0,83% of the EU. The Tuscan GDP, is higher than both Italian and EU average,
but lower than northern Italian and other developed EU regions; This is mainly due to
the low average labour productivity (in particular in secondary and tertiary sectors), to
the low labour supply. Therefore, Tuscany presents a small turnover in the labour
market, a high divergence between labour supply and demand with a low productivity
rate. In the recent years, however, this gap has been reduced.
‐ Primary sector - Agriculture
Tuscan agriculture is worldwide known for its positive impact on the landscape.
Both the cultural and landscape heritage are the most important assets of the region,
and attract tourists all year long.
During the last decades, there has been a significant reduction in the primary sector.
Although the share of the regional added value has remained rather stable, while
employment rates in the sector have started to increase from the mid - nineties
onwards.
The number of farms in the region decreases dramatically from 1961 to 2000
(around -40% or from 233,207 to 139,872 farm units), in parallel to the
industrialization boom of the sixties and the subsequent increase of the tertiary
sector.
However, during the 90’s, the Tuscan farms decreased by 7%, compared to the 15%
national average. This is mainly due to the reforms introduced by regional
administration for the restructuring of Tuscan agricultural products, production
chains and landscape, and the spread of agro-tourism.
In 2000, the 98% of farms in Tuscany was managed directly by the farmers, and run
by household labour, where the 28.3% of farms is producing for own consumption.
The 51.5%, on the other hand, consists of non-professional household farms. Also
136
the part-time, directly managed by farmer, type of farms has increased in the recent
time.
Livestock sector, is mainly based on meat production (74% of sector production,
409 millions of Euros in 2003), in particular bovine and pork. Estimates from
ISTAT accounted 541.131 sheep, 19.733 goats, 104.207 bovines, 33.769 horses and
194.329 pigs.
Livestock farms are generally medium-small sized, with a production oriented to:
small and local production, and international markets.
The distribution of livestock farms is not homogenous over the region, in terms of
farm size, number of heads and geographical coverage.
The agri-food sector represents the 6% of the regional exports, mainly directed to
EU 25 (53%), which is significantly less than the Italian average (67%). The main
exports are directed to North America (28%).
Tuscan agriculture mainly exports wine and olive oil (40% and 36%, respectively)
followed by nursering products.
Agrotourism is increasing within the region (almost doubled from 2000 to 2006 in
terms of number of farms) and has significant impacts on Tuscan agriculture.
‐ Secondary sector: Industry
The secondary sector is mainly distributed along the axis of Arno River, and is
predominantly composed by medium-small sized mid-low technology factories. It
employs the 30% of total regional manpower and contributes to the 28.1% of
regional GDP, and the trend shows a progressive decline from the nineties onwards.
The manufacturing industry represents the heart of Tuscan secondary sector, and it
keeps close relationships with agriculture, in particular for high quality products.
The main activities of the Tuscan secondary sector are textile-clothing industry
(21% of labour units, mainly located in the province of Prato), leather and shoes
industry (13.7%, mid-lower Arno river basin, Santa Croce district), paper industry
(5.4%, province of Lucca) and goldsmith (3.9%, Arezzo). Also important are food
production and mechanical industries.
The structure of the secondary sector has not changed significantly, with respect to
other regions, from the seventies; furthermore, the reduction of employment in
manufacturing sector has not produced an increase in more innovative sectors, as in
other more developed EU regions.
‐ Secondary sector: Energy sector
Energy demand increases by +2% yearly. In 2004 the total Tuscan energy
consumption was 21000 Gwh (35% in industry, 32% in households 13 , 31.5% in
transport and 1.5% in agriculture), while the local production was around 19000
Gwh. The 28% though of the energy produced in Tuscany is geothermal. The 13%
is from renewable sources, mainly hydroelectric. The 77% is produced by
thermoelectric power plants, in particular, using oil (even if the conversion to a
combined cycle with methane has been started).
The law 39 of 2005 regarding the energy sector, followed by the Regional Energetic
Plan (PIER, Piano di indirizzo energetico regionale), designed the new energy
13
Of which the 60% is used for heating, hot water production and cooking.
137
policy for Tuscany, with 109 millions of euro invested in order to reach by 2020 the
39% of locally produced electric, and the 10% of thermal energy, from renewable
sources, reducing CO2 emissions of 7.2 millions of tons.
‐ Tertiary sector: Services
The tertiary sector produces almost the 70% of the regional GDP, and includes
different kinds of activity.
During the 1991-2001, employment in the sector increased significantly, with
diversified growth rates depending on the subsector concerned.
Tourism is a major activity in the region, producing a significant income; it is
mainly split into cultural (historical cities and towns such as Florence, Siena, Lucca,
San Gimignano, etc) and natural (mainly seaside, but agrotourism as well).
Objectives set for the Tuscany region
The following objectives were considered for the rural development of the Tuscany
region:
‐ Environmental protection: three main domains can be identified within this
objective, namely the natural environment protection, the cultural heritage
protection and the landscape protection.
‐ Economic efficiency: increased economic efficiency is focusing on two aspects:
the improvement of the production processes and the promotion of
entrepreneurship.
‐ Regional development: is based on an integrated approach of activities, triggering
the competitive advantages of the region, and encouraging diversification of
activities and innovation.
‐ Social cohesion: is targeting the removal of social inequalities.
‐ Food quality and safety: is pursued through the promotion of organic farming,
innovations in the agri-food sector, etc.
‐ Energy: the rational use of natural resources is pursued, by increasing the share of
Renewable Energy production.
7.6.
The AG2020 Methodological Approach in Case Studies
The methodological steps followed, in each case study, are (see Figure 7-2 below):
More specifically:
9 Description of Frames and Targets (Part II) where for each region are presented
the:
- objectives of the region, which reflect the six AG2020 objectives, properly
adjusted to fit each specific regional context.
- regional analysis of the region at hand, presenting environmental, social and
economic characteristics, social and cultural characteristics, infrastructure
networks, etc.
138
Fig. 7-2: The WP6 case study methodological approach
PART
II
Description of Frames and Objectives
PART I – General Context
Case Study Context
Objectives
AG2020 Project
WP6 in AG2020
Methodological
Approach
Regional Analysis
Presentation of the Region
Kastelli Region
Rhodopes Region
Central Denmark Region
Tuscany Region
TOOLS used
1. LIPSOR analytical model
2. Focus Groups Methodology
3. Future workshops
TOOLS used
1. Microsimulation tool
2. Validation workshops
PART III - IV
Assessment of Regional Scenarios
Stakeholders’ Validation
Regional Development Scenarios
(expert-based)
PART III
Assessment of Regional Policy Scenarios
Regional Development Scenarios
Assessment of Regional Scenarios
(expert-based)
Assessment Regional Scenarios,
Policy directions and policy measures
(Expert-based)
PART IV
Stakeholders’ Validation Validation of Regional Scenarios,
Policy directions and policy measures
(Local participation) Validation of Regional Scenarios
(Local participation)
PART V – Region Specific Policy Measures – D6.4
1. Region-specific policy measures
2. Scenario-specific policy measures
AG2020
Pool of Policy Measures
139
9 Assessment of regional development scenarios (Part III): on the basis of the
previous analysis, regional development scenarios are developed, taking into
account the regional characteristics, the objectives set at the previous stage, as
well as the developments of the external environment, provided by the AG2020
Images of the Future. More specifically, the scenario building process follows the
steps described below:
- A set of hypotheses is structured, based on the key elements of the region at
hand, as these are identified by the regional analysis;
- For each hypothesis, different possible future outcomes are drawn;
- Regional development scenarios are structured, placing at the core the
agricultural sector. Each of them presents a different combination of future
outcomes of hypotheses considered.
- Expert-based scenario assessment: the three regional development scenarios are
assessed by experts. In such a context, qualitative assessment tools (e.g. SWOT
analysis and MULTIPOL evaluation model) are used to carry out scenario
assessment for each case study, where it is assessed the performance of each
scenario in respect to the objectives set.
9 Stakeholders’ validation of the scenarios (Part IV): each regional development
scenario is, as a next step, validated by local stakeholders in each region. Tools
used for that purpose are:
- The Microsimulation approach;
- Stakeholders’ workshops at the local level; and
- Focus groups methodology integrating ‘future workshops’ participatory
approach.
9 Region-specific policy measures (Part V): the outcome of the previous steps is a
set of region-specific (Rhodopes, Kastelli, Central Denmark and Tuscany regions)
and scenario-specific policy measures, which can feed the pool of AG2020 policy
measures, reflecting thus region-specific policy directions towards fulfilling the
objectives set.
7.7.
Results from Case Studies
In this section are presented the results from the work carried out in the four AG2020
case studies. More specifically, are shortly presented the regional scenarios built in
each specific case study as well as the indicative region-specific and scenario-specific
policy measures that were used as an input to the pool of AG2020 policy measures.
In order to better understand the regional scenarios and the respective policy measures
supporting their implementation in each specific case study, the most outstanding
characteristics, of each of the four case studies selected in AG2020, have as follows:
‐ the Rhodope Mountainous region - Bulgaria (CS1): the most outstanding feature
of the Rhodopes region is the rich biodiversity, drawing upon the Eastern
Rhodope Mountains, characterized by Mediterranean and Sub-Mediterranean flora
140
and rare and diverse habitats; and the Western Rhodopes part, characterized by
Central European and Northern Boreal flora, with high value forest ecosystems. The agricultural sector in the region is declining, during the past decades based,
among others, on the low level of efficiency and modernization, the rough
morphology, but also the political priorities set in the past. Other important issues,
framing the development of the agricultural sector so far, are the scale of land
ownership (small parcels), the limited accessibility, the low qualification and
productivity of labour resources, etc. The region today is facing new challenges
for driving successfully sustainable rural development. As main comparative
advantages, in this respect, can be considered the qualitative agri-food production,
alternative tourism, but also the energy production, based on biomass
management.
‐ the Kastelli region (Herakleion Crete) - Greece (CS2): a rural region in the Crete
island, facing a great upcoming challenge for the sustainable development of the
area, due to the location of a new airport infrastructure that intends to occupy a
large part of the most fertile land of the region. The focus, in this context, is on the
development of an integrated plan for the study region, which promotes:
multifunctionality in the area. This may attract new investments in the region, for
increasing employment opportunities and income of the local population..
‐ the Central Denmark Region - Denmark (CS3): the agri-food sector in this region
is traditionally a highly innovative, industrially-oriented sector, strongly
dominated by large multinationals food businesses, placing emphasis on
efficiency aspects based on innovation and holding a strong export orientation.
Main threats that the region is facing nowadays relate to the intensive use of local
resources (land, water etc.); the industrially-based agriculture, placing a lot of
pressure on the environment (e.g. landscape); the lack of diversified production;
etc. On the advantages can be countered the gains in competitiveness of the agrifood sector in a global context.
‐ the Tuscany region - Italy (CS4): is a region, rich in natural and cultural resources,
where the revitalization of the agricultural sector and its integration to the local
economic structure, is at the core of the efforts. A high level of multifunctionality
is pursued, with the agricultural sector forming the basis for qualitative food
production, safeguard of the natural resources, host of alternative tourist activity,
production of renewable energy etc. The protection / conservation of landscape, as
the most important resource for the local population and a main attraction for
visitors in the region constitutes a key aspect for the area.
In the following sections, are presented regional scenarios constructed for each case
study as well as policy measures supporting the implementation of these scenarios.
7.7.1. The Rhodopes case study
Regional scenarios and respective scenario-specific policy measures for the Rhodopes
rural region are presented in the following.
As key domains for the development of the Rhodopes regional development scenarios
are considered the:
141
-
regional structure domain, including the agricultural sector, the agri-food sector,
the phytopharmacy sector, the tourist sector, the labour force, the market, and the
ICTs infrastructure;
the technology and innovation domain, including agri-technology, agri-food
technology and environmentally saving technologies; and finally
the energy domain (see D6.4).
Based on that, three scenarios are constructed, which have as follows:
‐ S1 Scenario: High-tech Rhodopes region;
‐ S2 Scenario: Sustainable Rhodopes region; and
‐ S3 Scenario: Business as usual.
Scenario S1 “High-tech Rhodopes region”: in this scenario, the Rhodopes region is
specializing in the high-tech agricultural production. Problems (environmental, social
or economic) are solved by investing in R&D, education and training of labor force.
The focus is on both: technologies that support regional specialization and export; and
technologies that support less labour-intensive and more efficient agricultural
activities. Adoption and use of technology rates at a high level in this respect (D6.4).
Scenario S2 “Sustainable Rhodopes region”: the focus of this scenario is on
strengthening the local identity of the Rhodopes region by the revitalization of
traditional high quality products, with strong emphasis on certification aspects. It is
based on the support of environmentally friendly agricultural activities and food
processing, leading to the production of highly qualitative and value-adding products.
High labour input and production costs are involved in this respect. The scenario
builds upon a high level of multifunctionality, linking agricultural activities with
alternative tourism. Adoption and use of technology rates at a medium level. A
labour-intensive view is adopted, where more people are employed in both farming
and processing of agri-food products. The scenario aims to take advantage of the shift
of consumers’ preferences towards high quality ‘green’ products (D6.4).
Scenario S3 “Business as usual”: in this scenario, the local economy is characterized
by local production and consumption. People prefer to buy locally produced and
processed food, since they are cheaper. Export orientation is limited to the export of
green unprocessed products (herbs, berries, mushrooms) with no added value, at very
low cost. Reckless collection and depletion of plants and animals have led to a loss of
gene pool diversity and biodiversity. A more labour-intensive approach in farming
activities is adopted in this scenario. The region is self-sufficient in basic lifesupporting goods, such as food and energy for producing the food, including fossil
fuels and commercial fertilizers. This renders the local community more resilient to
external shocks, such as energy supply disruptions (D6.4).
Policy measures
In Table 7-2 below are listed some indicative sets of policy measures, serving each of
the above presented regional development scenarios for the Rhodopes region.
142
Table 7-2: Scenario-specific policy measures for the Rhodopes region (CS1)
Source: D6.4 AG2020 S1
“High-tech Rhodopes region”
S2
“Sustainable Rhodopes
region”
S3
“Business as usual”
Protection of natural resources and the environment
Improvement of water and soil quality
Gathering manure from several Strict requirements for
Requirements for establishing
livestock farms into one largeestablishing manure storage
manure storage capacity for
scale regional biogas facility.
capacities for preventing water
preventing water and soil
and soil pollution.
pollution.
Support for poor farmers in
Stronger support for poor
Support for poor farmers in
protected sanitary zones and in
farmers in protected sanitary
protected sanitary zones and in
zones near mineral water
zones and in zones near mineral zones near mineral water
springs in implementing good
water springs in implementing
springs in implementing good
agricultural practices.
good agricultural practices.
agricultural practices.
Construction of a sewage
infrastructure as well as a large infrastructure as well as a waste infrastructure in villages.
scale waste water treatment
water treatment facilities for the
facilities for the sustainable
sustainable management and
management and growth of the
growth of the region.
region.
