Politiche rurali e disparità territoriali in Italia: una valutazione di impatto sulle aree interne.

This work focuses on the role that rural policies had in targeting territorial disparities between rural areas and non-rural areas. In particular, we emphasize the so-called inner areas, recently assumed as objectives of policy in Italy. This work presents a new integrated national policy implemented in Italy in the 2014-2020 programming period. This policy, applicable to every region and macro-area of Italy, is named National Strategy for Inner Areas (NSIA) and aims to contribute to the country’s economic and social recovery, creating jobs, fostering social inclusion and reversing the demographic decline of Inner Areas, both in terms of resident numbers and in terms of age and birth group. This Strategy is implemented by capitalising on countrywide experiences of local development of the past years and supported by the EU programme, along with the dedicated funding provided for under the Stability Law (national funds). This work is presented in five main chapters: - Chapter 1 describes the evolution of rural policies in Europe and the diverse phases of this evolution; - Chapter 2 presents some relevant cases of innovative interplay between rural policies, local governance and market forces; - Chapter 3 illustrates how NSIA has been facing main challenges of rural areas, what are the main novelties of this policy within the EU context and potentials and obstacles which emerged throughout the implementation process; - Chapter 4 provide insights on the employment impacts of CAP measures in Italian agriculture over the period 2007-14, and explores the diversity of these impacts in four types of area, including Inner areas; - Chapter 5 presents main conclusions of the work. The national policy in favour of rural areas (national strategy for inner areas) Italy’s Inner Areas are those rural areas characterised by significant distance from the main essential service centres (education, health and mobility)1. Inner Areas make up 53 % of the Italian municipalities (4.261) and are home to 23 % of the Italian population, 1 according to the latest census, equal to more than 13.540.000 inhabitants resident in over 60 % of the national territory. There are strong differences even within Inner Areas, especially when we focus on the peripheral and ultra-peripheral areas, which are considered as priority focus area for policy interventions. The demographic and agricultural profile of Inner Areas is notably different form the average profile emerging at the national level. Demographic decline and ageing of population is more relevant in Inner Areas than in the rest of Italian territory, although is counterbalanced by a stronger contribution of new population by immigrants (which doubled in the last decade across all regions). Farming abandonment and waste land have been more frequent in Inner Areas than elsewhere, as effect of lower farm land productivity in these areas. Economic productivity and quality of services are strongly affected in these areas by high digital divide. The national strategy is based on four main innovations, which make this policy a further step in promoting and developing more effective and participatory processes in rural areas. The first policy innovation is in the mix of interventions to enhance the provision of essential services (primary and secondary school and vocational training, local mobility and transports, health care and medical services) and – at the same time- in promoting local development initiatives. These initiatives are based on local resources and in particular in five key potentials: a) land management and forests; b) local food products; c) renewable energy; d) natural and cultural heritage; d) traditional handicraft and SMEs. Inner Areas are assumed as a national priority, but the strategy conceived and implemented within a multi-level framework, involving national, regional and local tiers. Local communities are essential in this process: they can interpret the variety and complexity of the local society and territorial capital and turn them into projects, by stimulating innovators that already exist in some Inner Areas. Removing the obstacles to access to essential services and to local development, however, can only arise from an effective integration between national and local action. Third innovation is the multi-fund approach: the local development interventions in the selected project areas will be financed by all the available European Structural and Investment funds (ERDF, ESF, EAFRD, EMFF), through the regional programmes, and by the National Stability Fund. The participation of European Funds is mandatory for the approval of the local strategy. The last innovation is local participation: the local strategy is elaborated by a group of mayors and is based on the pre-requisite of the cooperation between the municipalities involved in the project area. They have to work together in managing services for the community life, and also in designing and managing the strategy. Agricultural and rural development initiatives are always relevant components of the local strategies, due to the predominant rural characteristics of project areas. Rural Development Plans (RDPs) can contribute to Inner Areas Strategy in three ways: a) the Leader approach; b) the single measures; c) a mix of Leader approach and single measures. The choice of the method and financial resources allocated to Inner Areas are set in regional RDPs. Given the low adoption of the CLLD method (multi-fund), the Leader approach is