FARM - Formative Assesment For Rural Measures

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology
FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM
Proposal Title
Formative Assessment of Rural Measures
Proposal Acronym
FARM
Funding Scheme
Collaborative Project (i) Small-scale focused research project KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Assessing the Impact of Rural Development policies (including Leader)
Coordinator
Dr. J. R. Edwards
List of Participants
Participant no. 1 (Coordinator) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Participant organisation name Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation Agricultural Research Centre Technische Universitt Mnchen Universitetet for Milj- og Biovitenskap Finnish Forest Research Institute Universidade de Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro Trakia University Instytut Rozwoju Wsi i Rolnictwa PAN Universidad Autnoma De Madrid Macaulay Land Use Research Institute University Of Agricultural Sciences And Veterinary Medicine Of Iasi Massey University Country UK EE DE NO FI PT BG PL ES UK RO NZ
Page 1 of 58
Table of Contents
1. 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.1.1 1.3.1.2 1.3.2 1.3.2.1 1.3.2.2 1.3.2.3 1.3.2.4 1.3.2.5 1.3.2.6 1.3.2.7 1.3.2.8 Table 1.3 a: Table 1.3 b: Table 1.3c: Table 1.3d Table 1.3e Scientific/technical details Concepts and objectives Background to rural development policy Monitoring, evaluation and the use of Indicators The conceptual model to be adopted in the proposed research Aims and objectives of the assessment Progress beyond the state of the art S/T methodology and associated work plan The overall strategy of the work plan The foci and inter-relationships of the components The mode of research The timings of the work programme components Implementation timings The components of the work programme Work Package 1 - Setting up the arrangements and protocols for the project Work Package 2 - The European context Work Package 3 - The National and Regional contexts Work Package 4 - The case studies Work Package 5 - The interpretation and evaluation Work package 6 - The dissemination Work package list Deliverables list Work package descriptions Summary of staff effort List of milestones
Page
3 3 3 5 6 8 11 13 13 13 16 17 17 17 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 31 31
Page 2 of 58
2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Implementation Management structure and procedures Individual participants Consortium as a whole Resources to be committed
32 32 35 48 49
3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.2
Impact Expected impacts listed in the work programme Knowledge Competitiveness Sustainability Consensus and dialogue A common evidence base on policy Future policies for agriculture and rural development Priorities for research Dissemination and the management of knowledge and intellectual property rights Ethical issues
51 51 51 52 52 52 52 53 53 53
55
5. 6.
Consideration of gender aspects Indicative Bibliography
56 57
Page 3 of 58
Proposal 1.
1.1
Scientific/technical details
Concepts and Objectives
1.1.1 Background to Rural Development Policy Promoting economic, social and environmental benefits lies at the heart of the rural development regulation for the period 2007-2013. As such these concerns reflect the awareness of the Commission and of Member States that rural areas account for over 92% of EU territory, are home to 56% of the total population and provide 53% of the employment in the EU-25. The approved rural development policy for 2007-2013 extends and consolidates the evolution of an interventionist rural policy which gathered momentum in the mid 1990s and became the clear focus of the second pillar of the CAP in Agenda 2000. Current policy also reflects the CAP reform of June 2003, the recommendations of the Salzburg Conference (November 2003) and an analysis by the European Commission of rural development policy, including an Extended Impact Assessment of future Rural Development Policy. The result is that rural development policies set by the European Council in Goteberg in 2001, confirmed in the Lisbon Strategy Conclusions in Thessaloniki in 2003, and which are based on the principles of sustainable development, are now unambiguously encapsulated in Pillar Two of the CAP with, for the first time, a dedicated funding stream, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, EAFRD. However, as recognised this research project, other countries take different philosophical approaches to supporting rural areas to the interventionist approach adopted by the EU 25 For example, Norway and New Zealand adopt approaches to the well being of rural areas that differ from each other and from the current EU approach. The Norwegian and New Zealand approaches are briefly summarised below: a) In Norway, although there is no clearly stated and distinct rural policy, a high priority has been placed for many years by government policies on the overall well being of both urban and rural areas with a view to achieving balanced social and economic development in all parts of the country. In New Zealand the governments decision in the mid 1980s to withdraw agricultural support can be seen as rural shock therapy as opposed to the interventionist philosophy underpinning the EC RDP 2007-2013.
b)
These different approaches will be covered in this research as comparators to the EU approach as they may offer opportunities for the improvement of the ways in which EU policy is implemented at the country, regional and local levels.
Page 4 of 58
1.1.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and the Use of Indicators Concurrent with the evolution of rural development policy has been the development and increasing sophistication of Monitoring and Evaluation frameworks that have become integral to all European funded policies and programmes. In relation to rural development the first applications of evaluation and monitoring frameworks were concerned with the Agricultural Guidance Fund and with the Leader programme. Currently the Commissions strategy of ongoing evaluation includes all the evaluation activities to be carried out during the whole programming period. As a result of this process ex-ante, mid-term and post evaluations have become increasingly refined and adapted to the enlargement of the community which permits community wide synthesis evaluations to be undertaken (see for example Synthesis of Rural Development Mid-Term Evaluations Final report November 2005 and the current prior information notice for a summary of ex-ante evaluations of rural development programmes during 2007-2013. The outputs of ongoing evaluation play an important role in the preparation of legal proposals and draft programs that occur during the last phase of a programming period. It is during this period that the work on ex-ante evaluations and the evaluation guidelines for the new programming period have to be prepared: a process that is informed by the outputs and outcomes of mid term evaluations. This approach requires the organization of evaluation as an ongoing activity with continuous capacity building, an interaction between evaluation, monitoring, programming, the definition of indicators and data collection at Community and at Member State/Regional levels. Such a process occurred in the period 2004-2006, in the second half of the period of Agenda 2000, and informed the formation of the Rural Development Policy 2007-2013. These ex-ante mid term and post evaluations have come to place considerable emphasis upon the value of indicators to determine if the required outcomes of policies and programs have been achieved. (See Section 1.2 below for a more detailed review of impact indicators). Such an approach is understandable given the Commissions respect for the principle of subsidiarity and the diversity of rural areas in terms of their environmental, economic and social characteristics. The Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) established in the Rural Development Regulation 20072013 recognises four priority areas where the RDP can support the development of rural areas by contributing to: growth, jobs, productivity, biodiversity, high nature value areas, water and climate change, good governance and mobilizing endogenous development potential. The impact of the RDP 2007-2013 is to be assessed against five types of indicators which it is claimed takes into account the full contribution of all axes of the program corresponding to the hierarchy of objectives implicitly defined within the regulation. (Rules for Application of Council Regulation 1698/2005and CMEF Guidance document September 2006). These common impact indicators are to be complemented by programme-specific impact indicators.
Page 5 of 58
1.1.3 Aims and Objectives of the Assessment It may be argued that a fundamental assumption is being made that, provided the delivery process functions correctly, i.e., that the intended policy details and measures available are made known to the target audience, the rural enterprise, then the necessary outputs and desired outcomes of the RDP 2007-2013 will occur. The delivery process aims to achieve its various objectives by bringing about changes in the behaviour and actions of rural enterprises, particularly of those engaged in primary production, namely agri-food and forestry. These behavioural changes will then be reflected in the desired economic, social and environmental outcomes that the selected indicators, jobs, productivity, biodiversity etc., seek to capture. Whilst as we have seen the Commission has clearly defined the content in the RDP 2007-2013, and within this the desired outcomes, what is less clearly defined are the outputs and in particular the process whereby the content/policy cascades down through a series of levels of governance before it finally impacts upon the target audience whom it is hoped will adopt the policy and operationalise it. These levels will vary across the Union but will include some or all of the following: * * * * The European Commission and Council (DG Agriculture) National governments and national agencies Regional government/authorities Local communities including representative associations and individual rural enterprises
As the policy cascades down through these different levels of governance it will be embedded, to greater or lesser degree, interpreted and, as a result, potentially modified. Consequently it is possible that a modified version of the policy will subsequently cascade to the next level until the policy and the associated measures finally reaches the associations/agencies/individual enterprises who it is hoped will respond by changing their behaviour and business practice in ways that deliver outputs that result in the desired outcomes. Therefore the overall aims of this research are to: 1. Complement the established framework (the CMEF) for monitoring and evaluating the Rural Development Policy, RDP 2007-2013, by assessing the understanding and interpretations of the range of stakeholders operating at different levels of governance in the EU Member State countries.
Page 6 of 58
2.
To evaluate the management, effectiveness, and efficiency of the European Commissions rural policy. To determine if there are any differences between what was intended at EU level and what actually appears at the local level. Contrast the actions of similar groups of stakeholders in two countries with different philosophical approaches, namely Norway and New Zealand.
3.
4.
The principal objectives of the research are to: 1. Review and assess the rationale for the objectives, measures and funding agreed by the Commission for the RDP 2007-2013 in the context of the continuing evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy. This review and assessment of the primary content will require a review of the published literature. Milestone One (M1) will signify the accomplishment of this objective. 2. Critically examine the processes and necessary structures and systems whereby the policy is adopted, managed and transmitted by participating Member States at the relevant levels of governance: national, regional and local. This critical examination will examine the processes, structures etc by which the RDP policy cascades from the Commission through different levels of representative governance. It will involve parallel studies in the participating EU countries, involving both secondary sources and the collection of primary data. In Norway and New Zealand the same methodology will be employed to examine the dissemination of policies that are relevant to rural areas. Milestone Two (M2) will signify the achievement of this objective. 3. Determine if, in addition to the choice regarding the weighting of the different axes and of measures selected, other aspects of policy are interpreted differently. Equally in Norway and New Zealand interpretation at different levels of governance will be documented and reviewed. This information will arise as a result of the analysis of the data resulting from an examination of the process of policy adoption. 4. Undertake a series of case studies of the response of EU rural enterprises to the RDP 2007-2013 policy as it is presented to them. In non EU
Page 7 of 58
research partner countries case studies will be undertaken of farms and other enterprises identified by different levels of governance, where outputs are claimed to be leading to the outcomes EU RDP policy seeks to achieve. The case studies will include selected studies of competitiveness, knowledge transfer and innovation, biodiversity, the preservation of high nature value farming and forestry systems, water, climate change, diversification and quality of life, improved governance and the mobilization of the endogenous development potential of rural areas. Clearly budget constraints will not allow all types of case study in all participating countries rather case studies will be selected to relate to the key areas of expenditure selected by different countries Milestone Three (M3) will signify the achievement of this objective. 5. Synthesise the research data to identify those processes, structures and actions which are best placed to ensure the integrity of the RDP policy, and its efficient and effective adoption by the targeted end user, the individual rural enterprise This synthesis will address both the four axes and the seven strategic priorities Milestone Four (M4) will signify the achievement of this objective. 6. 7. Actively disseminate the findings at all stages of the research process. The management of this research process will be the objective of a distinct work package see below
1.1.4 The conceptual model to be adopted in the proposed research This use of outcomes as indicators suggests that the widely known, well established and robust Process Content Outputs Outcomes model, which has been adopted in a number of published programme and policy evaluations, provides an appropriate underpinning for this research proposal. In applying the model to this research we would suggest that: 1. The Process is the stages in the delivery of the EU Rural Development Policy from its setting at the EU level to its implementation at the local/enterprise level. The Content is the EU Rural Development Regulation 2007-2013 which is summarized in the three commonly agreed core policy objectives, the
2.
Page 8 of 58
associated four axes and measures and the resulting structures and systems, see below. 3. The Outputs include for example, new buildings, small factories, infrastructures, tourist accommodation, diversified enterprises, different agricultural practices, different forestry practices etc. The Outcomes include jobs, environmental improvements eg. agricultural competitveness, landscapes, biodiversity, governance, etc and it is these outcomes that the proposed cumulative indicators are designed to assess.
4.
With regard to the content the core policy objectives of the EU RPD 2007-2013 are: 1. 2. 3. Improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry. Supporting land management and improving the environment. Improving the quality of life and encouraging diversification of economic activities.
These three core objectives, together with the agreement that some support would be given to mainstreaming LEADER, are summarized as a series of Axes (Figure 1). These axes can also be seen as representing the principal dimensions of sustainable development. Axes 1-3 capture the economic, environmental and social dimensions while, in addition, the issues of governance and participation are addressed through Axis 4, which seeks through the mainstreaming of LEADER to encourage improvements in governance and to mobilise the endogenous development potential of rural areas. In addition, while it is not expressed as a distinct axis, there is an understandable requirement that consideration has to be given to the compatibility of the RDP with other EU policies. Within each axis there are a range of measures, both financial and non-financial, some of which are obligatory but the majority of which are optional, allowing Member States to select those they believe will best suit the needs of their country or different regions of their country. Member States have additional flexibility as to the relative level of resources they commit to each axis provided they respect the agreed statutory minima regarding the distribution of the EAFRD fund: Axis 1 10%, Axis 2 25%, Axis 3 10%, Axis 4 5%, i.e. the allocation of 50% of European Rural Development Funds is discretionary and is expected to differ between Member States. For example, in England, the government has decided to devote all of its discretionary funds to Axis 2, the Environmental axis while in Bulgaria Axis One has been allocated 41.7% of available funds, Axis 2 27.1% and Axis 3 31.2%.
Page 9 of 58
Figure 1: Core Policy Axes
LEADER AXIS A4
A1
A2
A3
Economic Competitiveness
Land Management and Environment
Quality of Life, Diversification
To deliver these measures requires structures and systems regarding payments, training etc., and the establishment of efficient and effective structures and systems at different levels of governance. These will be examined as a key aspect of the process of transmitting the Commissions rural policy to individual rural stakeholders. Table 1 Summarises the Process, Content, Output and Outcomes of the EU RDP 20072013
Page 10 of 58
Table 1: Process, Content, Output and Outcomes Summary
Process EU sets aims, objectives and delivery mechanisms National / Regional Interprets and delivers on EU aims, objectives and delivery mechanisms Local Community and individual actors Interpret and delivers on Higher Level (N/R) aims, objectives and delivery mechanisms
Content Aim, Strategic Objectives, Programmes Measures (Structures and Systems financial and non financial)
Output New buildings, Factories, Infrastructures, Tourist and other Diversified enterprises, Different agricultural practices, Different forestry practices
Outcomes Improved AgriForestry competitiveness Landscapes and other public goods Jobs Improved governance Complementarity with other EU/ National actions
1.2
Progress Beyond the State of the Art
This research study calls for an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the RDP 2007-2013. It is therefore not an evaluation, an essentially retrospective exercise asking if a policy or program has worked and neither is it an exante evaluation which is primarily concerned with value for money. Rather it is, in essence, a broadly defined forward looking research question focusing on whether the implementation of the RDP 2007-2013 will result in the desired impacts in the extensive rural areas of the enlarged European Community. Impact studies have historically been associated with different disciplines: environmental impacts for example, developed in the 1960s and 70s and associated particularly with the extractive industries and equally economic impact studies and models have been rigorously developed and refined in the last forty years. More recently the acceptance by many national governments and major industries of the principles of sustainable development have provided a stimulus for agencies to think in terms of integrated impact assessments and the European Commission sets out its approach in a Communication on Integrated Impact Assessment in 2002 (COM(2002)276) which sought to integrate, reinforce, streamline and replace all existing impact assessment mechanisms(p3). The same document states that impact assessment is policy driven, it examines whether the impact of major proposals is sustainable and conform to the principles of better regulation. The communication goes on to describe a two stage impact assessment process and to make clear that Impact assessment is an aid to decision making, not a substitute for political judgement. In regard to the measurement of the impacts of its rural development policies the Commission has published two documents relating to Extended Impact Assessments of the regulation for rural development by the European
Page 11 of 58
Agricultural Fund (SEC(2005)914)
for
Rural
Development
(SEC(2004)931)
and
an
update