Conservation of biodiversity
Establishment of special
Support preservation of local
Support preservation of local
center(s) for research and
indigenous, rare and
indigenous, rare and
preservation of unique
disappearing biodiversity by
disappearing biodiversity by
biodiversity in special protected restricting collection and
restricting collection and
area (reserves for preservation). depletion of plants and animals, depletion of plants and animals,
that can lead to a loss of gene
that can lead to a loss of gene
pool diversity and biodiversity. pool diversity and biodiversity.
Establishment of gene banks
for plants and animals by using
natural caves and studying the
unique, of high economical
value, germ plasm in special
reserves.
Conversion of naturally
growing animal and plant
resources into cultivated ones.
Support the development of
technologies that serve the
balance of ecological factors
(e.g. the impact of acid rains on
forestry equilibrium).
Decreased use of chemicals and
fertilizers in agriculture,
fragmentation and restoration
of some natural elements of the
agricultural landscape.
Prevent land abandonment.
Regular grazing and
Regular grazing and
Regular grazing and
maintenance of meadows and
pastures for preserving plant
diversity and prevent
disappearance of associated
invertebrate and vertebrate
communities.
communities.
communities.
Utilization of municipality land Utilization of municipality land Utilization of municipality
143
S1
for pastures in order to preserve
local biodiversity.
S2
region”
for pastures in order to preserve
local biodiversity.
S3
land for pastures in order to
preserve local biodiversity.
Increase awareness on the
value of the genetic variety and
natural heritage.
Promotion of incentives and
mechanisms for reintroduction
of local plant varieties and
breeds.
Raise awareness on the
economic
benefits
and
performance of local plant
varieties and breeds.
Stimulate livestock breeding of
local breeds in mountain areas.
Development of Organic farming
Promotion of incentives for
farmers for the transition from
conventional to organic
production.
Support to organic farmers.
Develop sustainable land management practices
Promotion of investments in
afforestation in order to avoid
erosion.
erosion.
erosion.
Replace monocultural crop
(potato, tobacco) growing with
alternative plants.
Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas
Support farming activities in
naturally deprived regions like
Rodopi.
Rodopi.
Rodopi.
Sustainable forest land management
Promotion of extension and
improvement of forest
resources.
Afforestation of agricultural
areas.
Afforestation of marginal
agricultural lands.
Prevention and rehabilitation of Prevention and rehabilitation of Prevention and rehabilitation
destroyed forests in order to
destroyed forests in order to
of destroyed forests in order to
preserve local indigenous, rare
and disappearing biodiversity.
Sustainable forest land management
Training private owners of
forests in forest management.
Policies for development of competitive and innovation-based agriculture, forestry and food
processing industry
Training, information and diffusion of knowledge
Establishment of life-long
vocational training of farmers
with focus on the processing of with focus on environmentally
with focus on traditional
agricultural and forest products friendly agricultural activities
farming activities.
(phytopharmacy, agri-forestry
and alternative tourism.
144
S1
S2
region”
processing, renewable energy
production and
entrepreneurship).
Establishment of specialized
schools.
Establishment of training
structures for formal
agricultural training and
acquirement of managerial and
business skills for manpower
involved in agriculture .
Support the involvement of
young and educated people in
agriculture .
Support training concerning the
compliance of agri-food sector
to EU food safety standards.
S3
schools.
schools.
agriculture.
agriculture.
Support training concerning the Support training concerning the
Raise environmental awareness
among local population for the
development of local markets
and local demand for
environmentally safe products.
Provision of farm advisory and extension service
Provide sufficient state
agricultural services with
managerial, business and
agronomic skills for farmers.
Meet EU standards
Provision of financial support
for agricultural holdings in
order to align with international order to align with international order to align with
quality standards .
standards (health standards;
international standards
origin of production, organic
e.g. in the milk production
production, etc), e.g. protection sector to comply with the milk
of geographical trade marks for quality standards, in the
a very specific unique food,
poultry branch for egg-laying
phyto-pharmaceutical products. hens, in animal breeding, in
manure-storing points and in
purification installations,
especially in the nitrate
vulnerable zones.
Support the adjustment of farming structures
Promotion of small-scale
farming.
farming.
farming.
Facilitate the entrance of young Facilitate the entrance of young Facilitate the entrance of
farmers in the sector and
farmers in the sector and
young farmers in the sector
support of structural
support of structural
and support of structural
adjustments of their small size
holdings.
holdings specialized in the
holdings specialized in the
production of organic products, production of traditional
certified products, etc.
products.
Improve access to credit for
small and medium-sized
small and medium sized
small and medium sized
agricultural producers in rural
regions.
regions.
regions.
Encouraging of investments in
Stimulate the production of
organic farming.
traditional fruit varieties taking
145
S1
S2
S3
region”
Reorganization of production
advantage of the favorable
sector to organic farming and
climatic and weather
marketing of organic products
conditions and local traditions.
(certification).
Restructure and modernize physical potential and promote innovation
Improve the economic
Support competitiveness of the
performance of the agricultural
dairy sector.
holdings and the food
processing industry through
Support the processing of
adding value to agricultural and
animal origin products.
forestry products.
Support businesses adding
value to organic products.
Support adjustment of farming structures and support co-operation
Establishment of new types of
cooperation between producers
(framers), processors and the
marketing sector to serve the
interests of all stakeholders.
Support voluntary land
consolidation (land
consolidation (land
consolidation (land
consolidation agreements).
Energy policies (Policies for protection of natural resources and the environment of rural
areas & Policies for development of competitive and innovation-based agriculture, forestry)
Developing renewable energy potential
Promotion of centralized (large Promotion of decentralized
Promotion of decentralized
scale) hydroelectric facilities - (small scale) plants on
(small scale) plants on
construction of large artificial
mountain river banks for
mountain river banks for
lakes for producing electricity.
energy production.
energy production.
Promotion of large scale
Promotion of small scale
Support the exploitation of
facilities for combined
existing natural resources
production of electro- and heat
(wood) for heating purposes
energy from biomass from
energy (biogas) from solid and
livestock breeding (solid and
liquid manure.
liquid manure).
Promotion of large scale
Renewable use of compost
from byproducts of wood
processing industry, vine
energy from biomass
industry and animal waste for
originating from the wood
energy production.
processing industry.
Support the exploitation of
waste from manufacturing to
be converted into compost for
organic farming.
Policies for improving the quality of life and diversify job opportunities in rural areas
Improve access to and quality of basic services and infrastructure
Promotion of high health care
services.
services.
services.
Promotion of investments for
the development/upgrading of
the transport infrastructure.
ICTs infrastructure – improve
broadband access of rural
regions.
regions.
regions.
146
S1
S2
S3
region”
water supply, electricity supply water supply, electricity supply water supply, electricity supply
and sewage system.
and sewage system.
and sewage system.
social services (establishment
of kinder gardens and schools). of kinder gardens and schools). of kinder gardens and schools).
Develop income generating activities outside the agricultural sector for farm households and the
wider rural population
rural tourism.
rural tourism.
rural tourism.
7.7.2. The Kastelli case study
In this section are presented the regional development scenarios and the respective
scenario-specific policy measures developed for the Kastelli rural region.
As key domains for the development of these scenarios are considered the: settlement
patterns; agro-technology and food technology; multifunctionality of agricultural
land; share of renewable energy; exploitation of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs); location of a technological park; and the location of a new
airport.
Key issues for building regional scenarios for the Kastelli region are technology and
the location of the new airport.
The following scenarios were selected, out of a range of ‘possible’ scenarios emerging
from the application of the MORPHOL model (D6.4):
- S1: Scenario “with new airport”; and
- S2: Scenario “without new airport”.
A short description of these scenarios has as follows:
The S1 : Scenario “with new airport”: takes away a considerable part of agricultural
but also residential land.
- A new concentrated settlement pattern prevails in the area, as a result of the
relocation of the population to already existing or new residential settlements.
- Agricultural land is significantly decreased and emphasis is placed on technology
and innovation (see agri-food technology) for increasing efficiency.
- The role of multifunctionality is stressed, through the development of alternative
tourism, processing of agricultural products (manufacturing), energy production
from renewable energy sources, etc.
- ICTs is also important, for the creation of network opportunities e.g. tourist
marketing, e-commerce, access of population to services etc., but also for the
diffusion of knowledge and information in the agri-food sector and other sectors.
- New economic activities are attracted in the area by the new airport and the
improvement of the regional infrastructure networks (new or improved road
transport network).
147
The S2: Scenario “without new airport”: The existing spatial pattern of settlements
and the population distribution remains unchanged. Technology and innovation are
considered as “tools” for the protection / preservation of natural resources of the
region. The local economy is based on the:
- agricultural sector, with emphasis on technology and innovation for the
environmental protection and rational use of resources (e.g. precise farming) and
the production of high quality products (organic agriculture);
- development of alternative tourism (agrotourism, ecotourism, walking tourismpaths, cultural tourism, wine tourism, sight-seeing tourism in traditional
settlements, religious tourism, archaeological tourism, etc);
- energy production (biofuels), based on the processing of biomass (agricultural
waste) and the cultivation of energy crops; food sector, based on the processing of
local agricultural products, where emphasis is placed on the role of technology for
the production of both high quality and traditional products;
- and trade of local products, focusing on exporting agri-food products of high
quality and biofuels.
- ICTs play a substantial role for networking among firms and for marketing
purposes.
- A more environmentally responsible image of the region attracts tourist flows as
well as small scale investments around eco-activities in the region.
- Renewables gain ground in the region as a mean to preserve local assets.
- Environmental culture prevails in the region, based on increasing awareness of
local community and strong participation in the decision making processes.
- Agriculture, in the present scenario, is considered not only as a production sector
but as the core for preserving nature and developing small scale eco-activities.
Policy measures
In the Kastelli case study, the building and assessment of scenarios was carried out
with the application of the LIPSOR participatory model (see Fig. 7-2 above) and more
specifically the MORPHOL and MULTIPOL modules. Based on this approach, four
different policy directions are considered as serving the two scenarios S1 and S2.
These have as follows (Table 7-3 below) (D6.4):
- Policy 1 (P1) places emphasis on increasing multifunctionality;
- Policy 2 (P2) relates to the specialization of the region in the food sector;
- Policy 3 (P3) aims at the development of the region as a technological/
educational node in the agri-food sector; and
- Policy 4 (P4) places emphasis on tourism-culture as the backbone for the
development of the region.
148
Table 7-3: Pool of scenario-specific policies in the Kastelli case study (CS2)
Source: D6.4, AG2020 SCENARIOS
POLICY
DIRECTIONS
- P1 (multifunctionality)
Scenario S1
(with new
airport)
- P2 (specialization
in the food sector)
- P1 (multifunctionality) and
- P4 (tourismculture)*
Scenario S2
(without new
airport)
‐ P3 (technological
/ educational
node)
ACTIONS (POLICY MEASURES)
- A4: Restructuring / upgrading of road
infrastructure network;
- A6: Management - Trading - Promotion of
agricultural products;
- A8: Development of agrotourism;
- A9: Developments of eco-tourist activities in
environmentally sensitive parts of the Kastelli
region;
- A10: Development of walking - mountainous
tourism - network of paths;
- A13: Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) - Development of network
infrastructure;
- A16: Development of the mountainous compartments
of the study region
- A17: Settlements and cultural development
- A1: Modernization of the production process in the
agricultural sector
- A3: Quality control of agricultural products - Product
labeling
- A7: Networking among agricultural and other firms
(e.g. agricultural firms, tourist firms, etc)
- A13: Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) - Development of network infrastructure
- A14: Promotion of innovation with emphasis on the
food sector
- A15: Processing and marketing of agricultural
products
- A4: Restructuring / upgrading of road
infrastructure network
- A6: Management - Trading - Promotion of
agricultural products
- A8: Development of agrotourism
environmentally sensitive parts of the Kastelli
region
- A10: Development of walking - mountainous
tourism - network of paths
- A13: Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) - Development of network
infrastructure
- A16: Development of the mountainous compartments
of the study region
- A17: Settlements and cultural development
- A2: Restructuring of agricultural production Intensification of agricultural land;
- A5: Training - Upgrading of existing skills and
knowledge stock in the study region;
- A11: Energy production from biomass (processing of
agricultural waste - energy crops);
- A12: Energy production (wind - solar energy);
- A14: Promotion of innovation with emphasis on the
food sector; and
- A18: Development of a technological/training centre.
*P1 and P4 are closely relating policy directions
149
Moreover, a number of actions (policy measures) are proposed, which have as follows
(D6.4) (Table 7-3 above):
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
A1: Modernization of the production process in the agricultural sector
A2: Restructuring of agricultural production - Intensification of agricultural land
A3: Quality of agricultural products– Product Labeling
A4: Restructuring / upgrading of road infrastructure network
A5: Training – Upgrading existing skills – Increase knowledge stock
A6: Management – trading – promotion of agricultural products
A7: Networking between agricultural and other firms
A8: Agrotourism
A9: Eco-tourism
A10: Walking – mountainous tourism
Α11: Energy – biomass (agricultural waste – energy crops)
A12: Energy (wind energy-solar energy)
Α13: Development of ICTs infrastructure
Α14: Promotion of innovation with emphasis on the food sector
A15: Processing and marketing of agricultural products
Α16: Development of mountainous regions
Α17: Settlement and cultural development
Α18: Development of training centre
Based on the LIPSOR approach, are identified both the policies that fit best to each
single scenario, and the actions (policy measures) that fit best each policy direction
(D6.4, AG2020). In this respect, policy directions and actions proposed for each
scenario have as follows (Table 7-3 above).
More specifically, the above presented policy directions and policy measures can be
further developed as follows (D6.4):
Policy 1 - Multifunctionality and Policy 4 - Tourism and Culture
The package of measures that better serves the above policy directions is:
- A4: Restructuring / upgrading of road infrastructure
network;
- A6: Management - Trading - Promotion of agricultural
products;
- A8: Development of agrotourism;
environmentally sensitive parts of the Kastelli region;
- A10: Development of walking - mountainous tourism network of paths;
(ICTs) - Development of network infrastructure;
- A16: Development of the mountainous compartments of the
study region; and
- A17: Settlements and cultural development.
150
These actions can be further specialized into bunches of policy measures, which are
described in the following.
9 A4: Restructuring / upgrading of road infrastructure network
‐ Improvement of access to transport services of all settlements of the Kastelli
municipality;
‐ Increase safety of transport network;
‐ Upgrading of intra and interregional transport infrastructure – increase
intra/interregional accessibility;
‐ Integration of local to regional road network; and
‐ Increase number of parking places in the municipality of Kastelli.
