under Rural Development Draft of Final Presentation 10 November - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Evaluation of the forestry measures under Rural Development Draft of Final Presentation 10 November 2017 -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

Scope and objectives of the evaluation • Evaluation study focusing on the Causal EU Added Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence Relevance Analysis Value forestry measures as set out in articles 21 – 26 and 34 of Land use and Relevance to Coherence with EFA (EQ2) Reg. (EU) No Administrative needs of the CAP measures Creation of EU burden (ESQ7) sector and Production (EQ10) 1305/2013 added value priorities set by (ESQ3) (EQ15) the EU, MS and • Considering also RD Regions (EQ13) Revenue Drivers at Coherence with (ESQ4) Managing horizontal measures Efficiency other EU Authorities and (ESQ13) policy/strategies Competitiveness deployed in the beneficiaries (EQ11) of the sector level (ESQ1) (EQ5) forest sector Relevance of Additionality of intervention to Environment, EU support c.f • Proportionality current and 16 evaluation climate and Coherence with MS acting alone future needs between (EQ16) balanced other ESIF Funds (EQ14) costs/burden and questions (EQ) (EQ12) territorial benefits (EQ9) dev.(EQ6) -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

Methods and data • 14 Case Studies • Implementation data from the SFC databases (outputs of 2007-13 and targets for 2014-20) • Statistical data from FADN, forestry databases and LULUCF reports • Literature reviews on the potential effects of forest measures on the environment (water, soil, biodiversity, forest health), CC adaptation and mitigation, and territorial development • Survey of all Managing Authorities on the implementation choices, administrative burden and EU added value NB: Significant limitations with data availability: only 2 years of implementation -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

The forest measures: facts and figures Forest- Percentage of the budget of RDPs allocated to M8 & 15, in the 2014-20 RDPs environmental and Investments in 30% climate services Main Horizontal forestry (Art. 21) and forest measures 25% conservation (Art. 34) 20% 1. Knowledge transfer 15% 8.1 Afforestation 15.1. Payment 2. Advisory services for forest- 10% environmental 4. Investments in 8.2 Agroforestry and climate physical assets 5% commitments 7. Basic services 8.3 Prevention 0% ES - Madrid UK - Scotland PT - Madeira ES - Asturias ES - Andalucía ES - País Vasco ES - Valenciana IT - Liguria IT - Toscana IT - Basilicata PT - Continental Portugal ES - Extremadura FR - Aquitaine IT - Campania IT - Umbria ES - Canarias ES - Cantabria IT - Sicilia IT - Calabria IT - Lombardia ES - Navarra IT - Friuli-Venezia Giulia ES - Murcia IT - Marche SK IT - Puglia UK - Wales HU LT ES - National UK - England IT - Bolzano FR - Île-de-France DE - Berlin / Brandenburg IT - Molise GR SI PT - Azores ES - Castilla-La Mancha ES - Galicia ES - La Rioja ES - Aragón ES - Castilla y León ES - Cataluña 9. Producer groups 8.4 Restoration 10. Agri- 15.2. Support environmental and for the 8.5 Non- climate measures conservation productive 12. Natura 2000 and and promotion investments Water Framework of forest genetic Directive payments Measure 8 Measure 15 8.6 Productive resources 16. Co-operation investment Source: SFC database -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

Drivers of implementation choices (EQ1) The key drivers are: Reasons the Managing Authorities decided not to programme the • forest sub-measures in the 2014-2020 RDPs Successful implementation of similar measures in previous periods + continuing well-established Other issues/sectors were more important to support 9 17 10 8 7 11 19 26 address in the RDP  reflecting: The measure does not address local needs 8 20 4 4 3 6 15 28 ‒ need for long term intervention in forestry ‒ some policy inertia and reluctance to try new Other factors 3 5 5 3 4 4 5 8 measures • The equivalent measure on the previous Financial considerations, in the context of a 6 3 2 3 3 1 9 9 period constituted too much administrative… limited RDP budget A more relevant strategy was chosen to  forest measures sometimes considered less 3 5 4 6 3 3 4 8 answer the local needs via State Aids important than agriculture and RD measures Not enough beneficiairies applied to the 6 4 0 1 1 3 6 10 • equivalent measure on the period 2007 ‐ 2013 Administrative burden related to the A more relevant strategy was chosen to implementation, both at MA and at beneficiaries’ 4 0 4 3 4 0 7 4 answer the local needs via other RDP measure level 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 • For beneficiaries, the availability of technical 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 15.1 15.2 advice and other ‘soft’ support Source: Survey of Managing Authorities, Sept. 2017 -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

