The Covid-19 emergency could offer an opportunity to rethink the framework and timing of programming<\/p>\n
of European Funds in agriculture.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Premise<\/p>\n
We are experiencing a time of great difficulty, primarily health-related, but also social, economic and<\/p>\n
cultural.<\/p>\n
In this first month of the crisis we had to deal directly with the health emergency and the<\/p>\n
contribution we could make as a society was to “stay at home” to help avoid a<\/p>\n
spread of the virus.<\/p>\n
But our work, which is largely linked to the programming of the Structural Funds in Italy, has us<\/p>\n
led to reflect on what the impacts of this pandemic associated with Covid-19 could be on<\/p>\n
territories in which we are present and have operated alongside the Public Administrations for over 20 years.<\/p>\n
Now these reflections push us to translate the discussions that have been going on for some time into an operational proposal<\/p>\n
before this emergency, accompany the projects and evaluations we carry out, with reference to<\/p>\n
particular to the agricultural sector, central to community policies due to its intrinsic weaknesses and<\/p>\n
its strategic and economic importance.<\/p>\n
For some time, in fact, together with public administrations, we have been studying and evaluating interventions aimed at<\/p>\n
sector, particularly in disadvantaged areas, seeking solutions and new ways of action in order to<\/p>\n
preserve agricultural activity as it produces primary goods and is necessary for protecting the territory.<\/p>\n
The Covid emergency arrives in the start-up phase of the new seven-year programming period 2021\/2027. To boot<\/p>\n
new aid tools in a situation of crisis and uncertainty like the current one may not be there<\/p>\n
optimal solution, while it is certainly simpler to intervene by appropriately modifying the<\/p>\n
devices on which there is already experience, competence and, therefore, greater speed of action.<\/p>\n
The idea of maintaining the current tools for a certain period in order to ensure continuity<\/p>\n
in the disbursement of premiums and offer the possibility to agricultural companies to make investments in time<\/p>\n
quickly and with known tools, could help alleviate economic and financial difficulties<\/p>\n
that companies are and will be facing, but above all it could constitute the prerequisite<\/p>\n
to rethink the perspective of “seven-year” programming in agriculture and make it more stable over time.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The proposal<\/p>\n
IZI has been involved in the planning, management and evaluation of programs for over 25 years<\/p>\n
communities that support agriculture, a sector that, in this period, is complicated to say the least<\/p>\n
our economic and social life, is on the front line to guarantee all of us what we need<\/p>\n
food supply and which, at the same time, has to face market uncertainties<\/p>\n
determined by the sudden change in eating habits: from the closure of the Horeca sector, to which<\/p>\n
a sharp contraction in sales of some especially high-quality products corresponds to the decision<\/p>\n
of many supermarkets in Northern Italy to no longer offer over-the-counter products in compliance with distancing requirements<\/p>\n
social, with the shift of sales towards portioned and packaged products for which companies<\/p>\n
smaller sizes are not always equipped; from the slowdown in exports which concern in<\/p>\n
especially Italian agri-food excellence, to the increase in demand for some products (e.g.<\/p>\n
apples) and services (e.g. home deliveries) for which companies must equip themselves and prepare.<\/p>\n
Added to all this is the uncertainty about when this emergency will end and what effects it will have on people<\/p>\n
our habits, with the consequent difficulties in planning the restart, difficulties accentuated by the fact<\/p>\n
that agriculture, by its nature, has relatively long reaction times because a salad (or wheat<\/p>\n
for flour or an apricot\u2026..) cannot be assembled, but must be sown, transplanted, cultivated and<\/p>\n
gather.<\/p>\n
The need to reorient production and work organization can only result in the urgency of<\/p>\n
make investments, which are only possible in the presence of suitable instruments and income guarantees. To this<\/p>\n
In this regard, the EU initiative which, through the European Bank for<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Investments (EIB) has made \u20ac8,000 million available to support SMEs, including agricultural ones 1 .<\/p>\n
However, Italian agriculture is reluctant and unaccustomed to using financial instruments<\/p>\n
as in most cases the companies are family-run with methods of operating that are not<\/p>\n
they follow those of large companies.<\/p>\n
For this reason it would be appropriate today to extend the current programs co-financed by the EC through<\/p>\n
ESIF 2 in order to accelerate the making available of public contributions through existing instruments<\/p>\n
tested and fully active and, in the case of agriculture, seize the opportunity chance to rethink the logic of one<\/p>\n
currently seven-year programming for interventions that in fact continue almost unchanged over time<\/p>\n
between one period and another.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Covid-19 arrives in Europe in the very year in which the seven-year 2014\/2020 programming period ends.<\/p>\n
Overcoming the taboo of seven-year planning and continuing to use consolidated tools (i.e<\/p>\n
the current Rural Development Programmes) would allow administrations to concentrate their own<\/p>\n
activities on implementation, for beneficiaries to operate on known terrain, for policy makers to use<\/p>\n
forms of governance that allow the control of the funds disbursed, continuing in the current way<\/p>\n
consolidated and possibly, if necessary, increase the co-financing quota for some types of<\/p>\n
projects or categories of beneficiaries.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This possibility seems to be even more important in the agricultural sector where one cannot limit oneself to<\/p>\n
look only at investments, as operating contributions (premiums, aid, allowances)<\/p>\n
represent a fundamental share of farmers’ income, reaching an average of 13%.<\/p>\n
PLV of companies and 32% of their net income (see FADN 2018), an incidence which is particularly<\/p>\n
relevant in some sectors.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The importance of the contributions is such that it becomes essential for farmers to have access to one<\/p>\n