9 A6: Management - Trading - Promotion of agricultural products
‐ Increase interaction among sectors – processing of agricultural products – trade;
‐ Management of raw material at the field level – promotion of recycling for
energy production – rational use of resources;
‐ Promotion of the local “green” production;
‐ Specialization in high food quality – Quality assurance;
‐ Promotion of innovative vertical structures for the collection, manufacturing and
trading of agricultural green products;
‐ Increase of export trade – Market expansion on the basis of high quality
products;
‐ Export trade of products certified as “made in EU” or “made from EU high-tech
products”.
‐ Restructuring of the agricultural sector based on comparative advantages
(available natural and human resources) – production of new products based on
global consumption patterns – demand – market orientation;
‐ Restructuring of the production process – Modernization of the sector by use of
light machinery and precise farming for more rational use of available resources;
‐ Creation of innovative systems for the promotion of local products by means of
ICTs;
‐ Promotion of e-commerce;
‐ Development of specific innovation and marketing support programs for SMEs
of the agri-food industry.
9 Α8: Development of agrotourism
‐ Active support of non-agricultural income perspectives (e.g. tourism,
handicrafts, local cuisine).
‐ Development of agrotourism infrastructure – creation of agrotourism hostels of
high quality – Quality assurance of agricultural businesses;
‐ Creation of information center providing information for funding opportunities
in the agrotourism sector by European and national funds;
‐ Training of human resources on agri-tourist activities;
‐ Promotion of agrotourism businesses through ICTs e.g. site of Kastelli
municipality, Region of Crete, Hellenic Tourist Association etc.;
‐ Creation of Information Centre for the support of local people willing to create
agrotourism businesses.
151
9 A9: Developments of eco-tourist activities in environmentally sensitive regions
‐ Enhanced and enforced protection of environmentally sensitive areas;
‐ Land use planning to protect environmentally sensitive areas and areas with high
valued biodiversity; and
handicrafts, local cuisine).
‐ Development of eco-tourist activities by creation of the necessary infrastructure
e.g. creation of a network of paths and rest stations in regions of natural beauty;
‐ Increasing awareness of local society in respect to environmental protection of
sensitive areas by means of information diffusion, organization of conferences,
etc., targeting also young people at schools;
‐ Promotion of eco-businesses in environmentally sensitive areas;
‐ Integration of eco-tourist activities in the image of the region – promotion by
local and national sites;
‐ Creation of a park of Cretan flora in the location of the old scrap heap.
9 A10: Development of walking - mountainous tourism - paths
handicrafts, local cuisine) in mountainous regions;
‐ Development of path networks in mountainous regions – creation of rest stations
in selected places of natural or other interest e.g. aesthetic forests, biotopes;
‐ Establishment of links of the path network with the mountainous settlements –
creation of entry points to the path network from these settlements;
‐ Development of tourist infrastructure in the mountainous settlements with
emphasis on the exploitation of traditional local characteristics e.g. local
architecture, traditions;
‐ Upgrading/promotion of mountainous traditional settlements.
9 A13: Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) - Development of
infrastructure network
‐ Establishment / Upgrading of ICTs infrastructure in all settlements of the
Kastelli municipality – development of broadband networks, local wireless
networks etc.;
‐ Establishment of information/communication nodes providing information on
agricultural and other issues;
‐ Life-long e-training facilities for the upgrading of local skills in the agricultural
and other sectors;
‐ Increase capabilities of human resources in ICTs;
‐ Create nodes for providing access to ICTs in all settlements, serving local
population with no access to relative equipment.
‐ Development of Wi-Fi access in mountainous settlements;
‐ Provision of services via Internet e.g. e-services for citizens, e-school, egovernment, e-business.
9 A16: Development of mountainous compartments
‐ Improvement of access to mountainous compartments – upgrading of road
152
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
network – increasing safety of the network;
Creation of network of paths in the mountainous compartments - creation of rest
stations in selected places of natural or other interest e.g. aesthetic forests,
biotopes;
Establishment of links of the path networks with the mountainous settlements –
creation of entry points to the path networks from these settlements;
Fire protection of mountainous compartments – development of fire protections
zones/paths;
Promotion of volunteerism in mountainous compartments (protection, cleaning
etc. in cooperation with local authorities);
Regeneration of mountainous settlements;
Promotion of archaeological sites in mountainous regions (Smari, Lyttos) –
improve accessibility to these sites – upgrade surrounding area; and
Upgrading of natural and cultural resources of mountainous compartments –
improve access to these locations – promotion by ICTs.
9 A17: Traditional settlements and cultural development
‐ Land use planning to protect environmentally sensitive areas and areas with high
biodiversity;
‐ Regeneration of declining areas by supporting economic activities in support of
employment in these areas;
handicrafts, local cuisine) in regional areas;
‐ Improvements of housing and neighborhood quality / access to facilities;
‐ Development of cultural resources;
‐ Support of agricultural settlements with declining growth rates;
‐ Enhancement of the range of economic activities in mountainous settlements
(tourist activities, processing of agricultural products, handicraft, mountain
products, etc.) – training of local population in traditional sectors – support of
entrepreneurship;
‐ Relocation of polluting economic activities – Creation of specific zones for the
location of productive activities e.g. processing, oil press businesses, etc.
‐ Creation of “green belts” in environmentally sensitive regions of the Kastelli
municipality – land use restrictions in these belts;
‐ Increase awareness of local society towards renewable energy exploitation at the
household level (photovoltaics, solar energy) in all settlements of the Kastelli
municipality – support energy production at the household level;
‐ Increase awareness of local society towards rational use of energy – energy
saving;
‐ Improvement of the environment and standards of living in all settlements of the
Kastelli municipality – improve access to services of local population;
‐ Increase interaction among mountainous regions of the municipality – support
complementarity of mountainous settlements;
‐ Rehabilitation of building stock of the city of Kastelli – Rehabilitation and
change of use of old building - public use;
‐ Creation of athletic center in the Kastelli municipality – Creation of supporting
infrastructure;
‐ Creation of a digital museum in the Kastelli municipality – Promotion of
cultural heritage;
153
‐ Creation of a “green” fund at the municipality level, which will invest in green
activities e.g. recycling or activities referring to the upgrading of the
environmental quality of settlements (e.g. rehabilitation projects, greening of
settlements, etc.);
‐ Support actions towards “green households” and “green neighborhoods” as cells
serving the goal of preservation of the local identity and cultural heritage –
creation of wide coalitions among municipality authorities and local society
towards this direction;
‐ Upgrading of the built environment of the mountainous settlements –
rehabilitation of public space, development / upgrading of public infrastructure
(e.g. sewage and water infrastructure).
Policy 2 - Specialization in the food sector
The package of measures that better serves the above policy direction is:
- A1: Modernization of the production process in the
agricultural sector;
- A3: Quality control of agricultural products - Product
labelling;
- A7: Networking among agricultural and other firms (e.g.
agricultural firms, tourist firms, etc);
(ICTs) - Development of network infrastructure;
- A14: Promotion of innovation with emphasis on the food
sector; and
- A15: Processing and marketing of agricultural products.
These actions can be further specialized into certain policy measures, which are
described in the following.
9 A1: Modernization of the production process in the agricultural sector
‐ Use of subsidies for the support of local qualitative production and the
upgrading of the food sector;
‐ Support investments in environmentally friendly technologies e.g. precision
farming, technologies focusing on the protection of resources (e.g. land, water
etc.) and technologies supporting the decrease of agricultural environmental
impact (pollution);
‐ Increase technology awareness – provision of information on new crops and
new uses of crops to facilitate the promotion of bio-based economy;
‐ Promote diffusion of agricultural sensing technologies with focus on efficiency
aspects;
‐ Restructuring of the agricultural sector based on local resources and potential strong market orientation – shift to organic production of high quality;
‐ Restructuring of agricultural production - Promotion of bio-based crops - new
crops and/or new uses of existing crops;
‐ Diffusion of appropriate technologies for soil and crop management;
‐ Use of EU resources for innovation in agriculture, food-processing, bio-energy
154
etc. in order to be able to cope with increasing international competition;
‐ Creation of information center, at the municipality level, aiming at the diffusion
of knowledge on agri-food technologies supporting competitiveness of agri-food
sector at the global level;
‐ Adoption of modern technologies for the advertising – promotion of agri-food
products;
‐ Modernization of production process by means of new technological
innovations.
9 A3: Quality of agricultural products - Product labelling
‐ Financial support of organic agriculture and organic food;
‐ Promotion of “green food products” and “regional food products”;
‐ Enforcement of limits on nutrient applications (fertilizers and manures), high
standards for crop rotations and crop management;
‐ Promotion of product traceability - Product labeling - quality control/assurance
of agricultural products;
‐ Adoption of surveillance technologies in agricultural production - Use of
satellite technology for crop surveillance;
‐ Establishment of systems for quality control, standardization and certification of
agri-food products (traceability and monitored labeling); and
‐ Increase awareness of local agricultural society in respect to environmentally
responsible agricultural practices;
‐ Increase awareness in respect to the agri-food production of high quality –
Promotion/adaptation to high agri-food standards;
‐ Diffusion of knowledge in respect to technologies increasing efficiency and
assuring quality in the agri-food sector;
‐ Support training programs for the upgrading of skills of human resources in
respect to issues such as organic production, use of technological innovation in
agricultural production, food technology (processing, standardization etc.).
9 A7: Networking among firms (e.g. agricultural firms, tourist firms etc.)
‐ Establishment / Upgrading of Information and Communication infrastructure;
‐ Support of technologies for active communication between farmers and
consumers through the Internet and other communication channels - direct
marketing of environmentally friendly products;
‐ Creation of information/communication nodes diffusing knowledge and
information on agricultural and other issues;
‐ Create collective capacity to undertake coordinated action – promotion of local
partnerships – businesses’ networking;
‐ Establish links between R&D institutions and local businesses (e.g. on food
quality – safety) – Diffusion of research results in the local production sectors;
‐ Promotion of electronic commerce;
‐ Fostering entrepreneurship;
‐ Establishment of information and support services at the local level for new
farmers;
‐ Promotion of vertical/horizontal cooperation - networks among firms.
‐ Promotion of farms’ associations.
155
9 A13: Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) - Network
infrastructure
‐ Creation of modern telecommunications infrastructure – upgrading of existing
infrastructure – development of broadband services;
‐ Life-long training facilities for the upgrading of human skills in the use of ICTs
in all economic sectors - Increase capabilities of human resources in ICTs;
‐ Establishment of information/communication nodes, diffusing knowledge and
information on the use of ICTs in the agricultural sector;
‐ Creation of nodes for providing access to ICTs.
‐ Promotion of services to the local society through Internet - e-services, eschools, e-government, e-business, e-health, etc.
9 A14: Promotion of innovation with emphasis on the food sector
‐ Promotion of regional innovation systems to increase regional competitiveness;
‐ Promotion of specialization of agricultural regions - Creation of Business
Innovation Centers (BIC) in rural areas;
‐ Promotion of eco-business (environmental innovation-oriented businesses
producing goods and services for environmental protection);
‐ Establishment of links between R&D institutions and local businesses, with
emphasis on food quality and safety;
‐ Fostering entrepreneurship in all sectors – emphasis on the food processing
sector;
‐ Creation of awards and provision of wide publicity at the regional level for
innovative entrepreneurial behavior in all sectors;
‐ Creation of nodes for providing access to ICTs, supporting knowledge diffusion
in respect to food innovative production-processing technologies, food storage
technologies etc.;
‐ Promotion of less energy-intensive food-processing, transport and refrigerating
facilities;
‐ Development of specific innovation and marketing support programs for SMEs
of the agri-food industry.
9 A15: Processing and promotion of agricultural products
‐ Upgrading of skills of human resources in respect to issues relating to product
quality, new technologies in the production process, ICTs etc.
‐ Upgrading of the production process in the agri-food sector – adoption of
technologies supporting qualitative and competitive agri-food production;
‐ Restructuring of the agri-sector based on the rational use of local resources –
emphasis on the qualitative agri-food production;
‐ Promotion of innovative vertical structures for the collection, processing and
trading of agricultural green products;
‐ Export stimulation by means of products “made in EU” or “made from EU hightech production”;
‐ Adoption of modern technology for the food processing, standardization and
packaging - switch of food industry to eco-packaging (e.g. biodegradables);
‐ Restructuring of the agricultural production based on local resources and
156
‐
‐
‐
‐
potential - strong market orientation;
Creation of innovative marketing systems for local products / integration into
the destination image;
Promotion of electronic commerce;
Establishment / Upgrading of Information and Communication infrastructure.
Use of agri-raw sub-materials for the production of high added value products.
Policy 3 - Technological and Training Node
The package of measures that better serves the above policy direction is:
- A2:
-
Restructuring of agricultural production Intensification of agricultural land;
A5: Training - Upgrading of existing skills and
knowledge stock in the study region;
A11: Energy production from biomass (processing of
agricultural waste - energy crops);
A12: Energy production (wind - solar energy);
A14: Promotion of innovation with emphasis on the
food sector; and
A18: Development of a technological/training centre.
These actions can be further specialized into certain policy measures, which are
described in the following:
9 A2: Restructuring of agricultural production - Intensification of agricultural land
‐ Use of integrated technological solutions and ICTs aiming at increasing
efficiency – compliance with EU and other standards;
‐ Support precise farming technologies for the rational exploitation of resources
(land, water etc.) and the limitation of agricultural pollution;
‐ Promote diffusion of agricultural sensing technologies with focus on efficiency
aspects;
‐ Restructuring of the agricultural sector based on local resources and potentialstrong market orientation – diversification of production according to demand;
‐ Promotion of control systems and methods searching for infective and toxic
substances in agricultural production;
‐ More intensive use of agricultural land based on agro-technological
developments in production, pesticides, machinery, etc. to ensure efficiency but
also environmental protection;
‐ Use of agri-raw sub-materials for the production of high added value products.
‐ Promotion of energy crops;
‐ Promotion of the production of raw materials of high nutrition value for food
production.
9 A5: Training - Upgrading existing skills and knowledge stock in the region
‐ Promotion of regional specialization of production methods, practices etc (not
only focused on food / feed production);
157
‐ Creation of life-long training facilities for the upgrading of human resources in
the agricultural and other sectors;
‐ Increase awareness on environmentally responsible agricultural practices
through campaigns;
‐ Create innovative public structures for serving effectively the needs of rural
regions e.g. e-government, e-health;
innovative entrepreneurial behavior;
farmers;
‐ Promotion of entrepreneurship among young people and women;
‐ Increase public/business awareness on green values / entrepreneurship at the
local level.
9 A11: Energy production from biomass (processing of agricultural waste - energy
crops)
‐ Promotion of initiatives at the municipality level for the collection, management
and processing of biomass;
‐ Provision of incentives at the field level (local producers) for the collection of
biomass;
‐ Increase level of multifunctionality with focus on energy production - Energy
production from biomass (residuals) – Energy crops in fields where other crops
are less efficient;
‐ Promotion of technologies for the processing of biomass and the production of
biofuels;
‐ Promotion of technological developments in renewable energy sector (energy
efficiency and security);
‐ Increase skills of local human resources in respect to management, processing
and uses of biomass.