Approach towards evaluating the effectiveness of the forest measures (EQs2-6) • Importance of long term thinking when assessing effects of forest policies (40 to 70 years) • The analysis of the current programming period was limited by the short implementation period and implementation delays • The effects of most FM could be investigated on the basis of outputs of equivalent FM in the 2007- 13 RDPs) for 2007-2017 = 10 years • Each sub-measure has different effects, and in combination can create synergies towards sustainable forest management and the enhancement of the multifunctionality of forests -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

Effects of M8.1 (EQ2-6) • M8.1 planned in ½ RDPs for 2014-20, representing Area afforested 31% of planned public expenditure on the FM. Area to be with Total Comparison of the Volume of wood Often only supports projects committed in 2007-13 afforested M221 & increment 2007-2013 expected to be • Afforested areas: with M8.1 M223 in forest outputs with the produced on the (target ‒ mostly broadleaves , ¼ coniferous, ¼ mixed, 2% fast support area 2007- increment in the areas afforested 2014- growing species 2013 (ha) forest with M8.1 (m3/an) (output 2020) (ha) ‒ mostly on marginal agricultural areas 2007- ‒ afforestation of farmland around 1 ha on average, but 2013) (ha) 10% are >20ha (patrimonial purpose) EU- > 2,3 Mm 3 287 490 565 277 924 270 31.1 % 28 ‒ Mostly in ES, UK, PL, HU and LT • Key measure on land use change: concerned 1/3 of Source: SFC database the forest area increase during 2007-13 and same or higher outputs expected for the 2014-20 period • • Support at market prices, playing its role of Expected long term effects on production compensating agricultural income foregone and • Positive effect on climate and the environment , but additional costs of maintenance (little change in the highly dependant on choice of site, species, beneficiaries’ farm revenue before and after afforestation) management and longevity of the new woodland -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

Effects of M8.2 (EQ2-6) • M8.2 programmed on a limited scale: <1/4 of 2014- 20 RDPs, 2% of planned public expenditure on the FM Area of Area of Total Target 14-20 • Little effect on land use or creation of additional agroforestry agroforestry agroforestry / Total Ecological Focus Areas, due to the limited area established to be (2012) agroforestry • with M222 established Criticised for not supporting the restoration or support with M8.2 maintenance of existing agroforestry systems (e.g. (output support dehesas, montados, etc.) 2007-2013) (target 2014- (ha) 2020) (ha) • Appears to be an important tool for the 15 421 000 implementation of new management practices, EU 28 2 900 71 906 (excluding 0.47% providing economic opportunities in marginal areas Croatia) and delivering significant ecosystems services (EQ6) Source: SFC database • Expected to have a growing importance, i.e. in the adaptation of farming systems to climate change. -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping

Effects of M8.3 & 8.4 (EQ2-6) • Programmed in two thirds of RDPs, Share of budget allocated to M8.3 and 8.4 in the 2014-20 RDPs representing 31% of planned public expenditure on FM • Enabled large scale implementation of surveillance systems and restoration campaigns (557 000 ha restored in 2007-13). • Ensured continuity of forest ecosystem services, and the maintenance of the production capacity , with effects on the competitiveness of the sector • Fostered the use of specific species (e.g. in UK-Scot), improved seedlings (i.e. FR-Aq.) with an effect on the production and on the potential of C sequestration . Source: SFC databases, targets 2014-2020 (extracted in January 2017) -Alliance Environnement- European Economic Interest Grouping