reasonable certainty about the amounts that will be disbursed and the timing of disbursement. Contributions arise<\/p>\n
mainly from the first pillar of the CAP, but, for companies in less favored areas, they are a lot<\/p>\n
those disbursed through the second pillar (PSR) are also significant.<\/p>\n
A picture is provided by an analysis carried out for the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano in the area<\/p>\n
of the evaluation of the respective PSRs. The Agricultural Accounting Network \u2013 RICA makes the data available<\/p>\n
disaggregated for both territories. These areas can be considered, with good approximation,<\/p>\n
as representative of the disadvantaged areas present throughout the national territory. The analyzes have<\/p>\n
highlighted as in these territories, for dairy cattle companies, typically present in the most areas<\/p>\n
difficult and impervious, the impact of public aid on the PLV reaches 23% for Trento and 21% for Bolzano<\/p>\n
and that on Net Income reaches 44% and 55% respectively. In both cases the contributions obtained<\/p>\n
through the PSR are higher than those obtained through the first pillar. This data shows so<\/p>\n
objectively what importance the contributions of agricultural policy have for agricultural companies and how, a<\/p>\n
their slowdown, or worse, temporary interruption, as has sometimes happened in the past in the transition from<\/p>\n
one program to another could compromise its survival.<\/p>\n
The extension of the measures and instruments in force, with their refinancing, would offer companies<\/p>\n
agricultural workers those economic guarantees indispensable for the continuation of their activity would be significantly reduced<\/p>\n
the risks of abandonment of marginal areas would be significant and would allow easier access (e.g<\/p>\n
administratively less onerous) to contributions for investments, without forgetting that all of this<\/p>\n
It would help ensure a constant supply of products in this time of uncertainty<\/p>\n
agricultural products for large-scale distribution and\/or for the agro-industry and, ultimately, for the entire community.<\/p>\n
Starting a new programming period in a situation of economic crisis could, however,<\/p>\n
lead to delays and slowdowns such as to induce many agricultural companies, especially those operating in<\/p>\n
disadvantaged areas, to abandon their activity.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Among other things, at least as regards the funds allocated to agriculture, the extension seems to be inevitable<\/p>\n
also due to the serious delay accumulated in the approval of the new Regulations, so much so that the Court itself<\/p>\n
of the Accounts of Luxembourg, even before the Covid emergency, considered it unlikely that the new ones would start<\/p>\n
programs could take place with just one year’s delay, i.e. in 2022.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
If, as seems possible, the Covid emergency will bring about positive changes in our habits, for example<\/p>\n
example through the strengthening of smart working which is finding good appreciation in<\/p>\n
this period of forced application, improving changes could be identified and maintained<\/p>\n
also in consolidated community operating practices.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As regards the EAFRD, it would be desirable to overcome, not only in the emergency phase, the<\/p>\n
logic of seven-year programs. In fact, these are interventions that are stable over time with continuity<\/p>\n
of action that has lasted for at least 20 years, with adjustments due more to a greater finalization of the<\/p>\n
strategy with respect to specific objectives, especially, but not only, environmental ones, and to other factors. The passage<\/p>\n
between two successive programs has always led to discontinuities which, in addition to creating discontent<\/p>\n
and risks of disparity in treatment between companies, leave farmers in uncertainty regarding premiums<\/p>\n
(indeed, even worse, they risk creating gaps) with the risk of premature abandonment of the activity,<\/p>\n
especially in disadvantaged areas. Not to mention the administrative efforts to create the new ones<\/p>\n
plans and for the adaptation of measures to the new rules.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It could therefore be useful to reconsider the entire system by providing a more basic reference framework<\/p>\n
stable within which the main aid provided for by the RDPs can find space: the prizes<\/p>\n
agri-environmental, compensatory allowances, organic, but also aid to young farmers and<\/p>\n
investments by agricultural companies and agro-industry. This framework could be subjected to<\/p>\n
periodic checks and evaluations, even partial and\/or sectoral, on the basis of which to intervene<\/p>\n
modify, in a more agile and punctual way (and only when necessary) the planned interventions and methods<\/p>\n
selection, adapting them to the new needs of the sector.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
At this moment, as already highlighted, EU action in this way appears most appropriate<\/p>\n
direction: starting a new programming period in a situation of economic crisis could<\/p>\n
cause difficulties such as to induce many agricultural companies, especially those operating in areas<\/p>\n
disadvantaged, to abandon their business.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Maintaining, at least for a certain period, the current tools (refinancing them) can offer companies<\/p>\n
that continuity in the disbursement of premiums which guarantees the liquidity essential to alleviate the current ones<\/p>\n
economic and financial uncertainties and ensures a greater propensity towards investments that are<\/p>\n
will make it necessary.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Covid-19 emergency could offer an opportunity to rethink the framework and timing of programming of European Funds in agriculture. Premise We are experiencing a time of great difficulty, primarily health-related, but also social, economic and cultural. In this first month of the crisis we had to deal directly with the health emergency and the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10927,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11349"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11349\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11590,"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11349\/revisions\/11590"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10927"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.izi.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}