9 A12: Energy production – Renewable Energy (RE) (wind energy - solar energy)
‐ Diffuse information on technological developments in renewable energy sector
(energy efficiency and security);
‐ Increase awareness of local society regarding renewable energy production and
efficient use of energy (energy saving) through the organization of campaigns,
conferences, diffusion of printed material etc. – Focus on the young generation;
‐ Promotion of RE in public buildings (schools, municipality premises, athletic
infrastructure etc.);
‐ Exploration of potential sites for the location of wind - photovoltaic parks Land use planning for RE.
9 A14: Promotion of innovation with emphasis on the food sector
‐ Promotion of regional innovation systems to increase regional competitiveness;
‐ Promotion of specialization in agricultural regions;
‐ Promotion of innovation through the creation of Business Innovation Centers
158
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
(BIC) in rural areas;
Promotion of eco-business (environmental innovation-oriented businesses,
producing goods and services for environmental protection);
Establishment of links between R&D institutions and local businesses, with
emphasis, among others, on food quality and safety;
Fostering entrepreneurship in all sectors – emphasis on the food processing
sector;
Creation of awards and provision of wide publicity at the regional level for
innovative entrepreneurial behavior in all sectors;
Establishment / Upgrading of Information and Communication infrastructure;
Creation of nodes for providing access to ICTs supporting knowledge diffusion
in respect to food innovative production-processing technologies, food storage
technologies etc.;
Promotion of less energy-intensive food-processing, transport and refrigerating
facilities.
9 A18: Development of technological / training centre
‐ Life-long training facilities for the upgrading of human resources in the
agricultural and other sectors;
‐ Diffuse information on agricultural and other issues;
‐ Promote specialization of agricultural areas in new agricultural practices;
‐ Increase awareness on environmentally responsible agricultural practices
through campaigns;
‐ Establishment of links between the technological / training center and R&D
institutions on agricultural and other issues e.g. production methods, food safety
and quality, agricultural markets, etc.;
‐ Creation of innovative public structures for serving effectively the needs of rural
regions e.g. e-government;
innovative entrepreneurial behavior;
farmers;
‐ Promotion of entrepreneurship among young people and women;
‐ Creation of nodes for providing access to ICTs;
‐ Provision of training services relating to the adoption and use of ICTs;
‐ Increase public/business awareness on green values / entrepreneurship at the
local level.
7.7.3. The Central Denmark case study
In this section are presented the regional development scenarios and respective
scenario-specific policy measures developed for the Central Denmark region.
As key domains for the development of scenarios were considered the: population
distribution pattern, agri-sector, manufacturing / services, tourism, agri-technology,
food-technology, ICTs and energy production patterns.
Based on different combinations of the above domains in the study area, the following
three scenarios were developed (see Hansen et al, 2009):
159
‐ S1 Scenario “high tech agri-food sector”;
‐ S2 scenario - “Nature matters”; and
‐ S3 Scenario - “Revitalization of the Central Denmark rural region”.
S1 Scenario “high tech agri-food sector”: population distribution patterns remain
almost unchanged, with certain increase in population of urban regions in the eastern
coast. Labour force is commuting from rural areas to working places.
Strong emphasis is placed on the increase of efficiency in the agri-food sector, in
conjunction to the environmentally friendly production of high quality primary
products for further processing in the region and export. Key issue in this respect is
technology, the use of which has resulted to continuous cost reduction and decreasing
labour costs, in support of competitiveness of local production. The landscape is
industrialized on fertile land, but landscape values are preserved in appointed natural
reserves.
Manufacturing is concentrated in certain poles, forming clusters in the neighbourhood
of major cities (peri-urban areas), particularly in the eastern coast part of the study
region, while it is mainly export-oriented. There is strong collaboration between
knowledge institutions and the agri-food industry in order to support innovation and
competitiveness on the international market.
Existing urban and costal tourist activities are strengthened by branding the landscape
values preserved in nature reserves.
There is a high rate of adoption and use of ICTs in urban areas, with rural areas rating
lower in this respect. Finally, there is a medium dependence on fossil fuels (oil and
gas) mainly of the high tech industrial production, a medium share of centrally
produced renewable energy (combined heat and power plants, biogas plant and large
scale wind turbines), while energy efficiency is high in the local agenda. Moreover,
bioenergy is important, mainly produced from crops combustion in centralized
efficient heat and power plants (D6.4).
S2 scenario - “Nature matters”: Population distribution patterns remain unchanged,
with urban regions (east cost) attracting certain parts of the population. The rest of
labour force is commuting from neighbouring rural areas to urban and industrial
locations.
Industrially-based agriculture is developing in certain parts of the agricultural land as
intensive commercial activity, where technology is used in support of both increasing
yields and reducing environmental harms. Moreover, certain restrictions/incentives
are posed for farming in high value land, aiming at managing valuable natural
resources.
Manufacturing is concentrated in certain poles, forming clusters around major urban
settlements, in particular in the eastern coast, while it is mainly export-oriented.
Emphasis is also placed on the development of tourist activity, by integrating agro-eco
tourist activities in rural areas with coastal and urban tourist activities (business,
conference, educational etc.), driving the diversification of the tourist product and the
development of tourist experience all year long.
There is a high rate of diffusion of agri-food technologies, used for serving both the
increase of efficiency of the agri-food sector and the protection of local natural
resources.
160
Also there is a high exploitation of ICTs throughout the region, serving the needs of
both businesses and population, and a high share of renewable energies in the energy
mix. Based on the concern on environmental issues, energy efficiency is largely
promoted in the region (D6.4).
S3 Scenario - “Revitalization of the Central Denmark rural region”: draws upon a
more evenly distributed population pattern (dispersed pattern of population
distribution). Rural areas in this scenario are revitalized based on the improvement of
accessibility to transport and ICTs infrastructure as well as educational and cultural
activities.
Emphasis is placed on the development of niche, innovation-based, export-oriented
agri-food production, placing emphasis on local agri-products and manufacturing.
There is a dispersed pattern of manufacturing, mainly agri-food SMEs, that are
forming the backbone of agri-food qualitative production in rural areas, combined
with other industrial sectors located in the neighbourhood of urban settlements where
the focus is on export-oriented cost-effective production. Locally produced, of high
value and quality, products are gaining ground in the local but also the international
market (wine, beer, cheese etc.).
Agro-eco tourist activities are developed in rural areas, based on the competitive
advantages of these regions, which are integrated with coastal and urban tourism
activities, driving thus the diversification of the tourist product and the development
of tourist experience all year long.
There is a high rate of adoption/use of ICTs throughout the study region; while
renewable energy production is gaining a high share in the energy mix, following a
dispersed pattern, which takes advantage of all kinds of local renewable energy
sources available in the region. The region covers almost 50% of its energy demand
from renewable sources, while it aims to become soon fully independent from fossil
fuels. Energy efficiency is also of high concern in the local population (D6.4).
Policy measures
In Table 7-4 below are presented indicative sets of policy measures serving each
specific scenario.
Table 7-4: Scenario-specific policy measures for the Central Denmark Region (CS3)
Source: D6.4 AG2020 S1
“High tech agri-food sector in
Central Denmark Region”
Development of logistics,
infrastructure and ICTs in
support of innovative behaviour
of firms.
Encourage immigration of
skilled manpower.
S2
“Nature matters”
Structural Policies
Development/upgrading of
local networks / clusters to
"Branding" – for developing
economies of scale.
Reorientation of subsidies from
direct support to environmental
support.
S3
“Revitalization of the Central
Denmark rural region”
Support the networking of
SMEs for the production of
high quality, local products.
Support investments in rural
infrastructure.
Support knowledge diffusion
infrastructure in rural areas.
Facilitate foreign investments
in all sectors, especially in the
Market Policies
Promote cooperation between
large multinational and small
161
Support entrepreneurship at the
local level.
S1
energy sector.
Promotion of policies
supporting firms to cope with
unstable markets e.g. rising
energy prices.
Support firms to cope with the
financial crisis.
Removal of all kinds of barriers
in the movement of goods.
Support investments in
technologies reducing
environmental harm.
Promotion of cooperation
between knowledge institutions
and agri-food companies.
Promotion of innovation and
business clustering.
Support the development and
demonstration of technologies
for sustainable energy crops,
animal manure, residue and
algae.
Promotion of R&D in the agrifood sector.
S2
innovative companies.
Promotion of high quality
“non-organic” food.
Agricultural Policies
strengthening cooperation
between primary producers,
food companies, consultancy,
R&D firms etc.
Promotion of coordinated
environmental, energy, climate
etc. policies towards
sustainable primary food
production.
Support new protein crops to
minimize import of soya.
Support life-long training of
farmers.
Promotion of traceability and
labelling of agri-food products.
Environmental Policies
Promotion of sustainable
farming e.g. less energyintensive environmentally
friendly production.
S3
Promotion of the shortening of
the production chain.
Support of high quality local
production.
Support the establishment of
direct links between consumers
and producers (WEB, SMS
tools etc.).
Protection of local traditional
products.
Promotion of labeling of local
high quality products.
Support climate friendly
agriculture in rural areas.
environmentally sensitive land
management.
Promotion of innovation
diffusion in rural areas.
Promotion of the adoption and
use of ICTs by farmers and
other businesses for e.g.
business networking, access to
agri-food and energy
technologies.
ICTs Policies
other businesses for e.g. access
to information on ‘green’
production, environmental
friendly agri-practises.
Land Use Policies
other businesses for improving
access to information and
knowledge.
Promotion of branding of local
culture, lifestyle etc.
Improve accessibility of rural
areas to health services.
Transport/Logistic Policies
infrastructure, in particular
transport (motorways).
Improve accessibility to the
harbours in Tyborøn and Hvide
transport infrastructure (road
network) and logistics in rural
areas.
162
S1
Sande and the Aarhus harbour.
Promotion of infrastructure
investments in East Jutland
metropolitan region (logistics,
transport, etc.) to facilitate
transportation of goods and
work force from rural areas.
Promotion of investment in
high tech large energy plants,
sea wind mill parks etc.
S2
Energy Policies
Promotion of coordinated
policies for energy use as well
as landscape and groundwater
protection.
S3
renewable energy production.
7.7.4. The Tuscany case study
In this section are presented the regional scenarios and the respective scenario-specific
policy measures developed for the Tuscany region. As key domains for the development of regional scenarios were considered the:
population distribution, agri-sector, manufacturing / services, tourism, agritechnology, food-technology, ICTs and energy production patterns.
Based on different combinations of the above domains, the following scenarios were
developed (see D6.4):
‐ S1 Scenario - “High tech Tuscany”;
‐ S2 Scenario - “Business as usual”; and
‐ S3 Scenario - “Revitalization of the Tuscany rural region”.
S1 Scenario - “High tech Tuscany” follows a concentrated pattern of population
distribution. Agri-food production is focusing on efficiency aspects, but also on food
safety and quality, production of new products, and export orientation. A concentrated
pattern of manufacturing and services is prevailing. Moreover, a low/medium level of
multifunctionality is adopted. In the tourist sector, alternative but also other types of
tourist activities are promoted e.g. urban, conference, cultural, mass tourism. There is
a high rate of technology diffusion in the agri-food sector that serves the high
standards set for food quality and safety and food specialization. A high rate of ICTs
adoption and use drives strong networking and cooperation among businesses as well
as the diffusion of knowledge in the various fields. Moreover, there is a high share of
renewable energy in the energy mix, based on the promotion of related technologies,
which leads to the decrease of dependence on fossil fuels. Finally, energy efficiency is
rating high in the local agenda, based on the diffusion and commercialization of
relating technologies (D6.4).
S2 Scenario - “Business as usual”: is based on a concentrated pattern of population
distribution. The focus is on the qualitative organic production and the promotion of
an environmentally friendly agriculture. The region is specializing in qualitative food
production with strong export orientation. There is a concentrated pattern of
manufacturing and services. Moreover, a low/medium level of multifunctionality is
163
adopted. In the tourist sector, alternative but also other types of tourist activities are
promoted e.g. urban, conference, cultural, mass tourism. There is a low/medium rate
of adoption of agri-food technology and a low/medium rate of ICTs adoption/use. The
region is strongly dependent on fossil fuels, with a low share of renewable energy
production in the energy mix (existing pattern based mainly on geothermal,
hydroelectric and biomass) (D6.4).
S3 Scenario - “Revitalization of the Tuscany rural region”: a deconcentrated pattern
of population distribution prevails in this scenario. Rural regions are revitalized, based
on the production of qualitative organic products, PDO, PGI, TSG, mountain
products. Product certification is of importance. Environmentally friendly agriculture
is the prevailing attitude, with the region to specialize in a large variety of qualitative
certified food with export orientation. A dispersed pattern of manufacturing and
services is holding in the region, serving the demand of both population and
businesses. There is strong emphasis on the development of alternative tourist
activities (agro, wine, eco, gastronomic, mountainous, cultural, adventure etc.),
exhibiting thus a high level of multifunctionality of rural land.
There is a low/medium rate of adoption of agri-food technology aiming at serving the
protection of local resources, but also a medium rate of ICTs adoption and use. In the
energy sector, there is low dependence on fossil fuels (oil-gas) due to the high share
of renewable energy (geothermal, hydroelectric, wind parks, P/V parks, agri- forestry
waste), while energy efficiency aspects are high in the local agenda (Trombi et al,
2010).
Policy measures
Indicative sets of policy measures, serving each specific scenario have as follows
(Table 7-5):
Table 7-5: Scenario-specific policy measures for the Tuscany Region (CS4)
Source: Trombi et al, 2010 S1
“High tech Tuscany”
S2
S3
“Revitalization of the Tuscany
rural region”
Structural Policies
logistics, network
infrastructure, ICTs, etc. in
order to cope with existing
structural problems of the
region (in particular
morphology)
Decentralization of services in
rural territory (schools, health,
etc…) – Public investments.
Encouraging the immigration of
skilled manpower.
Promotion of structural
reorganization, in particular in:
‐ Productive sectors
‐ Services
‐ Market
‐ Network infrastructure
Promotion of partnerships
among producers, especially
small ones.
Promotion of the existing,
capillary rural fabric all over
the region.
Upgrading of transport and
ICTs infrastructure networks.
Promotion of social integration
of immigrants.
Support knowledge diffusion
infrastructure.
Support innovation in various
sectors.
164
S1
S2
S3
rural region”
Market Policies
Removal of all barriers and
constraints to free movement of
goods - support competition,
innovation and specialization in
all sectors.
Attraction of foreign
investments in all sectors, in
particular from India and
China.
Promotion of high quality local
products by large scale
marketing strategies.
Creation of local scale brands –
promotion in the global market.
Restructuring of the agri-sector
(size of firms), either by
favouring the aggregation of
firms (networks) or by
promoting the reduction of the
number of existing farms, thus
increasing the farm average
land.