As they have evolved impact studies have in many cases incorporated indicators as measures, preferably quantifiable measures as a useful tool. Environmental research, including for example the CORINE project, explored the value of indicators in studying landscape change and similar approaches have led to a wide range of indicators being proposed for social, economic and environmental parameters, some of which seek to reflect specific variables whilst others are more holistic: for example, indicators relating to measurements of the quality of life. Currently there is, for example, much discussion regarding potential and reliable indicators of climate change: one of the seven priorities of the RDP 2007-2013. The commitment of the Commission to the value and use of indicators is clearly indicated in the Handbook on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) for the RDP 2007-2013, published by DG Agriculture in 2006. The CMEF recognizes five types of indicator linked to a hierarchy of objectives that is designed to analyse and communicate program objectives and to show how local interventions should contribute to global objectives. Five sets of indicators, baseline, impact, input, output and result are identified and proposed. It is not the a priori purpose of this research to assess the five sets of indicators proposed in the CMEF but rather to determine, firstly, as part of the assessment of the processes whereby the RDP 2007-2013 is disseminated, if the hierarchy of objectives is an effective tool for communicating program objectives and, secondly, to incorporate a review of the applicability and interpretation of those indicators that are relevant to the case studies undertaken. This research proposes that it will advance the state of the art by: 1. contributing to the techniques of assessment, evaluation and impacts by demonstrating the feasibility and value of prospective holistic assessments of complex and sophisticated policies such as that represented by the RDP 2007-2013. identifying where there are differences between what was intended at EU level and what actually appears at the local level and the implications of those differences for the measurement of success of, and the communication and implementation of, policy. drawing comparisons between the RDP policy of the European Commission, a policy endorsed by the 25 member states, with alternative approaches implemented by Norway and New Zealand.
2.
3.
Page 12 of 58
1.3
S/T Methodology and Associated Work Plan
1.3.1 The overall strategy of the work plan 1.3.1.1 The foci and inter-relationships of the components
As described below in 1.1.4 the proposed project is essentially a simple linear series of components as set out in Figure 2:
Figure 2: Components of the work programme
Establishment Phase
Setting the Baseline The EU Rural Development Policy Context
Identifying and Explaining the Implementation - The National and Regional Contexts Exploring the Issues Case Studies
Interpreting the Results
Dissemination
Page 13 of 58
1)
The project starts by defining the management and methodological framework, establishing the working relationships between the Institutions and, more importantly, the individuals involved. These relationships and responsibilities are to be detailed in a Consortium Agreement: the establishment phase. The first of the research components is the development of a review of the existing/published baseline information concerning EU rural development policy. On the basis of this development of baseline information, a questionnaire will be developed that will be used to interrogate the implementation of EU actions at the National and Regional levels. The interrogation will take its lead from the Common Monitoring Handbook and the Hierarchy of Objectives. These set out paths for Member States to develop and implement actions. In the Common Monitoring Handbook, for example it is set out that Member States should start with EU objectives and end with evaluation activities via the choosing of appropriate measures and the development and implementation of strategic actions. The choices made by Member States will reflect the circumstances in each State and therefore there is potential scope for EU objectives to be interpreted and implemented very differently. These differences will reflect the intervention logic in each Member State and, potentially within each region within Member States. The work package concludes with a workshop for invited experts to discuss and comment on the findings of the report and questionnaire produced.
2)
3)
The second research component is the investigation of the translation of EU actions at National and Regional levels. This will be done in two ways. First, documentary analysis of National and Regional Rural Development Plans will be undertaken using the questionnaire developed in 2 above. Second, in depth interviews with key individuals about the reasons for, and application of, rural development policies at the national/regional level: the intervention logic. While providing results in its own right this element is also aimed at specifying the case study foci and content. The focus of the interviews will be on the context and how it influences the choice of the intervention method(s), the design of the intervention(s) and the application of the intervention(s). So the questions are about whether different levels of governance have different views as to what is desirable and how to bring the desired states about, including the division of resources between the four axes and the types of action within each axis.
Page 14 of 58
The work package concludes with a workshop in each country for invited experts to discuss and comment on the findings of the country report produced. 4) The third research component is the investigation, through case studies, of the key areas of rural development policy implementation: as identified through the two components above (EU and National/Regional contexts). These case studies will focus on the process, content, outputs and outcomes of the translation of EU objectives in each Member State in the context of the intervention logic adopted by Member States. Thus each case study will be concerned with the rationale of the action, the management of the action, the coherence of the action, the balance within the action, the transparency of decision making in relation to the action, the effectiveness of the action, the economy of the action, the efficiency of the action and the continued viability (sustainability) of the output of the policy/action. Each of these will be evidenced by comparing the way the policy action was transmitted down the chain (EU, National, Regional, local) and what was expected at each stage (documentary analysis), as evidenced in 3 above, with how the policy, its intervention logic and its implementation, was perceived by those who eventually implemented the policy at the local level (the business for example). This comparison would take account of, for example, the link between policy and what happens: whether the policy was misdirected, whether there were conflicting interests, whether the guidance given was suitable and whether the policy should be modified in terms of implementation (whether the structures and systems of delivering the policy action matches the behaviour and motivations of the individuals at the local level, including the sense, or a lack of sense, of ownership in relation to the action). Overall the focus would be on whether those at the local level share the same vision of both the needs in relation to rural development and the actions to bring about rural development. For example is there a mismatch between the aims of the EU, and of those translating and implementing EU objectives, and the aims of those at the local level (hard/tangible versus potentially soft/intangible objectives). The case studies will be selected to reflect the range of actions and the intervention logics both in terms of top down and bottom up approaches (for example, area based bidding versus programmed based resource distribution) and the potential differences between the North, South and East in terms of Member States and the likely bearing this has on the actions selected and the way they are implemented and monitored.
Page 15 of 58
The work package concludes with a workshop in each country for invited experts to discuss and comment on the findings of the country report produced. 5) The lessons learnt from the data-based phases above will then be taken into the evaluation phase. It is during this phase that the data will be drawn together and interpreted. The final component, defined as the on-going dissemination, is concerned with making available what has been learnt and recommended through a series on interim reports and the final Report. Thus it should be noted that dissemination will take place throughout the life of the project. The mode of research
6)
1.3.1.2
This research is essentially a Mode 2 type of research in that, as described by Watkins (2007) it is: socially accountable, reflexive, subject to a wider range of quality control processes than peer review, transdisiplinary, performed by a heterogeneous team and is performed in the context of the application. The research teams are heterogeneous and trans-disciplinary in that they are drawn from a range of disciplines and countries. Thus they bring together a range of experiences and expertise as required by a research project that has as its focus the four axes of rural development and, within those axes a focus on the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors, knowledge transfer and innovation, biodiversity and preservation of high nature value farming and forestry systems, water and climate change, the creation of employment opportunities in the fields of diversification and quality of life, improving governance and mobilising the endogenous development potential of rural areas. The research is a socially accountable reflexive process in that it involves the key stakeholders at each of the levels of governance involved in the process of rural policy implementation once the EU objectives have been set. Thus it is exploring the nature and content of rural policy from a top down and a bottom up way and involving within that exploration key stakeholders through the process of workshops. These workshops will be designed to explore the issues identified by the research team and to identify issues that were not identified by the research team. In addition, the case study approach allows for those at the local level to share and discuss their perceptions of their particular experience of implementing a rural development initiative and to indicate the issues and opportunities they faced and the match between what they needed and wanted and what was available to them both in terms of content and process. Throughout the research representatives of the relevant stakeholders are involved in both providing answers and commenting on the results produced. Thus the research agenda, while potentially set in the specification given in this proposal, will be open to modification in terms of actual content if that is what is appropriate given the responses at the workshops, or during the course of the various work packages, in particular the
Page 16 of 58
case studies. As a result the information produced by this study will be derived from the context within which it is produced. Finally, the research involves feeding the findings to the representatives of the different stakeholders during the course of the work. Thus the validity etc of the findings/interpretations is continuously being appraised by those who are specifically involved. Thus there is inbuilt quality control rather than a simple reliance on peer review or on the accepted internal measures of research quality (although those measures will still apply).
1.3.2 1.3.2.1
The timings of the work program components Implementation timings
Figure 1 shows the basic linear strategy being adopted in terms of the main components of the work program. However, there are two aspects that need highlighting: 1) Despite this being essentially an ex ante assessment the start date for the project, or at least any work that may involve a consideration of what has happened, is governed by the roll-out timing of the EU policy implementation at the different levels. Therefore we would not propose starting the EU Context phase until March 2008. The actual implementation requires some work to be undertaken in advance of the defined component. For example, the compilation of the questionnaire to be used in relation to documentary analysis in the National and Regional Contexts component is developed during the EU Context component.
2)
Figure Two provides details of the timing of the individual components, divided into the Work Packages, plus other activities such as setting up the management arrangements for the project and the diet of proposed meetings. Each of these components of the work is described below.
1.3.2.2
The components of the work programme
This section makes reference to a Gantt chart (Figure 3). Within the Gant chart the duration and timing of the work packages is shown. In addition, the type of activity is denoted by the use of a series of letters/numbers. For the Work Packages, D denotes development activity, I implementation activity, C ensuring commonality in data and interpretation (definitions, coding lists etc), A is analysis and reporting, and the numbers 1 to n are the number of meetings.
Page 17 of 58
Figure 3: Gantt Chart of Work Program Meetings and Work Packages
Year One
Months 0 -3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12
Year 2
13 - 15 16 - 18 19 - 21 22 - 24
Year 3
25 - 27 28 - 30 31 - 33 34 - 36
WP1 Initial Setting up WP2 The EU Context WP3 The National and Regional Contexts WP4 The Case Studies WP5 Interpretation and Evaluation WP6 Dissemination Management meetings Project Workshops D I C A 1 onwards Development. Implementation of data collection. Commonality in data coding. Analysis and reporting. Number of meetings.
D I/A I A D D 1 1 2 A 2 A 3 A 3 I A C A 4 4 A A I A 5
A A 5
A 6
A 7
Page 18 of 58
1.3.2.3
Work Package 1 - Setting up the arrangements and protocols for the project
The project will begin with a three month setting up period that is identified on Figure 2 (the components of the work programme) as the initial development work. In addition, a series of management meetings will be undertaken throughout the life of the work. While there may appear to be many such meetings, one of the main lessons learnt by the members of the team while conducting a Framework Five Integrated Program was that, despite the capabilities and advantages offered by the development of electronic means of communication, the efficient and effective functioning of international research programmes is still highly dependent on face to face discussion: at a technical, a team and a personal level. Management meetings will involve all the partners while the research foci meetings will involve those partners that have a specific responsibility for the specific activity.
1.3.2.4
Work Package 2 - The European Context
The EU has set common strategic guidelines for rural development in the period 2007/2013. These guidelines set the reference framework for national and regional authorities to produce their own rural development plans. Thus to understand what is happening it is necessary to identify benchmark characteristics against which national and regional selectivity and implementation in relation to rural development policy can be compared. Thus this work package will focus on identifying what those benchmark characteristics are and translating those characteristics into the form of a questionnaire that can be used to interrogate the National and Regional documentation of the implementation of EU rural development policy by, and within, Member States. The work on the EU Context would start in Month 4 and end in Month 6.
1.3.2.5
Work Package 3 - The National and Regional Context
The Member States, and regions within Member States, take the EU objectives as the starting point for their implementation of EU rural development policy. However, when considering which aspects of that EU policy to adopt, and how to implement them, the Member States, and potentially the regions within Member States, are allowed to base what they do on their analysis of their own situation. Thus there may be differences in the choice of measures, the choice of strategic actions, the implementation of actions and the foci of the evaluation activities. Thus this work package will focus on identifying what the variations are between the EU and Member States, between Member States and between regions within Member States and why those variations have come about. Thus the work package will explore the
Page 19 of 58
context factors (the national/regional specificity in terms of, for example, political philosophy of the national/regional authority), the procedural factors (implementation, guidance given, consultation etc), the logic of the intervention (the link between actions and the goals) and so on. Thus this work package will focus, firstly, on applying the baseline characteristic questionnaire to the documentation on rural development policy within each Member State, and Region within Member State and, secondly, on the intervention logic behind the selection of measures and procedures by Member States and regions. The work on the National and Regional contexts would start in Month 7 and end in Month 12
1.3.2.6
Work Package 4 - The Case Studies
The overall objectives of the case study work are: 1) To explore, in depth, issues that have arisen in the course of the work at EU, national and regional level. Firstly to provide actual examples to bring to life some of the issues involved in rural development both as an advocacy tool and as exemplars of how rural development might be implemented: taking into account the over-riding aim is to establish whether the EU policies are being translated and implemented differently and the difference these differences make. Secondly to compare this EU interventionist process with the actions of rural stakeholders operating in the socio-political contexts prevailing in Norway, where concern of the overall welfare of rural areas has for many years affected all aspects of government policy, and New Zealand, where the clear market orientation of the government and the removal of agricultural support in the mid 1980s led to three difficult years after which the sector responded positively becoming more diversified efficient and competitive.
2)
The work will involve normal case study procedures. The identification of the cases would primarily come from the national and regional work packages. The intention is to undertake 10 case studies in each country. The selection of case studies potentially could be based on policy area, strategic orientation, geographical spread, philosophy of intervention. The overall approach would be that of soft systems: process, content, output and outcome of the case study action. In each case study the research will seek to establish the link between actions by enterprises at a local level with the outworking of policy resulting in advice, guidance etc emanating from higher authorities, regional and national, and in the case of the EU partner countries the European Commission. The case study work would start in month 13 and end in month 24
Page 20 of 58
1.3.2.7
Work Package 5 - The Interpretation and Evaluation
As a result of the three major research phases which will have respectively critically reviewed the Commissions rural development policy, its establishment and interpretation within national and regional levels of governance and undertaken a series of detailed case studies both in EU Member States and non EU participating countries this work package with synthesise, interpret and evaluate the findings. These findings will determine: how the RDP 2007-2013, has been interpreted and applied by the range of stakeholders, associations and enterprises operating at different levels of governance in the EU Member state countries participating in this research. if EU rural policy has been established at different levels of governance and is operating effectively and efficiently. if there is any difference between what was intended at EU level and what actually appears at the local level. if the actions of similar groups of national and regional authorities, stakeholders and rural target groups in two countries with different philosophical approaches, namely Norway and New Zealand, result in economic, social and environmental outcomes that are comparable to those sought by the European Commissions rural development policy.
1.3.2.8
Work package 6 - The Dissemination
Dissemination of the research project findings, both in terms of interim and final results and of its progress along the proposed time line, is an integral part of this proposal. We have identified a number of target audiences for dissemination. These are the Commission, both DG Research and DG Agriculture, those at different levels of governance with responsibility for rural policy, the wider academic community and the community of rural practitioners, enterprises and advisers. Three different methods of dissemination will be adopted: Written text in the case of regular reports to the Commission and for academic and professional audiences Workshops both interim, where the provisional findings of the second, third and fourth work packages are discussed with invited audiences in the participating countries, and a final summative workshop where the overall findings are presented.
Page 21 of 58
The establishment and maintenance of a web site which will provide details of the progress and findings of the research and will also act as one of the means of controlling the quality of the research process.
Table 1.3 a: Work package list

