Introduction to Italy’s Rural Development Programmes (RDPs)

Italy's Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), known nationally as Programmi di Sviluppo Rurale (PSR), form part of the EU’s second pillar of Common Agricultural Policy. Designed to foster sustainable rural development, these programmes are funded largely by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and co-financed by national and regional authorities. The current programming period—2014 to 2020—has wrapped, with lessons shaping future strategies.

The RDP framework is grounded in European Regulation
(EU) No. 1305/2013, emphasizing strengthening agricultural competitiveness, promoting environmental stewardship, diversifying rural economies, and improving quality of life in rural areas SpringerLink.

Objectives and Structure

Italian RDPs are structured across multiple thematic axes:

1. Axis I – Competitiveness: Supports restructuring, innovation, and generational renewal in agriculture.

2. Axis II – Environment & Land Management: Includes agri-environmental actions and sustainable resource management.

3. Axis III – Rural Economies & Quality of Life: Funds diversification, rural services, and infrastructure.

4. Leader (Axis IV): Enhances local governance and encourages grassroots innovation through Local Action Groups (LAGs) SpringerLink.

Each region in Italy tailors its RDP to local needs via regional managing authorities — e.g., Basilicata, Sardinia, Sicily, and others each have dedicated organizations overseeing programme implementation and liaising with the EU framework European Commission.

Territorial Targeting and Regional Variation

A key challenge of RDP delivery is addressing the heterogeneity of rural areas across Italy. Two major classification systems are used:

• Structural Typology (by RDPs): Divides land into urban/peri‑urban, intensive agricultural, intermediate rural, and lagging rural areas. Lagging areas tend to be mountain or remote zones, especially in the south MDPI.

• Locational Typology (Inner Areas Strategy—IAS): Defines rurality based on access to essential services like schools, hospitals, and transport, identifying “inner” or ultra‑peripheral areas MDPI.

These overlapping systems inform eligibility and targeting. Lagging and inner areas often receive prioritized funding, though regional implementation can vary greatly MDPI+1.

Regional Disparities in Policy Uptake

Eurostat data and econometric analyses show that northern regions like Emilia‑Romagna, Veneto, and others exhibit higher uptake and spending rates, sometimes reaching 60–70% of allocated resources. By contrast, southern regions and islands often underutilize funds, sometimes incurring penalties MDPI. This disparity reflects differences in administrative efficiency and local capacity to mobilize resources.

Delivery Mechanisms: Selection, Eligibility, and Prioritization

Italian RDPs employ several methods to channel funds:

• Open competition: All eligible areas compete equally.

• Mitigated competition: Projects from disadvantaged areas receive scoring bonuses.

• Limited competition: Only specific zones (e.g., lagging or inner areas) are eligible, or tender calls reserve funds exclusively for them MDPI.

Research shows that introducing territorial selection criteria — especially scores between 15 and 30 points in tenders — notably increases committed funding to lagging areas, sometimes doubling their share compared to open calls MDPI.

Focus on Fragile Areas & Adaptive Responses

Despite demographic fragility and low population densities, RDPs are surprisingly well-structured to serve vulnerable areas:

• Econometric models find that very fragile areas (e.g., with aging populations or infrastructural deficits) are positively correlated with policy uptake, especially through non-sectoral and LEADER instruments MDPI.

• The LEADER approach is particularly effective in engaging inner areas and remote communities, highlighting the added value of bottom-up mobilization MDPI.

• However, sectoral programmes (focused on specific agricultural categories) tend to favor more competitive, dynamic regions and less demographic fragility MDPI.

Case Study: Umbria’s RDP Amendment (2021–2022)

A noteworthy case is Umbria’s amendment to RDP measures (10.1.1 and 11) during the transitional period of 2021–2022, leveraging Next Generation EU funds.

• The amendment supported biodiversity (Focus Area 4A), water and soil management (FA 4B, 4C), and reducing agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (FA 5D).

• Key results include:

  • Management contracts now covering 48.05% of the Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA), increasing soil organic matter in protected and Natura 2000 zones eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu.

  • Measurable reductions in nitrogen surplus, improved soil erosion outcomes, and an additional 5.6 million kg/year of soil organic carbon.

  • GHG emission reductions of 198 t CO2‑eq/year, with organic farming and integrated agriculture nearly splitting the achieved gains eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu.

This case illustrates how targeted amendments amid broader EU green policy goals can yield substantial environmental benefits at the regional level.

Synthesis: Italy’s RDP Landscape in a Nutshell

1. Policy Framework

   • RDPs in Italy follow EU Regulation 1305/2013 and structure around axes of competitiveness, environment, quality of life, and local development.

2. Regional Implementation

   • Each Italian region crafts its own RDP strategy, coordinated by dedicated managing authorities and agencies European Commission.

3. Territorial Differentiation

   • Structural and locational classifications guide targeting, especially toward lagging, mountain, and inner areas MDPI.

4. Delivery Modalities

   • Funding is allocated through open, mitigated, or limited competition, with scoring systems incentivizing disadvantaged zones MDPI.

5. Regional Disparities

   • Northern regions show stronger uptake; administrative capacity remains a central determinant MDPI.

6. Demography & Participation

   • Fragile rural areas participate more in non-sectoral and LEADER programmes; sectoral schemes skew toward competitive areas MDPI.

7. Environmental Innovation

   • Umbria’s RDP adaptation demonstrates impactful progress in biodiversity, soil health, and GHG reduction eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu.

Looking Ahead

As Italy moves into new programming cycles (post‑2020), several themes remain pivotal:

• Strengthening institutional capacity in southern and underperforming regions.

• Fine-tuning territorial targeting, ensuring fair access to funding across regional and rural divides.

• Scaling effective environmental measures, such as those seen in Umbria’s rural amendment.

• Leveraging LEADER, local action groups, and bottom-up governance as engines of innovation in fragile areas.

Conclusion

Italy's RDPs illustrate the intricate interplay between EU policy design and diverse regional realities. While equipped with strong frameworks and ambitious environmental goals, Italian RDPs reveal persistent regional inequalities—particularly between north and south—and the importance of adaptive governance. Yet, successful models like Umbria show what is possible when environmental strategy and local targeting converge.

The path forward lies in stronger administrative capacities, sensitive territorial targeting, and sustained investment in rural and ecological regeneration.