Promotion of land management
(improvements) at the farm
level.
Promotion of the “Tuscan way”
to highly specialized competitive at a global scale
agriculture: focus on the
production of highly qualitative
products (e.g. wine, nursery,
gardening, etc…), based on
mechanisation and technology.
Support the shortening of the
production chain.
Promotion of direct links
between producers and
consumers.
Agricultural Policies
Support an “entrepreneurial
culture” in the agri-sector by
life-long training of farmers
aiming at increasing:
‐ management capacity,
‐ marketing skills,
‐ capability of understanding
markets and demand, and
adjust properly,
‐ ability to cope with market
issues and/or crisis.
Exploitation of the existing
agricultural fabric and network
of farms.
Promotion of environmental
policies stimulating
environmentally-friendly
agricultural development.
Policies for the creation of
direct links between consumers
and producers.
Protection of local traditional
products.
Support the development of
trust between consumers and
producers, besides the official
labelling/certification;
Development of low cost, local
forms of products’ certification
Promotion of product
differentiation.
Support specialization and
increasing added-value
production.
Support differentiation of
certification schemes with:
‐ Low-cost regional certification
schemes for products
promoted in the local market,
‐ EU certification schemes:
support for farmers promoting
their products in EU market
Support farms willing to shift
from local to global markets
(export orientation).
Promotion of traceability and
165
Support access of local
producers to the market e.g. by
creation of specific spots inside
large supermarkets, where
local producers may sell
directly to customers.
Support the enhancement of
multifunctionality (agri-food
production, tourism, etc.).
Support farmers in dealing
S1
S2
labelling of products.
S3
rural region”
with higher production costs.
Promotion of Products of
Designated Origin (PDO).
Promotion of export
orientation of the region
(agricultural but also other
sectors).
Promotion of urban and periurban agriculture
Support farmers to adjust to
EU sanitary standards.
Support bargaining power of
farmers and producers.
Support farming in remote and
abandoned land (e.g. for woods
exploitation) with multiple
beneficial effects
(environmental, social security
and cohesion, green energy,
etc.).
Environmental Policies
protecting biodiversity.
Support the production and use
of bio-energy.
Support farmers for
environmentally friendly
practises (e.g. no mechanisation for soil defence or other
environmental purposes).
Promotion of water
management policies.
Promotion of reforestation and
advanced wood management
systems.
Protection of landscape in
support of regional brand.
Research, education, innovation and transfer of knowledge
Promotion of communication /
Increase awareness of
interaction among producers,
customers regarding “green”,
between customers and
locally produced, products,
producers, as well as between
seasonality of products, etc.
research centres and producers.
Support investments on
Support investments on
innovations – technology for
environmental innovations –
increasing efficiency in the
technologies, serving
agricultural sector.
environmental goals.
Promotion of life-long training
Increase awareness of both
of entrepreneurs, focusing on
customers and producers as to
issues of regional interest and
the environmental impacts of
market / management issues.
agri-production systems.
Support mechanisms for
innovation diffusion and access
to information and knowledge.
Promotion of R&D investments Promotion of life-long training
on:
for farmers, with particular
- The development of
regards to marketing issues,
technologies suitable for
contributing to the increase of
solving local problems, while awareness on market
contributing to high quality
developments, opportunities,
products.
consumers’ demand, etc.
- Precision farming and
mechanisation, suitable for
the Tuscan morphology.
-
166
S1
S2
S3
rural region”
Increase awareness of both for
farmers and citizens on “green
values”, sustainability,
importance of agriculture, etc.
ICTs Policies
Support the creation of
technology and innovation
poles (research, innovation,
knowledge transfer, etc.) linked
to the international R&D
centres; efforts to become an
international centre of
excellence for ICTs
applications in the agri-food
sector.
Improve access of
entrepreneurs to sources of
innovation, technology,
information etc.
Support broadband and mobile
phone access of the whole rural
territory.
Enhancement of the adoption
and use of ICTs by farms and
other businesses – access to
information on green
production, environmental
friendly agricultural practises
etc.
Land Use
Policies supporting the
lowering of rural land prices, in
order to encourage investments,
and drive a restructuring of
farms’ size towards larger,
more specialized farms.
Reorganisation of urban
settlements’ network aiming at
a more balanced distribution of
population over the whole
region.
Transport/Logistic Policies
infrastructure, in particular
transport networks, logistics
systems, storage of agri-food
products.
transport and logistics systems
in order to create a
homogeneous fabric over the
whole region.
Support mobility of people (in
particular commuters), goods
and information.
Energy Policies
the rational exploitation of the
local natural resources, e.g.
forest management..
Promotion of investments in the
energy sector in order to meet
the increasing local energy
demand.
Promotion of networking of
small scale energy producers
Promotion of less strict
landscape related constraints,
which may hamper the
development of small scale
energy production (e.g. solar
panels, windmills).
Other Policies
Promotion of cultural
integration of migrants,
favouring the immigration of
skilled manpower.
defending the development of
local monopolies, patronage
systems etc.
167
7.8.
Conclusions
The output of the foresight exercises for the four specific AG2020 case studies have
provided considerable insights into the different region-specific agricultural contexts
of the European territory, which enhance the scope of the project and present regionspecific peculiarities, challenges and threats that need to be taken into account in the
context of AG2020.
More specifically, based on each specific regional context, a range of policy measures
are drawn that deal with the regional peculiarities. These can enrich the pool of the
AG2020 proposed policy measures, and enable the selection of a wider and more
representative range of policy measures that can effectively cope with the challenges
faced by the European rural regions (see respective AG2020 Case Study Reports).
Moreover, a number of innovative tools and approaches were applied in the context of
the AG2020 case studies (e.g. LIPSOR model, Future workshops, Focus groups,
Microsimulation approach) documenting the results of case studies. These strengthen
the contribution of AG2020 to the spreading and establishment of powerful foresight
tools for policy making purposes.
Finally, the work undertaken in the AG2020 case studies can be of importance for the
regional decision makers of the selected regions, as regional development scenarios
and respective policy measures for each region draw upon:
‐ an in depth exploration of potential future developments of various key drivers,
both at the European and the global level, which may affect developments of the
agricultural sector in each single region;
‐ the interaction among interdisciplinary stakeholders, involved in the AG2020
project, broadens the vision and challenges out-of-the-box thinking for the benefit
of the decision making process;
‐ the wide communication of regional scenarios and respective policy measures to
the local communities, in the context of stakeholders’ workshops, which promotes
consensus; and
‐ the validation of regional scenarios and policy measures at the regional level,
which contributes to their refinement, in order to best fit to each specific cultural
and social context.
168
8. CONCLUSIONS
The aim of the Final Report is to present the AG2020 innovative methodology for
structuring policy scenarios in agriculture at the European level for the year 2020 .
The AG2020 is based on the backasting methodology, which sets out objectives and
targets for building the “Images of the Future”. orienting the future of the EU
Common Agricultural Policy towards the desired end.
The backasting policy scenarios (images and related policies) provide possible
alternative policy options, for agriculture in Europe, for the year 2020.
These options (appropriate policy instruments and paths), are based on:
- a set of key elements (areas of change), identifying the most interesting areas of
change in the study system;
- key states, indicating the levels of change required to achieve the AG2020 targets;
- policy measures, clustered on the basis of their orientation (lifestyle, market,
regulation and public infrastructure/services oriented);
- policy packages and paths, driving future developments towards the desired end;
and
- changes in technology and decoupling that may influence key elements.
Important issues to policy implementation, such as time horizon of the impact of
policy measures and scale of impact are also addressed, as important components for
building policy packages and paths. It becomes then possible to assess the role that
each policy measure may have in achieving the AG2020 targets.
This detailed set of procedures has been adopted to ensure consistency and
comprehensiveness in the process of policy formulation. Moreover, the outcome of
each of the above steps was validated by involving experts’ opinion for assessing
consistency and comprehensiveness, at the EU level.
The AG2020 project is concerned with identifying the most interesting policy options
likely to be required in the future, which are useful under a range of external
conditions, rather than under a specific set of conditions. Thus, the policy scenarios
for sustainable agriculture represent possible alternative futures, which illustrate the
range of available measures, packages and paths, as well as the scale of the required
change. Principles for implementation, based on acceptability, lead-times, dynamic
effects and adaptability are also developed within AG2020.
169
9. REFERENCES
AGENDA 2000 (1997), For a Stronger and Wider Europe, Bulleting of the EU,
Supplement 5/97, Document drawn upon the basis of COM(97)2000 final, 15 July
1997.
AGRIBLUE (2004), Sustainable Territorial Development of the Rural Areas of
Europe, Presented in the Conference “Building the Future on Knowledge, European
Commission, Brussels, September 23.
Alkemade, R., M. Bakkenes, R. Bobbink, L. Miles, C. Nelleman, H. Simons and T.
Tekelenburg (2006). GLOBIO3: Framework for the Assessment of Global Terrestrial
Biodiversity. In: MNP (2006) (Edited by A.F. Bouwman, T. Kram and K. Klein
Goldewijk), Integrated Modelling of Global Environmental Change. An overview of
IMAGE 2.4., Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, The
Netherlands.
Atanassov et al (2010). The AG2020 Case Studies - Report on the Rhodope Case
Study (D6.1 – D6.2 – D6.3 – D6.4), AG2020, Foresight analysis for world
agricultural markets (2020) and Europe, PRIORITY AREA 1: Sustainable
management of Europe’s natural resources, 1.1. Modernisation and sustainability of
agriculture and forestry, including their multifunctional role, in order to ensure the
sustainable development and promotion of rural areas, Contract no.: 44280-AG2020,
STREP, 2007-09.
Banister, D. and R. Hickman (2005), Looking over the Horizon – Visioning and
Backasting for UK Transport Policy, Dept. for Transport, New Horizons Research
Programme 2004/05.
Banister, D, Hickman, R and Stead, D (2006), Looking over the Horizon: Visioning
and Backasting, in Perrels, A. Himanen, V. and Lee-Gosselin, M. (eds.), Building
Blocks for Sustainable Transport – Dealing with Land Use, Environment, Health,
Safety, Security, Congestion and Equity, Amsterdam: Springer.
Banse, M. (2007), Market Tendencies, Demographic Changes and Possible
Consequences, Background Paper, AG2020 Project, Copenhagen 7-9 May.
Banse, M., Jansson, T., Eickhout, B., Sulser, T. & Ringler, C. (2008). Analysis of
major challenges and constraints. Trade and market measures and policies. D3.1,
AG2020, Foresight analysis for world agricultural markets (2020) and Europe,
PRIORITY AREA 1: Sustainable management of Europe’s natural resources, 1.1.
Modernisation and sustainability of agriculture and forestry, including their
multifunctional role, in order to ensure the sustainable development and promotion of
rural areas, Contract no.: 44280-AG2020, STREP.
Biggs, R., H. Simons, M. Bakkenes, R.J. Scholes, B. Eickhout, D. van Vuuren and
J.R.M. Alkemade (2008), Scenarios of Biodiversity Loss in Southern Africa in the
21st Century. Global Environmental Change, 18 (2): 296 – 309.
170
Bollman, R. (2007). The demographic overlap of agriculture and rural. Working
Paper, No 81, Statistics Canada, Ottawa.
Bruckmaier, K. and H. Tovey (2009). Rural sustainable development in the
knowledge society - Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning, Ashgate, Surrey,
England.
Buller, H. and K. Hoggart (2001), Agricultural Transformation, Food and
Environment – Perspectives on European Rural Policy and Planning, Volume 1,
Ashgate.
Clark, G. and M. Chabrel (2007), Measuring Integrated Rural Tourism, Tourism
Geographies, 9 (4).
COM(1997)599 final, Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy, White
Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan, Communication from the
Commission, European Commission, 26/11/1997.
COM(1999)22 final, Directions towards Sustainable Agriculture, Communication
from the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, The Economic and
Social Committee and The Committee of Regions, Brussels, 27.01.1999.
COM (1999) 719 final, White Paper on Food Safety, Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels, 12.1.2000.
COM (2000) 20 final, Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into
the Common Agricultural Policy, Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels, 26.01.2000.
COM(2001) 144 final, Statistical Information needed for Indicators to monitor the
Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy,
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament,
Brussels, 20.03.2001.
COM(2002)394 final, Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy,
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament,
Brussels, 10.07.2002.
COM(2005)304 final, Proposal for a Council Decision on Community strategic
guidelines for Rural Development (Programming period 2007–2013) (presented by
the Commission), 2005/0129 (CNS), {SEC(2005) 914}, Brussels, 5.7.2005
COM(2005)304 final, Proposal for a council decision on community strategic
guidelines for rural development (Programming period 2007–2013) (presented by the
Commission), 2005/0129 (CNS), {SEC(2005) 914}, Brussels, 5.7.2005.
COM(2006)216 final, Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 and beyond Sustaining Ecosystem Services for Human well–being, Commission Staff Working
Document, Annexes to the Communication from the Commission, Technical Annex,
Brussels, 22.5.2006, SEC(2006) 621.
171
De Cara, S., M. Houzé and PA Jayet (2004), Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Agriculture in the EU: A Spatial Assessment of Sources and Abatement Costs,
Working Papers 2004/04, UMR Economie Publique. (Based on 2001 emissions of
methane and nitrous oxide from agricultural soils, manure management, enteric
fermentation, and rice cultivation, as reported by the EU in its 2003 communication to
the UNFCCC (available at http://unfccc.int/program/mis/ghg/submis2003.html).
Emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are converted into CO2 by using the 2001
Global Warming Potential - GWP (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
2001a).
Borch, K., Østergaard, H., Christense, S., Petzoldt, M. & Menrad, K. (2008). Report
on expected timeframe of future technological developments and impact. D4.5,
rural areas, Contract no.: 44280-AG2020, STREP, 2007-09.
Delayen, C. (2007), The Common Agricultural Policy: A Brief Introduction, Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Prepared for the Global Dialogue Meeting, 14-15
May, Washington.
Di Giulio, M., Edwards, P.J. & Meister, E. (2001). Enhancing insect diversity in
agricultural grasslands: the roles of management and landscape structure. Journal of
Applied Ecology 38: 310-319.
Dreborg, K.H. (1996), Essence of Backasting. Futures, 28 (9), pp.813-828.
EC (1999)1257, Support for Rural Development from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and Amending and Repealing Certain
Regulations, Council Regulation (EC) of 17 May 1999, L 160/80, Official Journal of
the European Communities 26.6.1999.
EC(2002) 178. Regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of
food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down
procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European Communities
L31/1, 1.2.2002.
EC(2004)852. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 on the “hygiene of foodstuffs”.
2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, L226/22,
25.6.2004.
2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of
animal origin, L226/83, 25.6.2004.
172
EC(2004)41. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April
2004 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for
the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended
for human consumption and amending Council Directives 89/662/EEC and
92/118/EEC and Council Decision 95/408/EC, L195/12, 2.6.2004.