Work package No 1 Work package title Type of activity 2 Lead participant No 3 Lead participant short name Personmonths 4 Start month 5 End month5
Setting-up Project Arrangements and establishing management procedures The European Context The National and Regional Context The Case Study Context Interpretation and Evaluation Dissemination TOTAL
RDT
BU
2 3 4 5 6
RDT RDT RDT RDT OTHER
10 9 3 4 1
MLU UAM TUM UMB BU
4.25 50 233 9 40 342.25
4 7 13 25 4
6 12 24 30 36
Workpackage number: WP 1 WP n. Please indicate one activity per work package: RTD = Research and technological development (including any activities to prepare for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and coordination activities); DEM = Demonstration; MGT = Management of the consortium; OTHER = Other specific activities, if applicable in this call.
3 4 5
Number of the participant leading the work in this work package. The total number of person-months allocated to each work package. Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).
Page 22 of 58
Table 1.3 b: Deliverables List

Del. no. 6 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Deliverable name WP no. 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 6
7
Nature
Dissemination level
8
Delivery date 9
Consortium Agreement Operations Manual Summary Report (EU) Questionnaire to be used at National & Regional levels Stakeholder discourse through workshops Country level policy report Country level implementation report Synthesis report across all countries Identification of case studies Stakeholder discourse through workshops Case study report for each country Synthesis case study report for all countries Stakeholder discourse through workshops Draft report (subject to public discourse) Final report (to Commission) Country reports for WP2, WP3, WP4 Interim & Final reports to Commission Project Website Workshops for stakeholders Academic papers
O R R O O R R R O O R R O R R R R O O O
PP PP RE PP PU PP PP PU PP PU PP PP PU RE RE PU RE PU RE PU
2 3 6 6 6 11 11 12 12 11 23 24 22 28 36 6, 12, 24 12, 24, 36 4 - 36 3,11,22,,29 24 - 36
6 Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates. Please use the numbering convention <WP number>.<number of deliverable within that WP>. For example, deliverable 4.2 would be the second deliverable from work package 4. 7 Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes: R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other 8 Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes: PU = Public 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).
9
Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).
Page 23 of 58
1.3c: Work Package Descriptions WP1. Setting-up Project Arrangements
WP number Work package title Activity type Participant number Participant short name Person-months per participant Objectives 1. 2.
1 B U 1
1 Start date or starting event: Setting-up Project Arrangements RDT

2 A R C 0.5 3 T U M 0.5 4 U M B 0.5 5 M L A 0.5 6 U T A 0.5 7 T R U 0.5 8 P A N 0.5 9 U A M 0.5
Month: 1
10 M L U 0.5
11 A M V 0.5
12 M A S 0
To agree the arrangements and protocols for the operation of the project. To clarify any process/content issues at the outset of the project.
Description of work To: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) establish the proposed management and administrative structures. agree and implement efficient and reliable communication protocols and procedures. agree responsibilities and reporting procedures. establish clear and unambiguous financial reporting procedures. agree and timetable the management and research foci meetings for the project. discuss and agree a Consortium Agreement. address collectively the proposed content and methodologies of the research programme.
Deliverables 1.1 1.2 A consortium agreement. A project operations manual recording the agreed allocation of tasks and responsibilities.
Page 24 of 58
WP2. The European Context
1 B U 0.5
2 Start date or starting event: The European Context RTD

