First SRDI meeting Belgrade, Guarnerius Art Centre, 11th of March

Report of the meeting

On the 11th of March, CEEweb hosted the first meeting of the Sustainable Rural Development Index network in Belgrade, Serbia. 12 international experts from 11 European countries participated at the event, whose aim was to launch efforts by CEEweb to coagulate a network of sustainable rural development experts and to outline a strategy for the development of the Sustainable Rural Development Index (SRDI).

Silvia Lotman (SL) from the Estonian Fund for Nature – also the event´s moderator - introduced the SRDI, emphasizing that the idea is to have a functional tool, which would indicate and quantify how the subsidies and agricultural payments can be adjusted. In addition to this, Gerasimos Arapis (GA) from the University of Athens highlighted the need for such a tool, to provide an evaluation of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), considering that at the moment

the available evaluation tool (the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the CAP - MEF) is not sufficient and cannot reflect the state of rural areas throughout Europe. Ideally, the SRDI should focus on a core set of 10 good practices, which could monitor growth in rural regions. These practices would be based on statistically-sound analyses relating farming practices and their impact on rural development and the environment. Nevertheless, GA stressed that deeming the multidisciplinary approach of SRDI, more experts from a wider range of sectors need to be involved. This view was mirrored by Valentin Mihai (VM) and Mihaela Mihai (MM) from Cluj University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine. Peter Kajner (PK) from Alliance for Tisza observed that while the know-how for promoting sustainable rural development is available, there is little effort in practice. Large, multinational agribusiness actors do have effective ways to lobby for their goals. SRDI should have a solid dissemination plan and strong visibility, especially for taxpayers, in order to hold governments accountable for the way in which money is being spent. Martin Strelec (MS) of Juniperia pointed out the fact that the use of the index alone might not be able to halt biodiversity loss trends in rural areas. Efficient RDPs cannot

Figure1.Participantsatthe1stSRDIworkshopinBelgrade,Serbia

alone put a stop to biodiversity loss and these measures need to be accompanied by other strategies and actions. Angela Lomba (AL) of InBIO-CIBIO reiterated the cross-sectoral aspect of SRDI and its fundamental role in assessing the performance of Agri-Environment Measures (AEMs) in order to better tailor them to the reality on the ground. At the moment, evaluation of the overall impact of AEMs is not sufficient and thus their benefits for the rural communities are not fully understood or showcased. In this context, improving AEMs for more efficient and overarching positive results in the rural areas is not possible; it can be that their very existence might be hampered in the future. Mihaela Kirchova (MK) of the Bulgarian Association for Alternative Tourism highlighted the need to clearly define who will be the end users of the SRDI and the methods and channels through which SRDI will be used in the decision making process. AL added that defining the end-users of SRDI can provide the opportunity of including other key partners and actors, which are instrumental in shaping the rural development concept at present and in the future. SL indicated here that the main target group for SRDI are policy makers and small scale farmers. A problem with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is also tied to administration and the complexity and difficulty of dealing with non-compliance. Also, SL brought an example for Estonia, where although there is a bird index and a bumble bee index for which reports are available annually, those indices are not connected to payments for farmers and so the monitoring process cannot show the impact of those payments. GA added that the monitoring process in Greece is poor and it would need a better coordinator of knowledge for better spending. The SRDI methodology should have at its core sustainability and not solely biodiversity conservation - it should be accommodated by the social and legal spectrum too. It should also include matters related to technology and education among old and young farmers and it should also serve to foster competitiveness. Also, some countries have poor or no evaluation of the rural development schemes. AL pointed out that describing more thoroughly the meaning and spectrum of rural development will also provide valuable information, which can be used to improve SRDI methodology. SL observed that farmers should not be pointed at, rather educated and shown good practices and the benefits of those practices for their own use. MS considered that the Index should be based on results and not on indices, as more practice leads to better outcomes. The group noted that practices are different in different countries and that there is more research on the negative impacts of intensive farming on biodiversity and ecosystem services, than focusing on extensive farming systems. As RDPs already have indicators, the aim of the SRDI should be to feed into the policy discussion after 2020 and during the health check of the CAP. It should also provide a clear proof of added value to the existing MEF - in this regard it would be useful to undergo a basic mapping of how the MEF is done in each Member State. VM and MM considered that the index should start from defining what impacts it will monitor and statistics should be gathered from a wide range of sources, including of the education level of those who participate in the evaluation processes carried out by various state agencies. Difficulties also arise from comparisons between RDPs in Europe, as those vary greatly from state to state and embody very different practices and measures. Indeed, SRDI must be a product made with a solid stakeholder involvement, including rural communities - questionnaires could be sent to stakeholders, who should also be invited at training and workshop sessions. Other stakeholders apart from big farms, big companies and regional/national authorities should include young farmers,

women, NGOs, LAGs and local authorities. Nevertheless, a pre filter should be used to make sure that SRDI does not become too vague involving too many stakeholders. Participants also noticed that local farmers have the know-how on the harmful processes in the rural areas and do not need an index to see what is wrong. This feedback from farmers should be channelized through an umbrella organisation to the policy level. Stakeholders should also be actors with influence and potential to make a change on the ground (e.g. state-level farming organisation, umbrella environmental organisation, ecotourism organisations). Through the COST action we should seek more scientific and technical input and take into account aspects on the recent RDP results. Government bodies should be involved not only at a dissemination stage but also in the designation stage. Verification of the Index should be a crucial part of the proposal. The role of the expert network will be to interpret the results of the Index and evaluate the causalities between rural dynamics and root causes. This will not be part of the SRDI methodology but rather a recurrent effort by the network. In the methodology, indicators should be linked to drivers in order to detect change. Also during methodology it should be decided whether SRDI is a European-level tool, a national-level tool, tailored for national specifications, or both. SRDI can not only be used by Member States to address rural development challenges at a national level, but also for the EU to initiate a dialogue with Member States based on SRDI results. An important element of adoption can be a basic analysis among member states. A verification can be based on basic comparison. Case studies and summer schools can be part of the dissemination process; ´short term missions´ within COST could be an additional tool to analyse data and to develop complementary research. Case studies can be the verification of the effectiveness of the index. Leading institutions should be encouraged to ask specific questions on the proposal in order to perfect the proposal and make sure it addresses real needs and challenges. At least one expert on composite indicators should also be part of the network. Steps forward:

• create a column with specific questions to be answered by specific experts • set a timeframe for the proposal • create a database with potential experts on social sciences and composite

indicators • create a database with key stakeholders we want to engage

The event was organized with the financial support of the International Visegrad Fund, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and the European

Commission, although its outcomes do not necessarily reflect the donors´ position or views.