EC(2005)1698, Council Regulation of 20 September 2005 on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
and amending and repealing certain Regulations, Official Journal of the European
Communities 21.10.2005, L 277/1.
EC (2005). Agri-environmental measures – overview on general principles, types of
measures and application. European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture
and Rural Development, Unit G-4, Evaluation of Measures Applied in Agriculture,
March.
EC (2006). Biofuels in the European Union – A Vision for 2030 and Beyond. Final
Report of the Biofuels Research Advisory Group (BIOFRAC), Directorate General
for Research Sustainable Energy Systems, EUR 22066.
EC(2006)144, Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development
(Programming period 2007 to 20130, 20 February, Official Journal of European
Union, L55/20, 25.2.2006.
EEA (2004), High nature value farmland: Characteristics, trends and policy
challenges, UNEP and EEA, EEA Report No 1/2004.
EEA (2005), Household Consumption and the Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
EEA (2007), Europe's Environment - The Fourth Assessment, EEA, Copenhagen.
Eickhout, B. and A.G. Prins (2008), Eururalis 2.0. Technical Background and
Indicator Documentation. Wageningen University Research and Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
http://www.eururalis.eu
Egenhofer, C. (2007), Looking at the Cure-all? Targets and the EU’s New Energy
Strategy, CEPS Policy Brief, No 118, January.
FAO (2003), World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. A FAO Perspective. FAO,
Rome, 97 pp.
Fennell, D. (2008). Ecotourism. Routledge, Great Britain, ISBN 0-415-42931-5(pbk).
FFRAF Report (2007). Foresighting food, rural and agri-futures. SCAR Foresight.
Giaoutzi, M. and A. Stratigea (2007a). The Rationale for Building Images of the
Future: The AG2020 Approach. Paper prepared for the AG2020 Workshop.
Copenhagen, 7-9 May (Working Paper No 1).
173
Giaoutzi, M. and A. Stratigea (2007b). Defining Objectives / Targets in AG2020.
Paper prepared for the AG2020 Workshop. Copenhagen, 7-9 May (Working Paper No
2).
Giaoutzi, M., A. Stratigea, P. Nijkamp and E van Leeuwen (2007b), Policy Targets in
the Context of AG2020, Working Paper. AG2020 Project (Working Paper No 4).
Giaoutzi, M., A. Stratigea, P. Nijkamp and E van Leeuwen (2007c), External and
Internal Factors in the Backasting Context of AG2020, Working Paper. AG2020
Project (Working Paper No 5).
Giaoutzi, M., A. Stratigea, P. Nijkamp and E van Leeuwen (2008a), Scenario Design
Process in AG2020. Working Paper. AG2020 Project (Working Paper No 6).
Giaoutzi, M., A. Stratigea, P. Nijkamp and E van Leeuwen (2008b), Strategic
Elements in the Context of AG2020. Working Paper. AG2020 Project (Working
Paper No 7).
Giaoutzi, M., M. Banse, K. Borch, B. Eichhout, M. Petzoldt and A. Stratigea (2008c),
Images of the Future in AG2020. Working Paper. AG2020 Project (Working Paper
No 10).
Giaoutzi, M., A. Stratigea, M. Banse, B. Eichhout, E. van Leeuwen and M. Petzoldt
(2008d), Defining Targets in the AG2020 Backasting Process. Working Paper.
AG2020 Project (Working Paper No 11).
Giaoutzi, M., M. Banse, K. Borch, B. Eichhout, M. Petzoldt and A. Stratigea (2008e),
Building Images of the Future in AG2020. Working Paper. AG2020 Project (Working
Paper No 12).
Giaoutzi M., Stratigea A., Nijkamp P., van Leeuven E. and Banse M. (2008f).
Definition of Policy Scenarios, D5.3, AG2020 Project, Contract no.: 44280-AG2020,
STREP, January 2007 – December 2009.
Giaoutzi M., Stratigea A. & Grammatikogiannis, E. (2009a). Stakeholder Validation
of Policy Scenarios. D5.4, AG2020, Foresight analysis for world agricultural markets
(2020) and Europe, PRIORITY AREA 1: Sustainable management of Europe’s
natural resources, 1.1. Modernisation and sustainability of agriculture and forestry,
including their multifunctional role, in order to ensure the sustainable development
and promotion of rural areas, Contract no.: 44280-AG2020, STREP, 2007-2009.
Giaoutzi, M. and Stratigea, A. (2009b). Assessment of Alternative Policy Scenarios
on a Global Level. D5.5, AG2020, Foresight analysis for world agricultural markets
(2020) and Europe, PRIORITY AREA 1: Sustainable management of Europe’s
natural resources, 1.1. Modernisation and sustainability of agriculture and forestry,
including their multifunctional role, in order to ensure the sustainable development
and promotion of rural areas, Contract no.: 44280-AG2020, STREP, 2007-2009.
174
Hall, D. (2004), Rural Tourism Development in South-Eastern Europe: Transition and
the Search for Sustainability, International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, pp. 165176.
Hansen J. G., & Borch K., Trombi G. & Stratigea A. (2010). The AG2020 Case
Studies - Report on the Central Denmark Region Case Study (D6.1 – D6.2 – D6.3 –
D6.4), AG2020, Foresight analysis for world agricultural markets (2020) and Europe,
IFOAM EU Group (2005), Organic farming in the 7th Research Framework
Programme of the EU, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements –
EU Regional Group, Position Paper.
IFOAM (2009), Towards a Sustainable CAP: Key demands of the IFOAM EU Group
for a Sustainable CAP 20014-2020, IFOAM International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements – EU Regional Group.
IPCC (2001), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Working
Group II.
IPCC (2007), IPCC Working Group II Fourth Assessment Rapport ‘Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Geneva, Suisse, http://www.ipcc.ch
IPCC, (2007), IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report ‘Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis’. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Geneva, Suisse, http://www.ipcc.ch
Keiner, M. (2006), The Future of Sustainability, Springer, The Netherlands.
Kotsani C. and Y. Tsakos (2009). Green Entrepreneurship: An actual reality or a
convenient alibi? LDK Consultants, April.
Maclaren, V. (1996), Urban Sustainability Reporting, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 62 (2), pp. 184-202.
MEMO/06/212, Brussels 22 May 2006 on Questions and answers about EU
biodiversity policy
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005), Millenium Ecosystem Synthesis
Report, UNEP.
Ministry of Public Works and Government Services - Canada (1997), Agriculture in
harmony with nature, Strategy for Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture and Agrifood Development in Canada, Minister of Public Works and Government Services,
Agriculture and Agri-food, Canada, Publication 1937/E, ISBN 0-662-25439-2.
175
Mitchell, G., A. May and A. McDonald (1995), PICABUE: A Methodological
Framework for the Development of Indicators of Sustainable Development,
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2, pp. 104123.
Mosier, A. and F. Kroeze (1999), Annual Nitrous Oxide, Review of information
currently
on
the
GEIA
files
concerning
N2O,
http://www.geiacenter.org/reviews/nitrousOxide.html
OECD (2005a), New Approaches to Rural Policy, Speech of Donald Johnston, OECD
Secretary General, OECD Conference, 25-26 March 2004.
OECD (2005b). Place-based Policies for Rural Development - Crete - Greece (Case
Study). Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, Territorial
Development Policy Committee, Working Party on Territorial Policy in Rural Areas,
30th November.
OECD (2006). The new rural paradigm - policies and governance. OECD Publishing,
ISBN 92-64-02390-9.
Olesen, E. J. (2010). Environmental impact of agricultural land use and related
policies, D4.6, AG2020 Project.
Pizzoli E. and X. Gong (2007). How to best classify rural and urban? Fourth
International Conference on Agriculture Statistics (ICAS-4), Beijing,
www.stats.gov.cn/english/icas.
Prentice, I.C., G.A. Farquhar, M.J.R. Fasham, et al (2001), The Carbon Cycle and
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I. Cambridge
University Press. (accessed 25-06-08).
POSSUM Project (1998), Final Report, European Commission, Transport RTD
Programmme, 4th Framework Programme.
Reidsma, P., Tekelenburg, T., van den Berg, M. & Alkemade, R. (2006), Impacts of
Land-use Change on Biodiversity: An Assessment of Agricultural Biodiversity in the
European Union, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114, pp. 86-102.
Robinson, J. (1982). Energy Backasting: a Proposed Method of Policy Analysis.
Energy Policy, December.
Robinson, J.B. (1990). Futures Under Glass; A Recipe for People Who Hate to
Predict, Futures, 22 (8), pp. 820-842.
SCAR Foresight (2007), FFRAF report: foresighting food, rural and agri-futures,
European Commission, DG Research.
176
Scarpa, R. and G. Cicia (2000), Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Preservation:
A Case Study of Mediterranean Agriculture, FEEM, Working Paper 59.2000,
Available from www.feem.it.
SCENAR 2020 (2007), SCENAR 2020 – Scenario Study on Agriculture and the Rural
World, European Commission, Contract No 30 – CE – 0040087/00-08.
Schmid O., Dabbert S., Eichert C., Gonzálvez V., Lampkin N., Michelsen J.,Slabe A.,
Stokkers R., Stolze M., Stopes C., Wollmuthová P., Vairo D. and Zanoli R. (2008),
Organic Action Plans: Development, implementation and evaluation. A resource
manual for the organic food and farming sector. Edited by Schmid O., Stopes C.,
Lampkin N. and Gonzálvez V. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, CH5070 Frick, Switzerland and IFOAM-EU Group, BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H.H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle,
F. O’Mara, C. Rice, R.J. Scholes, O. Sirotenko, M. Howden, T. McAllister, G. Pan,
V. Romanenkov, U. Schneider, S. Towprayoon, M. Wattenbach, J.U. Smith, (2007):
Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, B.
Stimson, R., R. Stough and B. Roberts (2006), Regional Economic Development:
Analysis and Planning Strategy, Second Edition, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Stratigea, A., M. Giaoutzi and Ch. Papadopoulou (2010), The AG2020 Case Studies Report on the Kastelli - Herakleion Case Study (D6.1 – D6.2 – D6.3 – D6.4),
Stratigea, A. (2010). ICTs and Rural Development: A “Log-In” Policy Perspective.
NETCOM (forthcoming).
Summa, H. (2006), Contribution of the EU Agricultural Policy to Climate Change
Mitigation, European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, UNFCCBTA, Bonn, 23 May 2006.
Tilman, D., Reich, P.B. & Knops, J.M.H. (2006). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability
in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441: 629-632.
Trombi, G., Bindi, M., Brandani, G., Orioli, L., Stratigea, A., Giaoutzi, M.,
Georgieva, K. and Borch, K. (2010), The AG2020 Case Studies - Report on the
Tuscany Case Study (D6.1 – D6.2 – D6.3 – D6.4), AG2020, Foresight analysis for
world agricultural markets (2020) and Europe, PRIORITY AREA 1: Sustainable
management of Europe’s natural resources, 1.1. Modernisation and sustainability of
agriculture and forestry, including their multifunctional role, in order to ensure the
sustainable development and promotion of rural areas, Contract no.: 44280-AG2020,
STREP.
177
US-EPA (2006a), Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
19902020. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-06-003, June
2006.
Washington,
D.C.,
http://www.epa.
gov/nonco2/econinv/downloads/GlobalAnthroEmissionsReport.pdf, accessed 26 March 2007.
US-EPA (2006b), Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-06-005, Washington, D.C.
GlobalMitigationFullReport.pdf,
http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/downloads/
accessed 26 March 2007.
UNEP (2004), Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators for
assessing progress towards the 2010 target. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/inf/7. Montreal,
Canada.
Unnevehr, L. and D. Roberts (2003), Food Safety and Quality: Regulations, Trade,
and the WTO. Presented at the International Conference on Agricultural policy reform
and the WTO: Where are we Heading? Capri, Italy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2006), Global Anthropogenic NonCO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2020, Washington, DC: USEPA.
Van Leeuwen E., M. Banse, and P. Nijkamp (2009), Agricultural Activities and
Decoupled Payments, Background paper, WP5, AG2020 Project.
Van Leeuwen E. and P. Nijkamp (2007). Foundations of Scenario Design. Working
Paper. AG2020 Project. Copenhagen, 7-9 May.
UNEP (2004), Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators for
assessing progress towards the 2010 target. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/inf/7. Montreal,
Canada.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Global Anthropogenic NonCO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2020. Washington, DC: USEPA.
Walls, M. (2006). Agriculture and the environment. Agrifood Research Finland,
SCAR Foresight Group.