2 A R C 0.5 3 T U M 0.25 4 U M B 0.25 5 M L A 0.25 6 U T A 0.25 7 T R U 0.5 8 P A N 0.25
Month: 4
9 U A M 0.25
10 M L U 1
11 A M V 0.25
12 M A S 0
To critically review EU rural development policies and establish baseline information. To develop a questionnaire through/with which to interrogate the national and regional rural development documentation.
Description of work To: a) identify, analyse and interpret documentation produced in relation to EU rural development policy: the core objectives and the four proposed axes. The focus would be on objectives, funding systems, programming, financial management and the control framework(s). To devise a questionnaire to interrogate national and regional documentation.
b)
Deliverables 2.1 2.2 2.3 A report summarising the main policies, procedures and resources allocated to rural development for the period 2007-2013. A questionnaire for use at National and Regional levels in respect of rural development documentation. Providing opportunities for discussion through workshops.
Page 25 of 58
WP3. The National and Regional Context
WP number Work package title Activity type Participant number Participant short name Person-months per participant Objectives 1. 2. 3.
1 B U 5
3 Start date or starting event: The National and Regional Context RTD
2 A R C 4 3 T U M 4 4 U M B 4 5 M L A 5 6 U T A 4 7 T R U 5 8 P A N 4 9 U A M 7 10 M L U 4 11 A M V 4
Month: 7
12 M A S 0
4.
To identify how the EU rural development policies have been translated and implemented at, first, the national level and, second, the regional level. To establish where there are differences in the translation and implementation between countries and within countries. To provide an understanding of the reasons for the way in which the EU rural development policies have been translated and implemented in different countries and in different regions. To establish the equivalent policy framework and implementation in Norway and New Zealand
Description of work To: a) Analyse and interpret the documentation produced in each country, and region within country, in relation to rural development policy using the questionnaire developed in Work Package 2. Conduct a survey of key institutions, those responsible for the implementation of rural development policy, aimed at identifying the reasons for the way in which policy had been interpreted and implemented. Each country would produce a report covering a and b above. Preparation of a synthesising report summarising the main findings from the country reports.
b)
c) d)
Page 26 of 58
Deliverables 3.1 A report, for each country, summarising the main policies, procedures and resources allocated to Rural Development for the period 2007-2013. The report would cover both the national and regional situation. A report summarising the main reasons for the translation and implementation of EU rural development policy within each country and would cover both the national and regional explanations. A report synthesising the main findings across the countries and regions in relation to the translation and implementation of EU rural development policy based on deliverables 1 and 2 above A specification for the case study work. The specification would include the foci of the case studies and the content. Providing opportunities for stakeholder discourse through workshops.
3.2
3.3
3.4 3.5
Page 27 of 58
WP4. The Case Study Context
4 Start date or starting event: Case Studies RTD

1 B U 23 2 A R C 20 3 T U M 26 4 U M B 22 5 M L A 20 6 U T A 22 7 T R U 20 8 P A N 20 9 U A M 20
Month: 13
10 M L U 20
11 A M V 20
12 M A S 0
3.
To identify how the translation and implementation of rural development policies have been translated and implemented within a series of case study examples in each country. To establish where there are differences in the way in which the policies have been explained and targeted at the national/regional level and the way they are perceived at the case study (local) level. To provide an understanding of the implications of the way in which the rural development policies have been translated and implemented in each country.
Description of work To: a) To analyse and interpret the documentation produced in each country, and region within country, in relation to the case study under consideration. Also included would be any supplementary material such as research reports. To conduct in depth interviews key individuals, those responsible for the implementation and management of the case study action at the local level, aimed at identifying the perceptions and evaluation of the way in which policy had been interpreted and implemented at the case study level. Each case study would produce a report covering a and b above. Preparation of a synthesising report summarising the main findings from the case study reports.
b)
c) d)
Deliverables 4.1 4.2 4.3 A case study report for each country. A synthesising report summarising the main findings of the case studies. Providing opportunities for stakeholder discourse through workshops.
Page 28 of 58
WP5. Interpretation and Evaluation
WP number Work package title Activity type Participant number Participant short name Person-months per participant Objectives 1.
1 B U 0.5
5 Start date or starting event: Interpretation and Evaluation RTD

2 A R C 0.5 3 T U M 0.5 4 U M B 3 5 M L A 0.5 6 U T A 1 7 T R U 0.5 8 P A N 1 9 U A M 0.5
Month 25
10 M L U 0.5
11 A M V 0.5
12 M A S 0
To provide a report covering the main findings of the project.
Description of work To: a) b) c) Drawing together the output of work packages 2, 3 and 4. Interpret the application of the rural development policies at different levels of governance. Determine whether and why there are differences in the implementation of rural development policy and whether those differences are affecting the outputs and outcomes.
Deliverables 5.1 5.2 Draft report subject to public discourse. Final report presented to EC
Page 29 of 58
WP6. Dissemination
WP number Work package title Activity type Participant number Participant short name Person-months per participant Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1 B U 10
6 Start date or starting event: Dissemination OTHER