generally funded only by EAFRD. Pre-existing capacity building in Local Action Groups (LAGs) was a key element in designing good quality strategies in Inner areas. Many local experts involved in the process of strategy design come from the Leader experience in the field of local development. Moreover, more targeted and non-blind approach, typical of the Leader, is very helpful to build up pilot projects in Inner areas. Broader and more innovative impact on the territories can derive from the integration between Inner areas strategies and Leader local plans. There is also a more efficient division of work: Inner Areas partnerships are oriented to promote effective interventions on access to services, while LAGs are well-experienced in local development initiatives. The number of pilot areas selected until April 2017 is 71 (1.066 municipalities, 2,1 million inhabitants, 3,5% of the national population, 16,7% of the national territory). In these areas the population decline was -4,2% in the period 2001-2011, and -2,3% in 2011-2016, while national population increased in the same period (2,1%). Selected areas are on average quite small: about 29.000 inhabitants. The territorial impact of the CAP on inner areas The Lisbon Treaty states that all policies should contribute to territorial and social cohesion, and strengthens the need to include territorial diversity when looking at how the CAP has affected territorial cohesion. This work explores the diversity of agricultural employment impacts of CAP measures in different territorial settings in Italy for the period 2007-2014. Patterns and trends in agricultural employment differ greatly according to the type of socio-economic system. To identify these differences, we use the territorial typology which includes four types of areas, with population shares in parentheses: 1. Urban Poles, identified by the metropolitan areas and principal cities in each region (40%); 2. Areas with Broad Economic Development (‘Belt Areas’), including the most industrialised and intensive agriculture and agri-food sectors (37%); 3. Intermediate Areas, characterised by more extensive and diversified agriculture, and medium-low access to public services (15%); 4. Peripheral (and Ultra-Peripheral) Areas, characterised by problematic access to services, due partly to low economic development and partly to shrinking public resources (8%). In contrast to area shares in terms of Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) and gross Agricultural product (GAP), about 60 per cent of total CAP First and Second Pillar payments in 2010 went to Belt and Intermediate areas, while 23 per cent went to Peripheral Areas, where the share of total CAP expenditures represents more than one third of the value of agricultural production. The CAP’s impact on agricultural employment was evaluated through an econometric model which tries to explain farm labour use as dependent on variables for structure and context (UAA, land productivity, per capita income and immigration) and for CAP expenditures (SFPs, decoupled payments, LFA payments, etc.), with data at the Local Administrative Unit (LAU2) level (the municipality) for the period 2007-2013. The results suggest that structural developments contributed to changes in farm employment more than policy measures. Immigration appeared to provide opportunities for using less expensive labour and/or replacing family labour that could be allocated to more profitable non-farm employment in the local area or elsewhere. Better-paid off-farm jobs also reduced the labour force available for farming. Focusing on policy measures, the most remarkable result was that First Pillar measures (SFPs and payments coupled to farm production) appeared to affect farm employment negatively, perhaps due to the introduction of activities requiring lower labour input, or to risk-averse behaviour by farmers who benefit from SFPs, thus tending to limit farm development. The Second Pillar measures of the Rural Development Plan (RDP) all showed positive effects. These RDP effects differ according to the type of measure: farm and agro-industrial investment support generates higher employment effects than AEM, LFA or rural diversification measures. The employment effects decrease from Belt Areas to Peripheral Areas, except for rural diversification investment support, where the highest employment effects are in Peripheral Areas. The diversity of the policy impact at territorial level can be explained by three main factors: a) in several RDP programmes, approval of funding is conditional on proof of achieving an employment target (e.g. farm/agroindustrial and diversification support); b) the intensity of public expenditure per hectare is usually higher in Belt areas than elsewhere; c) the productivity of public and private investment in the different areas, depending on the natural, infrastructural and human capital resources, can be crucial in increasing labour opportunities for younger family members. The second and third factors may explain the highest employment effects of farm and agro-industrial investment in the most developed areas, while the second factor explains why employment effects of rural diversification are higher in Peripheral Areas than elsewhere. 1 Essential service centres are those municipalities able to provide simultaneously: schools with a full range of secondary education, at least one grade 1 emergency care hospitals and at least one Silver category railway station (medium/small systems with an average degree of uptake for metropolitan/regional services and short-distance journeys).