178
APPENDIX I: POLICY MEASURES IN AG2020
179
Table I-1: Impact of policy measures on the agri-sector, the critical issues and AG2020 targets – policy orientation and time / scale – Potential groups of policy
measures for inclusion in policy packages and paths in AG2020 (Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2009b, D5.5)
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
•
•
3
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
•
•
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
•
•
•
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
Direct Payment Policy Measures
1
Increased modulation rate to support demonstrations and
investments in environmentally friendly technologies
2
Promotion of partial coupling in order to maintain certain
types of production (http://www.rlg.nl/cap/manual.html#A)
3
Removal of historical reference for Single Farm Payments
(IFOAM, 2009)
4
Removal of subsidies to intensive - not land-based livestock production (IFOAM, 2009)
5
Promotion of fair distribution of support (IFOAM, 2009)
6
No direct payment to large scale intensive farming (Banse,
2009)
7
Setting up of young farmers and support the structural
adjustments of their holdings [EC(2005)1698]
8
Support direct payments to organic farmers (Schmid et al,
2008)
9
Promotion of early retirement schemes for farmers in order
to improve the viability of agricultural holdings
[EC(2005)1698]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
++
+++
•
•
+++
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
+++
Trade Oriented Policies
Sectoral Elements: 1: Crops, 2: Livestock, 3: Food processing, 4: Industry, 5: Services
Critical Issues: 1: Global environmental issues, 2: Balance agric. biodiversity, 3: Food quality / safety, 4: Global agri-food markets, 5: Regulated agri-factor markets, 6: Land use conflicts, 7: Rural development
AG2020 Targets: 1: Decrease GHG, 2: Biodiversity, 3: Competitiveness - Efficiency agri-sector, 4: High level multifunctionality, 5: High rate food traceability, 6: Transportation - Fuel 10%, 7: Electricity 7%, 8: Chemicals 10%
Policy Orientation: 1: Lifestyle, 2: Market, 3: Regulation, 4: Public infrastructure/services
180
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
3
10
Removal or reduction of quotas (Delayen, 2007)
•
•
•
•
11
Prohibition of the production and trade of artificial
ingredients and polluting agents in EU
•
•
•
•
12
Higher tariffs imposed by EU on imported processed food
incorporating artificial ingredients and polluting agents
•
•
13
Removal of any kind of export subsidies (IFOAM, 2009)
14
Tariffs on imported food and feed with high carbon footprint
(e.g. beef, soya, palm oil) (Banse, 2009)
15
Setting of special ethic and sustainability standards in EU –
Enforcement of trade barriers for products that do not meet
these standards
16
Public procurement initiatives (Schmid et al, 2008)
17
Eco-conditionality – harmonize standards of good farming
practises (differences in standards, differences in the
enforcement of standards can lead to distortions of
competition)
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
Short
•
•
•
3
Time / Scale
Effects
Medium
++
++
+++
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
Long
++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
++
Market Policy Measures
18
19
Financial or other support to sectoral or commodity-specific
groups wishing to develop and market new, environmentally
sustainable crops (Ministry of Public Works and
Government Services - Canada, 1997)
•
Financial support to environmentally responsible agripractices (e.g. organic agriculture, water saving etc.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
181
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
4
•
•
•
•
Reduction of costs and bureaucracy involved in different
standard setting and organization schemes for organic food
– support of farmers
•
21
Financial support of organic agriculture and organic food
•
•
•
•
•
22
Financial support for conversion to and maintenance of
organic farming systems (Schmid et al, 2008)
•
•
•
•
•
23
Income support strictly linked to advance of public interest
e.g. safe and qualitative food, protection and improvement
of the environment, natural resources, soil and genetic
diversity, landscape and the countryside
•
•
•
•
20
25
Support investments for the modernization of agricultural
holdings in order to comply with Community standards
•
•
•
26
Support investments for the modernization of the forestry
holding/farming equipment e.g. harvesting equipment
•
•
•
•
27
Encourage farmers to adopt high standards of animal
welfare beyond the mandatory standards (animal welfare
payments) (Art. 4)
•
•
29
2
3
•
•
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
•
•
•
•
•
•
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
Short
Medium
Long
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
++
++
Setting up farm management and forest advisory services Forest management
Support investments in eco-businesses e.g. waste
management businesses
1
Time / Scale
Effects
+++
•
28
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
++
Support new revenue-generating opportunities in the agrisector e.g. capturing of by-products from agriculture for
energy production [EC(2005)1698]
24
Critical Issues
1-7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
182
+++
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
30
Support income of organic farming to reduce specialization
(IFOAM, 2005)
31
Support the provision of environmental services by farmers
or other land managers by encouraging agri-production
methods compatible with the protection and improvement of
the environment, landscape, natural resources, soil and
genetic diversity beyond the mandatory standards (agrienvironmental payments) (Art. 4)
•
Support the provision of environmental services by forest
holders to enhance biodiversity, preserve high value forest
systems and reinforce the protective value of forests with
respect to soil erosion, maintenance of water resources and
water quality etc. beyond mandatory standards– forestenvironmental payments (Art. 4)
•
32
33
34
1
2
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
•
Critical Issues
1-7
5
•
1
•
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
2
3
4
6
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
•
2
3
4
5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6
7
8
1
2
3
•
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
Support non-productive investments e.g. on-farm
investments which enhance the public amenity value of a
NATURA 2000 area or other high natural value areas
[EC(2005)1698]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
Removing of production constraints in organic farming such
as set-aside (aiming originally at conventional producers)
(Schmid et al, 2008)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
35
Support and facilitate SMEs innovations in the field of novel
pesticides suited for organic farming (IFOAM, 2005)
•
•
36
Support SMEs to develop novel products, equipment,
software and diagnostic tools for managing organic livestock
– novel veterinary treatments (IFOAM, 2005)
•
•
Support SMEs to develop breeds and varieties for low-input
agriculture (IFOAM, 2005)
•
37
Sectoral Elements
1-5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
183
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
3
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
7
1
2
3
4
Short
Medium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Long
Environmental Policy Measures
38
Eco-labelling of agri-food products
•
39
Support for "green" agri-food products
•
40
Tax on agri-food products with high ecological footprint (e.g.
N2O or CH4 emissions in CO2 equivalent)
41
Ecological tax reform charging resource use in agri-food
production (e.g. water- intensive crops)
42
Ecological tax reform charging resource use instead of
labour in other than agri-food sectors
•
43
Support of organic agriculture and organic food
•
•
44
Promotion of organic farming
•
45
Setting of emission standards from agriculture (e.g. carbon
and nitrogen emissions)
46
Support the establishment of infrastructure for waste
management
47
Setting sustainability standards for biofuels and energy
crops production
48
Eco-labelling, eco-certification of green agri-food products
•
49
Reduce, recycle and reuse e.g. water, waste etc.
(households and businesses)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
+++
•
•
++
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
++
+++
•
AG2020 Targets: 1: Decrease GHG, 2: Biodiversity, 3: Competitiveness - Efficiency agri-sector, 4: High level multifunctionality, 5: High rate food traceability, 6: Transportation - Fuel 10%, 7: Electricity 7%, 8
184
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
•
2
3
4
•
•
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
•
•
2
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
•
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
•
2
3
•
•
++
•
+++
50
Reduce - reuse - recycle of agri-food packaging
51
Preserve natural and cultural heritage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
52
Increase awareness on the value of natural and cultural
heritage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
53
Promotion of incentives for greater use of alternative water
supplies e.g. waste-water, grey-water and ‘harvested’ rain
water (Olesen, 2010)
•
•
•
54
Promotion of incentives for efficient and sustainable use of
water in agriculture (Olesen, 2010)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
55
Promotion of less water-intensive crops and irrigation
methods in areas of water scarcity (Olesen, 2010)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
56
Promotion of more environmentally friendly agricultural
practices - low-input farming
•
•
•
•
57
Water pricing based on volume of consumption (Olesen,
2010) for both businesses and households
•
•
•
58
Improvement of irrigation systems – reduction of water
losses
•
59
Provision of effective irrigation infrastructure - water
resource management
60
61
•
•
•
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
+++
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development of drought management plans focusing on
water risk (Olesen, 2010)
•
•
•
•
•
Development of water management infrastructure (e.g.
water dams)
•
•
•
•
•
•
185
++
++
++
•
•
+++
++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
•
•
•
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
3
•
•
•
•
Increase public/business awareness on green values and
environmental protection – promotion of quality-oriented life
styles
•
63
Promote “green consumerism”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
64
Taxes for non-environmentally responsible use of the
production factors e.g. tax on the consumption of energy
and natural resources (e.g. water)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
62
65
Promotion of eco-businesses as environmental innovationbusiness producing goods and services for environmental
protection (e.g. waste management business)
4
5
6
•
•
7
1
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
4
5
6
•
•
•
•
7
•
8
•
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Short
Medium
+++
•
+++
+++
•
•
Promotion of more strict emission standards in the
agricultural sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
67
Tax on agri-food businesses’ greenhouse emissions –
Carbon tax (in CO2 equivalent)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
68
Increase environmental awareness
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
69
Expand NATURA 2000 protected nature areas’ network –
more strict restrictions on farming activities within and
around NATURA 2000 areas
•
•
•
70
Improvement of accessibility of forest land – creation of fireprotection zones (network)
•
71
Promotion of water-saving technologies in the agricultural
sector
•
Promotion of environmental technologies supporting ecobusiness activities producing goods and services for
environmental protection (e.g. waste management)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
+++
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
•
+++
186
Long
•
•
66
72
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
•
3
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
•
•
•
•
73
GMO regulation (development of less land and water
intensive crops)
•
•
•
74
Promotion of R&D on environmentally sound (organic and
low-input) management practices (N-management) (Olesen,
2010)
•
•
•
75
Eco-labelling of products as to their energy consumption
•
•
•
•
•
76
Eco-labelling of agri-products – green (organic) products
•
•
•
•
•
77
Promotion of eco-labelling technologies of agri-food
products – green agri-food products
•
•
•
•
78
Promotion of eco-packaging
•
79
Promotion of plant breeding providing varieties with high
nutrient uptake efficiency and fooder with high nutritional
value
•
•
•
5
6
7
1
2
•
•
•
3
4
5
•
•
•
•
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
Short
Medium
•
Long
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
++
++
+++
•
+++
Promotion of sustainable land management practices
[EC(2006)144]
81
Promotion of environmental services and animal-friendly
farming practises [EC(2006)144]
82
Promotion of increasing diversity of crop and livestock - crop
rotation (IFOAM, 2005)
•
83
Promotion of area-based agri-environmental support to
encourage the conversion to and (in most cases)
continuation of organic production (Schmid et al, 2008)
•
Promotion of waste management in household and agrifood businesses
4
Time / Scale
Effects
+++
80
84
•
3
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
++
++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
187
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
4
•
•
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
3
•
•
•
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
3
•
•
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
Agri-food Technology
Promotion of nano-particles offering the potential to
administer pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, more
efficiently and safely, by controlling precisely when and
where they are released
•
Promotion of smart-sensing devices for agriculture environment interactions - reduction of the environmental
load of agriculture, e.g. nano-delivery systems for pesticides
•
87
Biotechnology - GMO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
88
Support the development of new products, processes and
technologies in the agri-food and forestry sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
89
Promotion of GMO to increase yields and plant resistance to
certain external factors e.g. drought
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
90
R&D - agri-food technological innovations e.g. in the field of
novel pesticides suited for organic farming (IFOAM, 2005)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
91
Promotion of agri-technology – e.g. precise farming
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
92
R&D – development of less water-intensive crops
•
•
•
•
•
•
93
Promotion of appropriate surveillance systems, controlling
illegal abstraction of water (use of penalties for irrational
water use) (Olesen, 2010)
•
Support R&D in organic farming (IFOAM, 2005)
•
85
86
94
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
•
+++
•
•
+++
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
188
•
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
4
95
Promotion of green biotechnology (agriculture) to improve
quality and value of crop plants (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
•
•
•
•
96
Development of certified organic ingredients with
technological effects on food and positive effects on human
health (IFOAM, 2005)
•
•
•
•
•
Improvement of the quality systems in order to improve
integrity of organic foods, including new strategies for
inspecting and traceability (IFOAM, 2005)
•
98
Development of new labelling concepts for food processing
(IFOAM, 2005)
•
99
Promotion of cost-effective standard-setting and certification
systems in organic farming (IFOAM, 2005)
•
100
Enforcement of rules (standards) on nutrient applications
(fertilizers and manures)
101
Complete and further harmonize organic standards
(aquaculture, seaweed,wine, yeast) (Schmid et al, 2008)
102
Increase technology awareness (new machinery, fertilizers,
plants, seeds etc.) to increase efficiency
•
103
Promotion of environmentally sustainable technologies in
the agri-food sector e.g. new types of commercially viable
equipment
•
Promotion of R&D on Genetically Modified Organizations
(GMO)
•
•
•
•
•
Stimulate innovation and technology transfer in the agrisector (e.g. through creation of agri-technology platforms)
•
•
•
•
•
97
104
105
5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
3
•
•
•
4
•
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
3
•
•
•
•
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
•
Long
+++
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
+++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
189
•
•
+++
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
4
106
Promotion of eco-labelling technologies (green and low
input agri-food products)
•
•
•
•
•
•
107
Promotion of technologies supporting the 3R’s, i.e. Reduce,
Recycle and Reuse of waste (agri-food waste, household
waste, etc.) (Ministry of Public Works and Government
Services – Canada, 1997)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of technologies supporting the 3R’s, i.e. Reduce,
Recycle and Reuse of water waste (in agri-food businesses,
households etc.) (Ministry of Public Works and Government
Services – Canada, 1997)
•
109
Promotion of satellite technology for crop surveillance
•
110
Promotion of green biotechnology (agriculture) to improve
crops productivity (less land-intensive) and reduce water
demand (less water-intensive crops)
•
•
•
111
Promotion of technologies for soil, crop and animal
management (smart crop rotation, cultivation and soil
preparation technology) (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
•
•
112
Promotion of precise farming reducing input in agriproduction e.g. water, pesticides etc.
•
113
Promotion of technologies for precise farming (use of IT,
GPS, sensors etc.)
•
114
Promotion of fermentation technologies for biogas
production (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
•
Promotion of plant and animal breeding technologies (GMO)
(Markussen et al, 2009)
•
•
108
115
Critical Issues
1-7
5
•
1
2
3
4
•
•
•
•
•
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
5
6
7
8
•
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
•
•
•
•
•
Short
Medium
Long
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
190
+++
+++
+++
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
116
Promotion of innovations in alternative or complementary
medication in organic livestock systems (IFOAM, 2005)
•
117
Promotion of animal breeding for organic agriculture –
traditional breeding- MAS12 (non GMO) - participatory
breeding (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
Promotion of traceability technologies (e.g. Radio
Frequency Identification - RDIF tags) (Markussen et al,
2009)
•
119
Promotion of agricultural sensing technologies with focus on
environmental protection (sustainable use of resources)
•
•
•
•
•
120
Promotion of environmentally responsible management
systems to gain certification through the International
Standards Organization (ISO) (Ministry of Public Works and
Government Services – Canada, 1997)
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of technologies that reduce production of
greenhouse gases (Ministry of Public Works and
Government Services – Canada, 1997) serving greenhouse
gases thresholds set for agri-production
•
122
R&D – environmentally sound (organic and low-input)
management practices (N-management)
•
123
Promotion of R&D serving “coexistence” of genetically
modified (GM) and organic farming (IFOAM, 2005)
124
125
118
121
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
•
•
•
•
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
•
•
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
++
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of R&D on pest management technologies
•
•
R&D supporting renewable energy production and energy
efficiency technologies in the agri-food sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
191
+++
++
++
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
4
5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
126
Technological developments promoting energy efficiency in
the agri-food sector
•
•
•
•
•
127
Water-saving technologies in the agricultural sector (at the
field level)
•
•
•
•
•
128
Promotion of sensor technology for irrigation purposes
•
•
•
•
129
Promotion of technologies improving the efficiency of the
irrigation network (Ministry of Public Works and
Government Services – Canada, 1997)
•
•
•
•
Promotion of closed artificial growth systems where all
inputs are industrially produced and all emissions are
controlled (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
131
Promotion of biotechnology for livestock and poultry e.g.
breeding, propagation, health etc. (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
132
Promotion of Integrated Farm Management (IFM) systems
and technologies in intensive farming (AGRIBLUE, 2004)
•
133
Promotion of field management technologies (e.g. data
management of field records)
•
134
Support diffusion of appropriate technologies for soil and
crop management to increase volume of production of
energy crops (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
Setting up farm and forest management technologies e.g.
satellite surveillance
•
Promotion of technologies that capture by-products from
agriculture and food processing industries (Ministry of Public
Works and Government Services – Canada, 1997)
•
130
135
136
2
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
•
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
++
++
+++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
+++
+++
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
++
AG2020 Targets: 1: Decrease GHG, 2: Biodiversity, 3: Competitiveness - Efficiency agri-sector, 4: High level multifunctionality, 5: High rate food traceability, 6: Transportation- Fuel 10%, 7: Electricity 7%, 8: Chemicals 10%
192
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
Support R&D for improving plants thus making the
conversion process from plants to biofuels less energyintensive and waste-generating (EC, 2004, Plants for the
Future)
•
138
Support R&D in agri-food businesses that stimulates
development of new products and improved product quality
•
139
R&D and innovation in food processing technology for
premium and organic food (IFOAM, 2005)
•
140
Strengthening of R&D in organic agriculture and production
methods (IFOAM, 2005)
•
141
Promotion of R&D in additives adding value to functional
food (IFOAM, 2005)
142
Conservation of genetic resources in agriculture eligible for
support – creation of web-based inventories of genetic
resources currently conserved [EC(1999)1257]
137
•
2
3
•
4
•
5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
•
•
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
•
1
2
•
3
4
5
•
6
7
8
•
•
•
1
2
3
•
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
+++
++
•
++
Agri-environmental Measures
143
144
145
Promotion of the extensification of agri-production - maintain
existing sustainable extensive systems (EC, 2005, Agrienvironmental measures, p. 12)
•
Promotion of the extensification of livestock (EC, 2005, Agrienvironmental measures, p. 12)
•
Promotion - maintenance of farmed landscape (EC, 2005,
Agri-environmental measures, p. 12)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
193
+++
++
a/a
Policy Measures
146
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Maintain certain production-specific payments in order to
avoid abandonment of this production
(http://www.rlg.nl/analysis.html - CAP implementation in the
EU-27 member states)
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
•
•
•
4
5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
•
7
1
•
2
•
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
•
3
4
Short
Medium
Long
•
++
147
Promotion of mixed farming and traditional crop rotations
including organic rotations [COM(1999)22 final, p. 9]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
148
Promotion of small scale farming with diversified production
[COM(1999)22 final, p. 9]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
149
Promotion of traditional and low-input farming
[COM(1999)22 final, p. 9]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
150
Promotion of low intensity pasture systems [COM(1999)22
final, p. 25] (IFOAM, 2009) (EC 1783/2003)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
151
Reduction of high livestock density [COM(1999)22 final, p.