2 A R C 3 3 T U M 3 4 U M B 3 5 M L A 3 6 U T A 3 7 T R U 3 8 P A N 3 9 U A M 3 10 M L U 3 11 A M V 3
Month 4
12 M A S 0
To disseminate the main findings of the project as part of the development of the European knowledge base on rural development and the rural development network. To increase awareness of the stakeholders in rural development of the rural development policies and options. To engage the stakeholders in a dialogue. To assist in consensus forming about rural development. To raise awareness of the process and alternatives in the implementation of rural measures.
Description of work To: a) b) c) Writing reports. Providing opportunities for discussion through workshops as detailed in previous work packages. Developing and managing a project web site.
Deliverables 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Country reports for work packages 2, 3, and 4. Interim and Final reports to the Commission (DG Research and DG Agriculture). Project web site. Workshops for experts. Academic and other papers.
Page 30 of 58
Table 1.3d
Summary of staff effort WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 Total person months 40 28.50 34.25 32.75 29.25 30.75 29.50 28.75 31.25 29 28.25 0 342.25
Participant no./short name 1/ BU 2/ ARC 3/ TUM 4/ UMB 5/ MLA 6/ UTA 7/ TRU 8/ PAN 9/ UAM 10/ MLU 11/ AMV 12/ MAS
1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Total 6
0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 1 0.25 0 4.25
5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 7 4 4 0 50
23 20 26 22 20 22 20 20 20 20 20 0 233
0.5 0.5 0.5 3 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 9
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 40
Table 1.3e List of milestones Milestone number 1 Milestone name EU Policy Review Work package(s) involved WP 2 Expected date 10 6 Means of verification 11 Review completed and peer assessed following public consultation Review completed and peer assessed following public consultation Review completed and peer assessed following public consultation Review completed and peer assessed following public consultation
Cascade Review
WP 3
12
Case Study Synthesis
WP 4
24
Final report
WP 5
36
Measured in months from the project start date (month 1). Show how you will confirm that the milestone has been attained. Refer to indicators if appropriate. For example: a laboratory prototype completed and running flawlessly; software released and validated by a user group; field survey complete and data quality validated.
11
10
Page 31 of 58
2.
2.1
Implementation
Management structure and procedures
FARM brings together twelve research focussed academic institutions whose shared goal for this research is to rigorously assess the Rural Development Policy accepted by EU member states for the 2007-2013 planning period. In order to achieve this goal the FARM project will adopt a direct and robust organisational structure to ensure the integration of the research team by adopting a participatory approach to management while at the same time incorporating the opportunity for the research team to seek advice and guidance from a number of external advisors appointed to an External Advisory Group. Management and coordination of the group will be supported by the creation of a Steering Committee, chaired by the coordinator, or his representative, and comprising the lead investigator of each partner (It is proposed that a member of the Massey University research team from New Zealand attend two or three of these Steering Committee meetings) and appropriate representatives of the External Advisory Group. While decision making will be by consensus the Steering Committee will take responsibility for the monitoring the progress of the project, for the strategic decisions that affect its implementation and for the dissemination of the results of the research. To this end a project web site will be located on a Server of Bournemouth University and maintained by an appropriately trained administrator. The coordinator will provide the necessary administrative support to the Steering Committee which will meet twice a year, and when appropriate the timing of these meetings will be arranged to coincide with the completion of the proposed milestones. Participatory management within the project will be achieved by the Steering Committee assigning responsibility to partners in respect of their established scientific and management expertise. For example partners responsible for a given work package will have responsibility for communicating directly with other partners involved in that work package to organise and coordinate research activities, to assess progress against the embedded milestones and to ensure that the projected deliverables are delivered on time. Co-ordination will be the responsibility of The Centre for LandBased Studies (CLBS) at Bournemouth University. This Centre has been actively engaged in research and training programmes in agriculture and rural development in Southern and Eastern Europe and beyond for last fifteen years. Projects have addressed themes in agriculture, horticulture, the up-chain agri-food industries and rural development policy. The coordinator Dr Jonathan Edwards will, with the support of an administrator, liaise with the Commission and take overall responsibility for legal, contractual, ethical, financial matters, maintaining appropriate records and ensure that all participants adhere to general principles relating to safety, gender equality and IPR. Management structures, responsibilities and decision making processes will be described by a Consortium Agreement relating solely to the FARM project, which will be developed and approved by all partners before the outset of the project. In the event of additional partners being
Page 32 of 58
sought, or an existing partner withdrawing from the project, the co-ordinator will, with the support of the Steering Committee, seek to find suitably qualified replacements. Previous experience suggests that there will be a number of key management issues to be addressed, these it is expected will include: 1. coordinating the claims process requiring an awareness of the different budgetary / accounting systems of the partners. coordinating the reporting process. managing the information and results emanating from the research for example distributing partner generated and shared data sets. facilitating contact between the partners and the Commission in relation to reporting and financial claims process this will aid the production of reports and the processing of financial claims by the individual partners who are ultimately responsible for generating the reports and claims. managing the ongoing dissemination activity.
2. 3.
4.
5.
Figure 4 below illustrates the management structure of the project
Figure 4: Management Structure
Page 33 of 58
Clearly the success of the project will depend upon the objectives and deliverables of each work package being achieved and whilst this is the responsibility of the work package leader(s) it is proposed that the coordinator coordinates a project workshop toward the end of the period allocated to each work package to ensure the objectives and deliverables of the current work package are achieved and to confirm the arrangements for the following work package. It should be feasible on occasions to link these workshops with meetings of the Steering Committee to minimise the time given to, and costs of, travelling. Communication and meetings. Communication between partners is clearly vital if a collaborative research initiative is to be successful. The working language of the team will be English and this will be the language in which all project documentation will be presented. Web site dissemination (see below) will also be in English with brief summaries of the interim and main findings translated into French German and Spanish. While electronic communication is an invaluable tool, experience of previous projects has demonstrated both the strengths and weaknesses of too high a dependence upon such means of communication therefore an appropriate number of face to face meetings have been scheduled. It is intended that there will be an initial meeting of the Steering Committee within the first month of the project commencing at which all partners will be represented and to which members of the advisory group will be invited. Subsequently the Steering Committee will meet twice a year; the timings of these meetings taking into account both the timetable of projected milestones and the proposed project workshops to avoid unnecessary travel.
Page 34 of 58
2.2 1
Individual Participants UK Bournemouth University
Bournemouth University is a University of over 15,000 students including 1,200 international students from around 120 countries. It has a strong professional orientation with a focus on research, academic excellence and graduate employability. The project will be managed by the Centre for Land-Based Studies which has been active in coordinating research and training projects across the countries of the European Union and in central Asia for the last fifteen years. These projects have included issues of agrienvironment projects in the Baltic States; the modernization of the agri-food industries of the countries of central and eastern Europe and strategies for the development of tourism in the rural areas of member and accession states. The principal investigators will be Professor Roger Vaughan, Dr Jonathan Edwards and Mr Sean Beer. Professor Vaughan is an economist with many years experience of the economics of tourism development. He has undertaken many economic impact studies and has undertaken research in a number of Western European countries. He was the principal scientific coordinator in the FP5 OPTOUR study seeking to propose strategies for the development of tourism in the rural areas of Bulgaria and Romania. He currently serves on the Rural Research Priorities Board for the south west region of England. He and Dr Edwards were part of a panel funded by the Regional Authority to compile documentary evidence for the rural research needs of the region. Dr Edwards serves on the regional management panel for the Rural National Knowledge Exchange for the south west and Sean Beer was seconded to NRKE as the regional officer in its formative period. Sean has also undertaken a Winston Churchill Fellowship in Global trade in animal meat products. Examples of relevant European research and training projects coordinated by Dr Edwards in his capacity as Head of the Centre for Land-Based Studies, include: OPTOUR Opportunities for and barriers to the development of tourism in rural areas of selected Central and Eastern European Countries EU FP5 project six EU Partners Rainbow - a project in Heritage Interpretation. EU Interreg funded. Consumer expectations as an agent of change in selected CEE countries: INCO funded. Publications 1. SWOT Analysis of the Horticultural Farms in the Plovdiv Region of Bulgaria. (Vaughan R, Garnevska E. and Edwards J. .R.) Bulgarian Jounal of Agricultural Science, Vol 12, pp 353-361. 2006. National Centre for Agrarian Sciences. 2. Farm Diversification Opportunities In Bulgaria - The Perceptions Of Farmers In The Plovdiv Region. (Vaughan R, Garnevska E. and Edwards J. .R.) Journal of International Farm Management Vol 3, Number 2, Online, 2006. ISSN 18162495. 3. The Tourism Workforce and Policy: Exploring the Assumptions. (Vaughan R, Andriotis K.) Current Issues in Tourism. Volume 7, Number 1, pp 66-87. 2004. Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Page 35 of 58
4.
Estimating and Interpreting the Local Economic Benefits of Visitor Spending: An Explanation." Leisure Studies. (Vaughan R, Farr H. and Slee W.) Volume 19, Number 2, pp 95-118. 2000. E. and F. N. Spon, London. Estonia - Agricultural Research Centre (ARC)
The Agricultural Research Centre (ARC) is a state agency under the Ministry of Agriculture that is responsible for providing services (principally laboratory analyses, field test and experiments) to agricultural producers, scientific institutions, governmental supervisory bodies and other clients. The ARC also plays a central role in the evaluation (internal and external) of the agri-environment measure of Estonian Rural Development Plan for 2004-2006 period. For the new RDP 2007-2013 period ARC has been given the role of acting as an independent evaluator of the whole RDP Axis II measures (in the framework of mid-term and ex-post evaluation of the program). Agri-environment Monitoring Bureau in the ARC has specific responsibility for 1) managing the collection of all necessary data for the preparation of relevant indicators (water, soil, landscape, bidiversity and socio-econimical data); 2) administration of the centralised data management system; 3) preparing a series of internal evaluation reports that compile and review available data and other information on the progress and performance of the agri-environment programme and other relevant measures. The structure of Estonian RDP monitoring and evaluation system was determined within the framework of PHARE Twinning Project EE02-IB-AG-01 This development work included: an appropriate institutional structure; relevant monitoring and evaluation procedures capable of satisfying the requirements of both the Ministry of Agriculture for the Republic of Estonia and the reporting obligations of the European Commission. Over the last five years, ARC has contributed to Ministry of Agriculture with expert knowledge (water, soil and biodiversity topics) in elaboration of RDP measures for previous (2004-2006) and also current 2007-2013 period. Our experts have been actively participating in process of working out Estonian Water Directive, Nitrate Directive and Soil Directive. The Estonian partners for this project will be lead by Ms Pille Koorberg, Head of Agrienvironmental Monitoring Bureau, responsible for coordination of data collection (incl. environmental and socio-economical data) needed for monitoring and evaluation of Estonian RDP Agri-environment measure in 2004-2006 and RDP Axis II measures in 2007-2013. Ms Koorberg has over 5 years experience in the development of rural development plans, elaboration of proposals for agri-environment programme and lessfavourite areas including preliminary situation analysis, design of measures, payment calculations, administrative procedures and monitoring and evaluation subjects) and has been a team member of the Estonian Agri-Environment Support work group led by the Ministry of Agriculture. Ms Koorberg was also Project manager of PHARE Twinning Project EE02-IB-AG-01 Development of Administrative Capacity for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Agri-environment Measures, 29.05.2003-29.04.2004; The second team member will be Mrs Livi Rooma, Head of Department of Agricultural Research and Monitoring, responsible for organization and coordination of monitoring and research works in the department. Mrs Rooma has 14 years experience as an adviser
Page 36 of 58
in the agricultural advisory service and has been a team member of the work composing the Nitrate Directive of Estonia; team member of the work composing the Code of Good Agricultural Practice of Estonia; team member Estonian Water Act work group; short term expert in PHARE project Support European Integration Office in Estonia (NoES 9620.01.01. Assignment EN/142). 3 Germany - Technischen Universitt Mnchen
group group of the to the
The Chair of Agricultural Economics (Head: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Alois Heissenhuber) is part of the Faculty of Economy of the TUM. The members of this chair (5 full time researchers/ lectures and 14 part time doctoral students esp. involved in research) are both involved in teaching (e.g. Production Economics, Economics of Ressource Mangement, Sustainable Ressource Mangement, Accounting and Cost Accounting) and research concerning Agricultural Economy on the single enterprise level, the regional and national level. One focus concerning research is set upon topics of production management and environmental management. A second focus is set upon research concerning land use and regional management. Examples are: (1) Development of recommendations concerning the Agenda 2007 regarding the aspects of environment and nature conservation. (2) Landscape Development, Biodiversity and cooperative Livestock Systems in Europe (3) Modelling of the development of land use on a regional level. (4) Development of proposals for EU-direct payment schemes and assessment of their impact on the single enterprise level and the regional level. (5) Evaluation of the Bavarian Agricultural and Environmental Program (KULAP A) and the "Vertragsnaturschutzproramm" (VNP) Sustainable landscape and resource management in regional areas. The German partner will be lead by Dr. Ulrich Bodmer, whose expertise are in the areas of Financing; assessment of rural development and entrepreneurial crisis. Dr Bodmer will be supported by Dr. Christian Ganzert (System engineering; project coordination of the Mid Term Review (BMBF-Project in 2002/2003)) and DIA Christine Krmer (Problems of financing SMEs; tourism development in rural areas). Selected relevant publications concerning the FP-7 Call: GANZERT, C., KRMER, C. UND J. KANTELHARDT (Hrsg.) (2007): Methodological Approaches And Experiences In Evaluating CAP Impact On Nature And Environment. Bfn-Skript 200. GANZERT, C., KRMER, C., KANTELHARDT, J., FEINDT, P.H., SCHULER, J., WEILAND, S. UND A. HEIENHUBER (2007): Integration von Naturschutz in die Reformen der EUAgrarmarktordnungen. BfN-Skript 198. GANZERT, C., HEBAUER, CHR., HEIENHUBER, A., HOFSTETTER, M. UND J. KANTELHARDT (2004): Reform der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik - Analysen und Konsequenzen aus Naturschutzsicht. - BfN-Skripten 99, 140 S.
Page 37 of 58
KRESS, B.; HOFFMANN, H. (2007): Die Folgen der EU-Agrarreform auf die Milchwirtschaft, Teil 1: Ergebnisse von Expertenbefragungen in drei EULndern, Schule und Beratung, H. 2-3, S. II-7 - II-12 ECKSTEIN, K.; GLGGLER, J.; HOFFMANN, H. (2005): Die Halbzeitevaluation des Bayerischen Kulturlandschaftsprogramms - Methodik, Ergebnisse und Ausblick, Berichte ber Landwirtschaft, Bd. 83, H. 2, S. 177-194 HEISSENHUBER, A.; HOFFMANN, H. (2004): EU-Agrarreform - Auswirkungen auf Landwirtschaft und Landschaft, Fachtagung "Landtechnik und Landwirtschaftliches Bauwesen", ALB Baden-Wrttemberg, 2004, S. 3-9. 4 Norway - Norwegian University of Life Sciences
The Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) was founded in 1859 as the only Norwegian agricultural post-graduate college, in those days a mainly educational institution. Research received a primary function nearly 40 years later and on 1 January 2005 the institution received the Norwegian university status. In total, UMB has about 2,600 students of which about 293 are PhD students. The University is one of the leading international universities focused on higher education and research within environmental sciences and biosciences. Its main specialisations are biology, food, environment and land use and natural resources management. Together with coadjutant research institutes established at the campus, UMB provides state-of-theart knowledge within a broad range of disciplines related to land use and rural development. The Departement of Ecology and Natural Resource Management (INA) includes fundamental biology and ecology, natural resource management, forest sciences, nature based tourism, entrepreneurship and related areas. It is responsible for education, research and information within these subject areas. The scientific person in charge at UMB/INA will be Dr Sjur Baardsen. Dr Baardsen is an Associate Professor at the department. Besides having published in several reputable scientific journals Dr Baardsen has a wide experience from different positions, among these being four years in the EC Directorate General for Research and Technical Development, where he was the Scientific officer for more than a hundred projects within the agricutural and forestry sector, being specifically responsible for the rural development projects. He is currently chairman of the COST Domain Committee for Forests, their Products and Services, and also chairman of the Scientific Council and member of the Board at the European Centre for Nature Conservation.
Page 38 of 58
5.
Finland - Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA)
The Finnish partner in this project is the Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA), Rovaniemi Research Unit. The Rovaniemi Research Unit specialises in research on forests and forest ecosystems in the north. Special emphasis is placed on their material and non-material values in order to promote the integration of different forms of forest use. The main research topics are: 1) development, management and utilisation of forest ecosystems, 2) different forms of forest use and 3) susceptibility of the forests to disturbances and change. Also, the issues regarding rural development as whole have been one focus during the last years. In addition, several research projects on naturebased tourism have been carried out in the Research Unit. In this project, research by METLAs researchers is related to the studies that have been conducted of the changes in the rural means of livelihoods in Finnish Lapland. These changes are studied as well in the level of rural policies and strategies as in the grass-root level in the villages. The transition from primary production to services and especially to tourism industry has been drastic and, thus, the interest is especially in the role of tourism in the totality of rural industries. The work in this project will be undertaken by senior research, Seija Tuulentie D.Soc.Sc. and postgraduate researcher,.Maria Hakkarainen M.A. Both have their scientific background in sociology and are now working in the multidisciplinary field of rural studies and tourism studies. Tuulentie has been dealing with such issues as the rights of the indigenous Smi people, the sustainable use of forest in Northern Lapland and the role of second home owners in tourist areas. Hakkarainen has concentrated on studying village communities and their development projects. Selected publications: Hakkarainen, M. (2006). Village communities and tourism development projects in the Teuravuoma mire area. Unpublished master thesis (in Finnish). University of Lapland, Rovaniemi. Tuulentie, S. 2004. The power of nature-based tourism: tensions between different understandings of nature at the peripheral tourist resort of Kilpisjrvi. In: Saarinen, J. & Hall, C.M. (eds.). Nature-based tourism research in Finland: Local contexts, global issues. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 916: 47-61. Tuulentie, S. 2006. Tourists making themselves at home: Second homes as a part of tourist careers. In: McIntyre, N., Williams, D. & McHugh, K. (eds.). Multiple dwelling and tourism. Negotiating place, home and identity. CABI, p. 145-157. Tuulentie, S. & Mettiinen, I. 2007 (forthcoming). Local participation in the development of tourist centres in the peripheral regions of Finnish Lapland. Forest, Snow and Landcscape Research.
Page 39 of 58
6.
Portugal - University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro
The University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD) dates from 1986 after 7 years as a Polytechnic Institute and 7 years of University Institute. The teaching and research activities are developed in three major scientific areas: Agricultural Sciences with 6 Departments, Exact and Natural Sciences with 8 Departments and Social Sciences and Humanities with 5 Departments. A teaching permanent staff of 533 Professors which 314 are entitled with a PhD is supported by 450 technical and administrative staff. Each Department runs their research activity although this is concentrated in Research Centres. Research activities are concentrated in the 9 Research Centres, 3 in each of the 3 scientific domains referred above, although a small part of the research is also conducted within the activities of the Departments. Research is conducted by the professors, along the normal teaching duties, and a total of 269 professors are in the frame of the Research Centres. Regarding the activity in projects, it must be stressed that UTAD has been leading, since 1982, an important share of projects in research and experimental agriculture in a strong cooperation with other institutions in Portugal. During the last decade after the settlement and expansion of a qualified board of researchers other scientific areas gained relevance and nowadays there is a balance in the number of projects that are run within the 3 major scientific domains. The Portuguese project team will be lead by Dr. Francisco Diniz, Prof. Associado within the Departamento de Economia, Sociologia e Gesto (DESG). Dr Diniz has been involved in numerous EU projects including:
-
"Synergetic Pluriactivity - The Development of Agrotourism And Related Activities As An Adjustment to Rural Areas"( AIR3 CT 92-0477.) "Les acteurs regionaux des politiques communautaires agricoles et rurales" (FAIR 3 CT 96-1834) Projecto The Role of Small and Medium-Sized Towns in Rural Development Projecto.(QLRT 2000 01923)
Dr Diniz most recent publications include: Local Integration Determinants of Upstream and Downstream Firms Transactions in Six Portuguese Small and Medium-Sized Marketowns [208], Cd-Rom do 46th Congress European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Enlargement, Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, in Theme Q: Rural and local development, Parallel Session Q: R-session, 30 de Agosto a 3 de Setembro, Volos - Grcia, 2006. Estratgias Transfronteirias de Mdias, Pequenas e Micro Empresas na Raia Trasmontana-Zamorense, Cd-Rom do XII Encontro Nacional da APDR, Viseu, Setembro 2006. (Co-autoria) Chris Gerry e Francisco Diniz.
Page 40 of 58
7.
Bulgaria - Trakia University Stara Zagora
Trakia University Stara Zagora is an autonomous state institution. It was established in 1995 by Decree of the 37 th National Parliament. The following educational units are in the structure of the university: Faculty of Agriculture with training experimental base, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with clinics, Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of Pedagogy, Medical Colleges (Stara Zagora, Haskovo, Sliven), Technical College (Yambol), Bulgarian-German Agricultural College (Stara Zagora), Department for information inservice teacher training, University hospital. The University organizes training on programs with four educational and qualification degrees - Specialist, Bachelor, Master and PhD, as well as on programs for qualification and post-graduate training in the system of life-long education. Trakia University Stara Zagora has legitimate institutional accreditation by resolution of the National Assessment and Accreditation Agency at the Council of Ministers. The beginning of higher agrarian education in Bulgaria dates back to 1921 when a faculty of Agronomy was established at Sofia University with three majors plant growing, animal breeding and forestry. Since 1995 The Faculty of Agriculture along with the Training experimental farm has been within the structure of Trakia University. The Academic staff of the Faculty comprises a total of 108 lecturers, of which 7 full professors, 57 associate professors and 44 assistant professors working at 11 departments. From the lecturers at the faculty of Agriculture there are four DSc and eighty-four are PhD. Majors include: Animal breeding, Agronomy, Ecology and environmental protection, Agrarian economy, Regional planning and development of rural areas, Agrarian engineering. In 2005 /2006 academic year a total of 1170 full-time and parttime students study at the Faculty. The work on this project in Bulgaria will be lead by Dr Ivan Ivanov whose expertise are in the areas of Agricultural Economics, Regional planning and forecasting, Geo strategy,geopolitics and regional markets, Regional planning and development. The second member of the team is Dr. Paraskeva Ilieva Dimitrova-Davidova (Senior Researcher). Previous research projects include: - OPTOUR Project Opportunities for and barriers to tourism led integrated development in rural regions of selected member states, Contract No: QLK5-CT-2000-00407; Frame Program 5, EC - Programme Phare Planning the development of rural areas, Contract BG 9915 01 13048 and the regional association of municipalities Trakia - Tempus project, SJEP, 09004/95, Agribusiness, Farm Based Enterprise development Selected publications: 2004 Tsvetanova Y Georgiev I Ivanova D Strategic analysis of the feasibility of alternatives concerning the financing of rural tourism enterprises, Invastigacao Operational, Coimbra, Portugal., pp.48/56 2005 Tsvetanova Y. Georgiev I. Ivanova D. Burguete J.L. Rodrigues P. G. Analysis of the work of governmental and non governmental organizations for the development of
Page 41 of 58
the tourism in rural areas, Third Jornadas Internacioanals de Marketing Publico, Universidade Covilha, Portugal, pp. 285 297. 8. Poland - Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development
The Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development is situated in the Social Sciences Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences. It was established in 1971. From the very beginning, agriculture constituted only a part of the much wider range of problems studied at the Institute embracing socio-economic development of rural areas. For this reason, the Institute has gathered together specialists representing many different disciplines: economics, sociology, demography, ethnology, education, spatial geography, etc., all of whom share an interest in rural and agricultural issues. For many years the Institute has been monitoring ongoing processes in rural areas from economic and social perspective and has tried to define premises for long-term development strategies of rural areas and of transformation agriculture must undergo in the process of integration with the European Union. The Institute's activity is focused on working out alternative concepts of rural development. Additionally, the Institute deals with evaluating contemporary socio-economic transformation processes in rural areas and preparing related expert opinions. In the years 2001-2004 the Institute implemented the research programme entitled Determinants and Directions of Socio-Economic Change in Rural Areas. The programme now implemented, scheduled for the years 2005-2008, is entitled Polish Rural Areas and Agriculture in the European Union: Dilemmas and Directions of Change. The Institute's work is involved on main mechanisms and dilemmas of agricultural and rural development as a basis for formulating long- and medium-term development strategies; economic and social consequences of the process of integrating Polish rural areas with the European Union; and changes in human, social and cultural capital of rural Poland; the process of economic diversification of rural areas; aspirations of the young rural generation and the potential for satisfying them through the educational system; sustainable (social and economic) development of rural areas; the development of local communities' subjectivity, self-government and social activity; the system of non-governmental initiatives and institutions; the problem of economic and social cohesion; mechanisms of the emergence of development disparities and ways to reduce them. The lead researcher for the Polish partner will be Prof. Krystian Heffner, who is an expert in rural areas development - (e.g. country manager of EU Program The Role of Small and Medium-Sized Towns in Rural Development (Market Towns - QLRT-2000-01923; 20012004),; regional policy - (e.g. participation in Strategy for regional development of Opole Voivodship (1999-2001), experts management in updating Strategy for regional development of Opole Region after EU Accession (2004-2005); labour market and migration policy - Unemployment. Threats and chances for local societies (e.g. project realised for Polish Government in Opole Silesia - 1993-1995), Opole Silesia. Economic development, situation on labour market and external and internal migration (e.g. participation in Project realised for EU Commission, 1995-1997) Prof. Heffner will also be joined by Prof. Andrzej Rosner, who is the Institutes Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs. Prof. Rosner is a member of the SAPARD Programme National Monitoring Committee for Poland, a member of the National Monitoring Committee Programme of
Page 42 of 58
Rural Areas Development and Editor-in-chief of The Problems of Rural and Agricultural Development library edition (Published by Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development Polish Academy of Science). 9. Spain - Universidad Autnoma de Madrid
Dr. Jess Gonzlez Regidor Lecturer in Agrarian Economy and Rural Development, Departamento de Estructura Econmica y Economa del Desarrollo, Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas, Universidad Autnoma de Madrid Executive adviser of the minister of Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacin and Delegate of Spain on Agriculture, Fishery and Food in OECD (1983-1991). Delegate of Spain on Agriculture, Fishery and Food in OECD, Pars, 1991- 1996.
Last studies and publications: - Territorial Agriculture and Rural Development: From agricultural support to territorial policies, in The Future of Rural Policy: From Sectoral to Place-Based Policies in Rural Areas, OECD Publications, Paris 2003. - Research: Space-Based Policies for Rural Development: the European Union LEADER initiative in Extremadura (Spain), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2003-2004. - Estudy: Multifunctionality and CAP: Territorial Proposal, European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union, 2004-2005. - El mtodo LEADER, un instrumento territorial para un desarrollo rural sostenible, en Desarrollo Rural de Base Territorial. Extremadura (Espaa), Jess G. Regidor (director), Junta de Extremadura y Ministerio de Agricultura, 2006.
Page 43 of 58
10.
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute
The Macaulay Institute (MI) has particular expertise in research supporting land use policy and rural development particularly in marginal and remote areas and is currently engaged in international projects in South America, Africa and Asia. The Macaulay Institute is collaborating with the Cairngorms National Park in developing its understanding of climate change, including carbon footprinting, and exploring mitigative and adaptive responses. The institute is involved in wider partnerships examining adaptive and mitigative actions in response to climate change in the wider rural economy, and is the nodal office for Global Land Project on Integration and Synthesis. The Macaulay Institute will contribute to the environmental, economic and social aspects of the project under the leadership of Professor Bill Slee. Prof. Slee is head of Socio-Economics Research (SERG). ). He has worked extensively in the field of rural economic adjustment and previously co-ordinated an EU project on mountain tourism and links with agriculture (Synergistic pluriactivity). He has worked on projects modeling forestrys interrelations with the wider rural economy and on a range of agri-environment projects. Research interests, recent grants, consultancies and studentships: Understanding forestry in rural development Diversification and integrated development of the rural economy Building sustainability into food supply chains (EU FP5) Economic integration of urban consumers demand and rural forestry production (COST E30) Public goods and private forestry (external contract + research studentship) Integrating Innovation and Development Policies for the Forest Sector(COST E51)
Recent Research and Consultancy Contracts: Consultant to Council of Europe 1997-8 on sustainable development in protected forest areas Team Leader of FC project on Understanding Forestry in Rural Development, 2002-3 Steering committee member of COST E30 action Economic integration of urban consumers demand and rural forestry production Co-ordinator of study on impact of forest development on three Scottish Communities 2003-5 for SE and FC.
Recent Publications: Slee, R W, (2005) From Countrysides of Production to Countrysides of Consumption? Journal of Agricultural Science (Centenary Review) 143, 1-11 Slee R W (2006) The scope for reconciling public good and private forestry in the UK, Small-Scale Forest Economics Management and Policy 5(1)1-19
Page 44 of 58
Slee B. (2006) The socio-economic evaluation of the impact of forestry on rural development: a regional level analysis, Forest Policy and Economics 8 542-544 Slee R W (2006) Social indicators of multifunctional rural land use: the case of forestry in the UK, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, Forthcoming. 11. Romania - University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Iasi
The University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Iasi is a specialized institution of superior agronomic and veterinary medicine education, financed by the state and having as fundamental mission the formation of agricultural, horticultural and animal husbandry engineers, economic engineers in agriculture and veterinary surgeons. Our university represents a serious partner, recognized by many European universities and institutions in this field. The Faculty of Agriculture was founded in 1912. It is the oldest and most prestigious Romanian tertiary agricultural institution and conferred the first Diploma of Agricultural Engineering. The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences of the University of Iasi, with its headquarters in Chisinau was established in 1933. The Agronomic Institute was formed in 1948, becoming the University of Agricultural Sciences and veterinary medicine in 1990. Between the years 1912 - 2004, there was a total throughput of 6556 students. The Faculty of Agriculture has established bilateral relations with other faculties of agriculture from Europe and actively participates to the Erasmus-Socrates projects, with 27 established student flow with the following countries: France, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, and Czech Republic The teaching staff as well as the students from the 3rd and 4th academic years are involved in research activities, within the grants financed by the Ministry of Education and Research, National Council of University Scientific Research, World Bank, state and private sponsors. The results of the research activities are examined and applied within the Didactic station which includes three farms, having a total arable surface of 509 ha. In these field research pilots the students carry on practical activities, having the opportunity to get accustomed to new technologies used in agriculture. The Romania Partner project team will be lead by Dr George Ungureanu, with support from Proferssor Gerard Jitareanu, Professor Neculai Munteanu (General Chancellor of UASVM), Dr Dan Donosa and Ms Simona Avarvarei. Areas of expertise include: Experimental design; Soil and water conservation, Farm management and agri-tourism; Modelling in economics; Advanced farm planning; Sustainable development, Rural Development Global change and ecosystems. Dr George Ungureanu previous project experience: - Grant no. 233/1999-2000 with CNFIS - the World Bank and the Romanian Government: Management of Rural Development and Economic Engineering in
Page 45 of 58
Agriculture, Macovei Gh., Ciurea I. V., Magazin P., Filip C., Cojoc Doina, Donosa D., Ungureanu G. (25000 USD). - Grant tip A cod CNCSIS 1201/2003, project title: Studies concerning the introduction of management computer assisted in private agricultural farms from mountains and premountains areas from Moldova in order to increase their efficiency.
Page 46 of 58
12.
New Zealand - Massey University Institute of Food, Nutrition & Human Health
Massey University has a 75-year history of excellence in agriculture, agribusiness, food technology and the nutritional sciences. It is recognised world wide for its research and scholarship in these disciplines. The Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health builds on this proud heritage through innovative research in broad scientific areas across agribusiness, food, nutrition, sports and human health. The Institute of Food, Nutrition & Human Health takes a multidisciplinary research approach, which is based around Agribusiness and Supply Chain Management, Rural development and cultural diversity, Food Science and Technology, Human Nutrition, Health Science and Food and Feed Evaluation Science The New Zealand Partner project team will be lead by Dr Elena Vassileva Garnevska (Lecturer in Agribusiness) with the support of Professor Allan Neville Rae (Director, Centre for Applied Economics and Policy Studies). Dr Garnevskas previous project experience includes: - Administrative-and-Financial Manager for two EU funded Tempus, Phare projects, 1994 1998 (Agricultural University Plovdiv, Bulgaria) - Research Assistant for EU funded Inco Copernicus project 19971999 on Consumer Expectation as an Agent of Change in the Agri-Food Industries of Central and Eastern Europe. - Researcher for EU funded scholarship within Action for Cooperation in the field of Economics ACE/Phare, 1998 2002 (Bournemouth University, UK) Publications: Grnevska E, Edwards J R. and Vaughan D R., 2007. Current situation and perspective of the horticultural farms in Bulgaria case in the Plovdiv region. Reviewed and approved to be presented at the 16 IFMA Congress A Vibrant Rural Economy The Challenge for Balance, Cork, Ireland, 15-10 July 2007. Garnevska E., Vaughan D R. and Edwards J R. 2007. Future development of the farms in Bulgaria case in the Plovdiv region. Reviewed and approved to be presented at the IAMA conference Food Culture: Tradition, Innovation and Trust - A Positive Force for Modern Agribusiness, Parma, Italy, 23-26 June 2007 (Poster Presentation). Garnevska E., A comparative study between cooperatives in Bulgaria and in New Zealand.In preparation. Garnevska E. and Shabold N. A comparative study between Bulgarian and New Zealand agriculture. In preparation. Professor Raes previous research experience includes: - OECD: Agriculture, Trade and the Environment The Dairy Sector. 2003-04. - FAO: Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative, 2006-07. - UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP): Capacity Building Workshop on Trade Research (jointly funded with WTO), 2007.
Page 47 of 58
ESCAP: Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network, 2006-07.Asian Development Bank: Shaping the Future: Prospects for Asias Long term Development over the Next Two D Decades, 2006. 2.3 Consortium as a whole