11]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
152
Promotion of sustainable agricultural practises on sloping
lands - effective soil erosion control [COM(1999)22 final, p.
12]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of agro-forestry (Smith et al, 2007)
•
153
Time / Scale
Effects
•
•
•
•
++
++
•
++
++
++
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
154
155
Support the production of low-impact bioenergy crops
(SCAR Foresight Group, 2006 - Agriculture and the
Environment, p. 12)
•
Promotion of forest protection measures in particular
regarding forest fires [COM(1999)22 final, p. 28]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
194
•
++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
156
Promotion of afforestation programs [COM(1999)22 final, p.
13]
2
3
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
•
•
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
1
2
6
7
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
3
4
5
•
6
7
8
•
•
•
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
•
Long
+++
Information Technology Policy Measures
157
Establishment/upgrading of ICTs infrastructure – broadband
access of rural areas
•
•
•
•
•
158
Establishment of ICTs hubs for the diffusion of agri-related
information (e.g. agri-practices, new products, new uses of
products, farm management, market opportunities,agripolicy etc.)
•
•
•
•
•
159
Promotion of networking among agri-food businesses (agrifood chain)
•
160
Access of farmers to on-line information systems via ICTs
•
161
Use of ICTs for raising awareness and capacity building in
the farmers’ community
•
162
Promotion of ICTs for marketing tourist businesses/rural
destinations (Stratigea and Giaoutzi, 2006)
163
164
165
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of ICTs for networking of firms in rural regions
(Stratigea and Giaoutzi, 2006)
•
•
•
•
Promotion of ICTs applications in forest protection (e.g.
sensor systems through ICTs for fire protection)
•
•
Promotion of ICTs applications e.g. e-training, e-health, ebanking, e-government etc. (Stratigea, 2010)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
+++
+++
•
•
•
•
195
+++
+++
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
3
4
5
•
•
•
166
E-government
•
•
•
167
Support the establishment of ICT hubs diffusing agri-related
information in respect to energy production e.g. biomass
exploitation potential, biomass energy production
technologies, effective energy crops management, etc.
•
•
•
168
Promotion of ICTs hubs diffusing information on food
quality-safety issues
•
169
Promotion of field management technologies based on ICTs
e.g. data management of field records
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
•
•
•
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
•
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
•
•
Time / Scale
Effects
4
•
•
•
•
•
Short
Medium
Long
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Land use planning - environmentally protected zones in
rural areas (valuable ecosystems, agricultural land, forest
areas, cultural areas etc.)
•
•
•
•
171
Promotion of compulsory long-term set-aside on arable land
(instead of rotational set-aside)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
172
Reduce land-use intensity (promotion of organic farming,
reduction of productivity of arable crops etc.- CAP agrienvironmental measures) (Olesen, 2010)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Support the combination of extensive agriculture and
forestry systems (agri-forestry) aiming at the production of
high quality livestock or food crops on land that grows trees
for timber, fire-wood and other forest products –
establishment of agro-forestry systems on agricultural land
(Smith et al, 2007)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
Land Use Policy Measures
170
173
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
+++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
196
a/a
Policy Measures
174
Promotion of innovations relating to co-existence of crops
(conventional, organic and GM food production) (EC, 2004,
Plants for the Future)
Techno Decoulogy
pling
•
•
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
•
•
•
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
3
4
•
•
•
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
•
2
3
4
5
•
•
•
•
6
7
8
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
•
•
+++
Regional Development Policy Measures
175
Establishment of structures for life-long training of agri-food
labour resources
•
•
•
•
•
176
Eco-labelling of regional green products
•
•
•
•
•
177
Promote consensus-building mechanisms at the local level
– Building shared community values - strengthening of
participation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promote social responsibility of businesses
•
179
Incentives for the location of small scale manufacturing and
tourist businesses in rural regions
•
180
Support of agricultural production for non-food purposes
(e.g. forestry)
•
•
181
Fostering entrepreneurship in green activities/products e.g.
support of specialized retail shops for selling organic and
regional special quality products
•
•
Support local SMEs to reach niche food markets for organic
and traditional agri-food products
•
•
•
•
Promotion of the “bio-region” concept as new partnerships
between organic farmers, processors, traders, gastronomy,
tourism and local communities (IFOAM, 2005)
•
•
•
•
182
183
•
•
178
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
++
•
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
+++
197
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Create innovative public structures for serving effectively
rural regions (citizens and businesses) (e-government, ehealth etc.)
•
185
Support the development of food quality schemes
•
186
184
Sectoral Elements
1-5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
3
4
5
•
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
•
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
•
+++
•
•
•
Protection of regional food products in EU (PDO, PGI, TSG)
•
•
•
•
•
187
Promotion of locally produced healthy crops e.g. fruit and
vegetable sector (Delayen, 2007)
•
•
•
188
Promotion of partial coupling in order to prevent land
abandonment in certain regions
(http://www.rlg.nl/cap/manual.html#A)
•
•
Promotion of clusters of science-based agri-food and
forestry businesses in rural regions for more effective
exploitation of natural resources
5
•
•
189
4
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
+++
++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
190
Support High Nature Value (HNV) farmland through better
targeted CAP measures (Olesen, 2010)
•
•
•
191
Support Less Favoured Areas (LFA) towards the continued
use of agricultural land, maintaining of the countryside,
maintenance and promotion of sustainable farming systems
(Olesen, 2010) [EC(2005)1698] (natural handicap
payments)
•
•
•
192
Promotion of non-agricultural activities [EC(2005)1698]
•
193
Support the development of tourist and craft activities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
198
+++
++
a/a
Policy Measures
194
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Support the creation and development of micro-enterprises
to promote entrepreneurship and develop the economic
fabric [EC(2005)1698]
•
Sectoral Elements
1-5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
3
4
5
•
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•
•
1
2
3
4
•
•
5
6
7
8
•
•
•
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
195
Support broadband access to rural regions
196
Support the provision of basic services for the rural
economy and population [EC(2005)1698]
•
•
•
197
Support rural settlements’ renewal - renovation and
development of villages [EC(2005)1698]
•
•
•
198
Support protection and conservation of rural heritage
[EC(2005)1698]
•
•
•
•
199
Promote exchange of good practise and experiences of
Rural Development Programs (RDP) implementation
between countries
•
•
•
•
200
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
•
Promotion of area-based agri-environmental support to
encourage the conversion to and /or expansion of organic
farming (Schmid et al, 2008)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Long
+++
++
•
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
+++
201
Promotion of e-commerce in rural regions in the agri-food
sector
•
•
•
•
•
202
Promotion of e-business in rural regions e.g. in the tourist
sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
203
Promotion of teleshopping, telebanking, teleworking etc.
applications
•
•
•
•
204
Promotion of improvements in the processing and marketing
of primary agricultural and forestry products – adding value
to agro-forestry products [EC(2005)1698]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
199
a/a
Policy Measures
205
Promotion of 'supply-push’ and ‘demand-pull’ policies to
support and encourage organic products market
development (Schmid et al, 2008)
Techno Decoulogy
pling
•
•
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
•
•
•
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
1
2
3
4
•
•
•
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
•
2
3
•
•
4
5
6
7
8
•
1
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
•
++
Transportation/ Logistics Policy
Measures
206
207
208
Increase access of rural regions to urban centres Strenghtening of linkages / interaction with urban
settlements
Improvement/upgrading of transport network infrastructure increasing accessibility of rural areas (intra-inter
accessibility)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
Improvement of accessibility of agri-forest land
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
Energy Policy Measures
209
Promotion of RES in agricultural regions (energy crops,
biomass, wind, solar energy) - Creation of a new energy
culture
210
Tax reduction in bio-energy
211
Public procurement in environmentally friendly biomass
energy production/ technologies
212
Special tax for energy-consuming agri-food
production/processing
213
Promotion of investments on energy efficiency (households
– businesses)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
200
++
++
++
++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
214
Promotion of biomass for heating at the
individual/household level
215
Tax on fossil fuel consumption
216
Promotion of biofuels by tax exemptions (EC, 2003)
217
2
•
•
3
4
Critical Issues
1-7
5
•
1
2
•
•
3
4
5
6
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Differentiation of fuel VAT pricing on behalf of biofuels
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
218
Support investments on biomass district heating schemes
as cost-efficient modern plants for heating in rural regions
•
•
•
•
•
•
219
Fostering entrepreneurship in biomass energy production
(e.g. waste processing installations, forestry farming etc.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
220
Promotion of incentives for agri-waste collection at the farm
level
•
•
•
•
221
Promotion of measures recovering animal by-product
energy (biogas, biodiesel production) [COM(2005) 628 final]
•
•
222
Promotion of cooperation between private - public sector in
biomass energy production (Public Private Partnerships PPPs)
223
Establishment of sustainable biofuels certification for
biofuels production in the EU as well as for biofuel imports
(Delayen, 2007)
224
Promotion of regional biomass action plans
225
R&D – creation of a portfolio of biomass processing
technologies [COM(2005) 628 final]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
•
•
•
•
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
•
4
5
6
7
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
3
4
Short
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Medium
+++
•
++
•
+++
•
++
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
201
Long
+++
•
•
•
1
Time / Scale
Effects
+++
•
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
Critical Issues
1-7
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
1
2
3
4
•
5
6
7
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
226
Support of R&D towards increasing cost-effectiveness of
biofuels
•
•
•
•
•
•
227
Promotion of biofuels in public transportation
•
•
•
•
•
•
228
Public procurement for heating and cooling systems, based
on biomass use [COM(2005) 628 final]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
229
Promotion of plant breeding aiming at producing plants’ raw
material more suitable for biomass production – exploitation
(Markussen et al, 2009)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
230
Support the development of "smart energy networks"
[COM(2005) 628 final]
•
•
231
Support the location of CHP (Combined Heat and Power
installations)
•
•
232
Promotion of conservation agriculture (CA) to reduce energy
consumption (http://www.ecaf.org/danes/First.html#3)
233
Promotion of energy efficiency technologies (households,
businesses)
234
•
•
1
2
•
4
Short
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of bioenergy production technologies (e.g.
biogas, bioethanol, CHP) (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
235
Support investements in small scale biorefineries in rural
regions (Markussen et al, 2009)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
236
Promotion of technological developments in renewable
energy sector (biomass energy production technologies)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of R&D – Technologies exploiting RES for
energy production (biomass, solar, wind, hydro etc.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
+++
+++
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
+++
•
+++
+++
•
AG2020 Targets: 1: Decrease GHG, 2: Biodiversity, 3: Competitiveness - Efficiency agri-sector, 4: High level multifunctionality, 5: High rate food traceability, 6: Transportation - Fuel 10%, 7: Electricity 7%, 8
202
++
•
•
•
Long
+++
•
•
Medium
•
•
•
237
3
Time / Scale
Effects
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Sectoral Elements
1-5
1
2
3
•
•
4
5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
3
4
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
•
•
•
•
•
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
Long
Food Safety - Quality Policy Measures
238
Setting a coherent and transparent set of food safety rules
[COM (1999) 719 final]
239
Support full food-ingredient labelling [COM (1999) 719 final]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
240
Quality control of food (labelling)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
241
Provision of information on food quality/safety issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
242
Support/diffuse innovation in food processing techniques
pursuing minimum destruction and maximum authenticity of
rural qualitative products
•
•
•
•
•
243
Improvement of food processing, preservation and storage
to reduce loss of agri-product quality
•
•
244
Promotion of innovations in food packaging
•
•
245
Promotion of the qualitative organic products together with
environmental orientation of their processing and trading
(IFOAM, 2005)
•
246
Promotion of highly nutritive healthy food (functional food)
•
247
Promotion of high quality green food
•
248
Promotion of low-price standard-quality food production
•
249
Reducing costs of different standard setting and certification
schemes for organic food (IFOAM,2005)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
+++
+++
++
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
+++
•
+
•
203
+++
a/a
Policy Measures
250
Techno Decoulogy
pling
Improve stakeholders’ involvement in food safety policy
making
Sectoral Elements
1-5
Critical Issues
1-7
1
2
3
4
5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
Policy
Orientation
1-4
AG2020 Targets
6
7
•
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
•
2
3
Time / Scale
Effects
4
Short
Medium
•
Long
+++
Policy Measures supporting the
Upgrading of Human Resources in Rural
Regions
251
Promotion of farmer advisory programmes in respect to the
rational use of resources in the agri-sector e.g. water
resources
252
Enhancement of training and skill acquisition opportunities
e.g. e-training and network services
253
Support the demand for qualitative products through better
informed and educated consumers
254
Setting up farm and forest management advisory services
through ICTs [EC(2005)1698]
255
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Promotion of life-long training programmes for farmers on
the identification and pursuing of new market opportunities
(new products, new uses of existing products, new /
improved production processes)
•
•
•
•
•
256
Improvement of ICTs capabilities of farmers / land
managers
•
257
Promotion of specialization of agriculture by properly
training farmers involved in agricultural and forestry
activities, especially as regards to new approaches to
management, production and marketing [EC(2005)1698]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
++
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
•
+++
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
+++
+++
204
205