The consortium that have come together to submit this research proposal believe that they offer a highly qualified team where the strengths of each partner complements and supports that of other partners. All the research groups involved share a common interest in rural development although their particular expertise differs. A number of the partners have very considerable expertise in the economics of the primary sector both agriculture and forestry and they represent expertise in central and southern Europe, the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. Equally pluri-activity and the diversification of the rural economy into the service sector concerns a number of partners (Nos 1,6,9,10) These economic considerations are balanced by very considerable expertise in agri environment while issues of governance and the mainstreaming of LEADER are the focus of a number of partners. This spatial balance of the partners taken together with their complementarity of their expertise allows there to be a balanced input into the leadership and delivery of the proposed work packages. Consequently the coordinating Institution; Bournemouth University, will lead the work packages concerned with establishing the research project (WP1) and for the dissemination of the findings (WP6). The review of EU Policy (WP2) will be lead by Professor Bill Slee of the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute in conjunction with the Trakia University of Bulgaria and the Agricultural Research Institute of Estonia. The interrogation of national and regional authorities (WP3) will be led by Professor Jesus Regidor supported by the Finnish Forest Research Institute and the University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine of Iasi Romania. The case studies (WP4) which represent a substantive dimension of this research proposal will be led by Dr Ulrich Bodmer and his colleagues from the Technical University of Munich supported by the University of Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro in Portugal with additional input from Dr Sjur Baardsden of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The work package synthesizing and interpreting the research findings will be led by the Norwegian partner supported by the Prof. Krystian Heffner of the Institute of Rural and Agricultural Research in Poland and Professor Francisco Diniz of the University of Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro Portugal. 2.3.1 Sub-contracting: No subcontracting is envisaged for the delivery of this research project 2.3.2 Other countries: This research proposal anticipates the participation of two nonEU countries: Norway and New Zealand. These countries have been included in the consortium because they offer the opportunity to compare the operation of rural related policies which differ in ethos and philosophy from the interventionist model represented by the approved EU RDP 2007-2013. Staffing costs have been requested to support the participation of the Norwegian University of Life
Page 48 of 58
Sciences but not at this stage for Massey University in New Zealand for whom only Travel and Subsistence costs have been requested. 2.3.3 Additional partners: No additional partners are anticipated in connection with this proposal. Resources to be committed
2.4
The budget applied for requests support for the following areas of expenditure; staffing, travel and administration and dissemination; in addition a request to support relatively minor costs (circa 50,000) for a finite range of computing equipment has been made. In order to deliver a robust and reliable analysis of the RDP 2007-2013 representing the wide range of environmental and socio-economic conditions prevailing in the rural areas of Europe in excess of 340 person months of research time have been proposed averaging 11 months of researcher input per year for each partner over the three years of the proposed research programme. It is argued elsewhere that it will be necessary to phase the sequential steps of the research to coincide with the time required for the RDP to be adopted and operationalised in Member States. Thus in order for the case studies to have real value it is suggested that these should be conducted in the period Spring 2009 Spring 2010. This timing essentially determines the overall length of the research programme. The researchers to be employed will be suitably qualified and this requirement has been accepted in the calculation of staff costs which amount in total to 46% of the budget requested. Another major cost heading relates to travel and subsistence costs. These fall under two headings; international travel and domestic travel. International travel will essentially relate to attendance by researchers engaged in the project at meetings of the Steering Committee and at the project workshops. With regard to international travel a request has been made for support for travel to facilitate the engagement of Massey University, the proposed New Zealand partner in the project. The majority of the anticipated travel and subsistence costs relate to domestic incountry travel associated with: carrying out work packages 3 and 4, the interrogation of national and regional authorities and conducting in depth and detailed case studies. hosting international workshops to present and discuss the findings of WP 2, a review of EU rural policy and WP 5 the interpretation of the findings of the research project. hosting in country workshops to discuss the findings of WP3 and WP4 as well as the interrogation of national and regional authorities and the case studies.
Page 49 of 58
The anticipated travel costs represent approximately 40% of the budget requested. The third area of expenditure relates to administration which amount to approximately 200,000 or 5% of the total costs. The final area of expenditure relates to the proposed dissemination activities which include the costs producing reports and particularly the costs associated with building, maintaining and constantly refreshing the project web site, which amounts to approximately 270,000 or 9% of the requested budget.
Page 50 of 58
3
3.1
Impact
Expected impacts listed in the work programme.
The associated strategic guidelines of the RDP 2007-2013 clearly state that the rural development priorities of the Commission are: competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors, knowledge transfer and innovation, biodiversity and the preservation of high value farming and forestry systems, water and climate change, the creation of employment opportunities in the fields of diversification, quality of life, improving governance and mobilizing the endogenous development potential of rural areas.
This research proposal is unambiguously focused on determining the process whereby the Rural Development Policy is transmitted to the rural stakeholder, farmers, foresters and other rural entrepreneurs who the policy anticipates will translate the policy into actions that result in the desired outputs indicated above. Impacts that are expected as a result of this research are as follows: 3.1.1 Knowledge This research will, we would argue, make a positive contribution to a European Knowledge Based Bio-Economy with particular regard to addressing the economic, social and environmental challenges that face rural areas and which are expressed as the Commissions priorities for its rural development policy see above. An increasing body of knowledge concerning the bio-economy is clearly vital for the development of the rural areas of the Union which are the location of much of the primary production and increasingly some of the added value operations. The opportunity to bring together a diverse but complementary group of researchers from founder and new accession countries considerably strengthens both the investigative approach adopted in this research and the reflective, but necessary, application of the results of this research to Europe wide debates concerning approaches to primary production and the range of outputs demanded by an increasingly aware European consumer. The knowledge and results arising from this research will also inform the proposed European Network for Rural Development as the challenge of ensuring effective, efficient non-distorting mechanisms of information flow will be as relevant to this network as it is to the Commission in its dissemination of rural, or indeed any other policy, agreed by member states.
Page 51 of 58
3.1.2 Competitiveness. While the production of safe, healthy high quality food, clearly a fundamental role of rural areas, may be viewed in terms of competitiveness within the market economy there are other roles that rural areas are required to fulfil, often referred to as the delivery of public goods which are less susceptible to market analysis but which are as fundamental to the goals of sustainability as are the metrics of food production and forestry. Therefore one aspect of the outputs of this research, arising particularly from the series of case studies, both in EU and non EU countries, will contribute to our appreciation of those factors, internal and external, which impact upon the competitiveness of European farmers and foresters. The challenge to producers to become more competitive is one that has to be confronted with the demand for the wide range of public good benefits that are also sought by European Society. Again the results of the case studies of selected farming and forestry operations will inform this debate. 3.1.3 Sustainability The drive to achieve sustainability characterizes the majority of the policies of the European Commission and of the Member States. This is reflected in the 4 axes of the RDP which respectively address economic, environmental, social and governance themes. In reviewing the transmission of the measures of the RDP the results of this research will offer robust yet transparent insights into the effectiveness and efficiency of the RDP and its measures in promoting sustainable approaches to the management of rural areas. As has been discussed earlier the use of indicators has become an integral aspect of policy evaluation not least in regard to measures of sustainability. This research does not seek to assess in detail the value of the indicators selected by the Commission for proposed evaluative exercises. However, as a result of the proposed interrogation of the cascade of information down to the rural stakeholder, the perception and understanding of these indicators may well emerge. 3.1.4 Consensus and dialogue Arriving at an agreed analysis of policies, measures and actions is always challenging. However, it is contended that the management of the diversity of interests and experience represented in the proposed research team is such that the interpretation of the results and the assessment it offers of the RDP will represent a valid consensus of opinion. The validity of this consensus will be further underpinned by the deliberate incorporation into the research methodology of specific opportunities to facilitate dialogue with a range of rural actors and other relevant stakeholders. 3.1.5 A common evidence base on policy Arising from such a consensus is the confidence that the results and conclusions from this research study will contribute to a common evidence base in relation to the RDP 20072013 helping to ensure its better control and implementation. The results of the research
Page 52 of 58
will also guide its integration with other polices of the Commission not least the operation of the revised structural funds. 3.1.6 Future Policies for Agriculture and Rural Development. A further and potentially equally important impact of this research will be upon the evolution of future agricultural and rural policy. From the first serious attempt to reform the Structural funds 20 years ago agricultural and rural policy have constantly evolved, a process made more challenging by the enlargement process. A wide range of individuals, agencies and organizations are already considering the direction and balance of the two pillars of the CAP post 2013 as is for example witnessed by the recently published (January 2007) Scenar 2020 study which aimed to identify the future trends and driving forces that will be the framework of the European agricultural and rural economy on the horizon of 2020 It is the context of studies such as this, and the others underway and the ones that will inevitably follow, that the inclusion of 2 non EU countries in this study is so pertinent. The two countries chosen represent on the one hand a rather more interventionist approach in that in Norway the well being of rural areas has long been central aspect of a wide variety of government policies while in New Zealand a decision 20-25 years ago to largely withdraw support from agriculture represents a very different approach. Consequently the opportunity to continue the already documented comparison (see for example the EUCN Europa lecture series) of policy related processes in relation to the achievement of the goals sought by the Commissions rural policy will make a valid contribution to the debate about the future direction of the Rural and Agricultural Policy of the countries of the European Union. 3.1.7 Priorities for Research As with all research projects the outputs of this proposed research will inform future research agendas assisting those whose task it is to prioritise at a time of potentially decreasing funding support.
3.2
Dissemination and the management of knowledge and intellectual property rights.
The consortium agreement to be agreed and signed at the outset of the project will define plans for the management of knowledge and for the ownership of intellectual property. It is essential that the intellectual property rights of all partners are recognised it is also desirable that information arising from the project is adequately shared among the project partners and that the commitment of partners to place the information in the public domain is facilitated. This will be achieved through appropriate publications and by open dissemination via a project website to be hosted by Bournemouth University as the coordinating institution. While overall responsibility for dissemination of the findings of
Page 53 of 58
the research will be the responsibility of the co-ordinating institution the individual institutions will be responsible for their own in country dissemination. In summary, given that dissemination activities are an integral aspect of the project the results will be disseminated in the following ways: 1. Interim and final reports will be presented to the Commission both to DG Research and to the appropriate officers in DG Agriculture with a view to making the interim report(s) available at the time of the mid term evaluation. Scientific publications published in international refereed journals to disseminate the results to the national and international scientific community both during and after the project. The development of a web site at the outset of the research on which details of the progress of the research will be regularly updated with appropriate detail provided of interim reports and findings. Presentations at appropriate conferences, both those with an academic audience and others arranged for policy makers, farmers, foresters and other rural enterprises. Articles in appropriate national and regional media in the participating countries. Another dimension of the operation of the project is the intention to create an Advisory Group to interact with the Steering Committee in relation to the management and direction of the research. It is anticipated that the composition of the advisory group will be flexible and will comprise those invited to act for the duration of the research and others who are invited to participate at selected times. For example the chairman of a long standing, highly respected and extensively networked Portuguese LEADER group (ADRIL) has agreed to be a permanent member of the advisory group while equally importantly a range of rural entrepreneurs will be invited to engage in the process of selecting appropriate case studies in each participating country. It is also proposed to engage in public dialogue with the rural community and those who seek to support and advise them by means of a series of workshops which will present for discussion and comment the findings of the those work packages; 2, 3, 4 and 5 which gather and review the data relevant to the research themes of this proposal.
. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Page 54 of 58
4.
Ethical Issues
Due to the nature of the research proposed the only ethical issue of any concern potentially relates to the question of informed consent. This may apply to the components of those work packages were individuals are invited to comment upon the findings of the research and more particularly in regard to the proposed case studies. YES Informed Consent Does the proposal involve children? Does the proposal involve patients or persons not able to give consent? Does the proposal involve adult healthy volunteers? Does the proposal involve Human Genetic Material? Does the proposal involve Human biological samples? Does the proposal involve Human data collection? Research on Human embryo/foetus Does the proposal involve Human Embryos? Does the proposal involve Human Foetal Tissue / Cells? Does the proposal involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells? Privacy Does the proposal involve processing of genetic information or personal data (eg. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction) Does the proposal involve tracking the location or observation of people? Research on Animals Does the proposal involve research on animals? Are those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? Are those animals transgenic farm animals? Are those animals cloning farm animals? Are those animals non-human primates? Research Involving Developing Countries Use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant etc) Benefit to local community (capacity building ie access to healthcare, education etc) Dual Use Research having potential military / terrorist application I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL No No No No No No No No No No PAGE n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
No
n/a
No No No No No No No
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
No
n/a
Page 55 of 58
5.
Consideration of gender aspects
In terms of the gender issues the female to male ratio between the main investigators in the project is about 1:3. Within the FARM consortium, women are actively involved in all levels of management and Partnership: 45% female and 55% male. This proportion is equal to and potentially in excess, of the general aim of the EC is to achieve 40% participation in research by women by 2005. Nevertheless, the FARM figures compare favourably with the current proportion of women in senior scientific positions at European Universities, from 5% in the Netherlands to 18% in Finland. As indicated in the description of the project participants (2.2), about 30 % of the experienced researchers and a number of the researchers in the early stages of their careers are female, and they will continuously be encouraged not only to participate in this research but also to actively influence science and science-related issues.
Page 56 of 58
6.
Indicative Bibliography
Bryden J M Rural Development Situation and Challenges in EU-25 Keynote Speech Salzburg Conference September 2003. DEFRA (includes Contribution by Prof Bill Slee) 2005 An evidence base for mainstreaming LEADER in England. DEFRA (2005) A vision for the CAP http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/pdf/vision-for-cap.pdf Edwards T. Rural Policy in Finland Norway and England ( A SPICe briefing to the Scottish Parliament). EUCN- Europa Lecture Series http://www.eucnetwork.org.nz/activities/europa/ EU (1999) 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for implementing powers conferred on the Commission. EU (2001) A Framework for Indicators for the Economic and Social Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. EU (2002) COM(2002) 276 Final Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment. EU (2004) New Agricultural Policy Explained http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/capexplained/cap_en.pdf EU (2005). Council regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. on Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. EU (2005) Commission staff working document Annex to the Proposal for a Council Decision on Community strategic guidelines for Rural development Update to Impact Assessment Report (SEC(2004) 931. EU (2005) Synthesis of Rural Development Mid-Term Evaluations Final report November 2005 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/rdmidterm/index_en.htm EU (2006) Fact Sheet The Rural Development Policy 2007-2013 ISBN 92-79-03690-4 EU (2006) 2006/144/EC Council Decision on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007-2013). EU (2006) Rural development 2007-2013 Handbook on Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. Guidance Document. September 2006.
Page 57 of 58
EU (2007) Scenar 2020 Scenario study on agriculture and the rural world
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/scenar2020/index_en.htm
EU (2007) Summary of ex-ante evaluations of rural development programmes during 2007-2013.

http://ted.europa.eu/Exec?DataFlow=ShowPage.dfl&Template=TED/N_one_result_detail_curr.htm&docnu mber=34347-2007&docId=34347-2007&StatLang=EN)
IEA Reforming EU Farm Policy: Lessons from New Zealand http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?ID=18&type=book Johnson R W M. New Zealands Agricultural Reforms and their International Implications http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book18pdf?.pdf Ray C (2003) Governance and the neo-endogenous approach to rural development. ESRC Seminar: Rural Social Exclusion and Governance London February. Scenar (2007) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/scenar2020/index_en.htm Tangerman S (2003) OECD How can Policy Contribute to Enhancing Competitiveness of Agriculture. Salzburg Conference 12-14 September. Watkins D (2007) Creating an entrepreneurship research agenda for the next phase of the EU Framework Programme: the DG research Probioprise project. 5th Rural Entrepreneurship Conference, Lincoln, UK, February 2007.
Page 58 of 58

FARM - Formative Assesment For Rural Measures

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FARM - Formative Assesment For Rural Measures

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.2

Consideration of gender aspects Indicative Bibliography

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Figure 1: Core Policy Axes

Land Management and Environment

Quality of Life, Diversification

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Table 1: Process, Content, Output and Outcomes Summary

Progress Beyond the State of the Art

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Agricultural Fund (SEC(2005)914)

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

S/T Methodology and Associated Work Plan

Figure 2: Components of the work programme

Setting the Baseline The EU Rural Development Policy Context

Interpreting the Results

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

The timings of the work program components Implementation timings

The components of the work programme

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Figure 3: Gantt Chart of Work Program Meetings and Work Packages

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Work Package 2 - The European Context

Work Package 3 - The National and Regional Context

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Work Package 4 - The Case Studies

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology

FP7-KBBE-2007-1-4-11 Proposal Acronym: FARM

Work Package 5 - The Interpretation and Evaluation

Work package 6 - The Dissemination