Common agricultural policy and sustainable management of areas with natural handicaps. The Veneto Region case study

  • Maria Bruna ZolinEmail author
  • Andrea Pastore
  • Martina Mazzarolo
Original paper


Using a case study based in Veneto Region (Italy), the paper assesses whether the common agricultural policy influences the gross sellable product per hectare of utilised agricultural area, as a proxy of land productivity, and whether this effect changes according to different geographical areas (mountain, hill or plain). The regression analysis shows that the gross sellable product per hectare of utilised agricultural area is negatively correlated with the location of the farm in the mountains, confirming the existence of a gap between mountain and plain farms. The sellable product per hectare of utilised agricultural area is, moreover, positively influenced by the financial support of the first pillar for all farm locations with the exception of hill areas. The European payments of the second pillar, on the other hand, are positively correlated only with the gross sellable product per hectare of utilised agricultural area of hill farms. This trend, far from promoting a balanced and sustainable territorial development, is fuelling a dual agriculture with abandonment of agricultural land, together with environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity in areas with natural handicaps. The Farm Accountancy Data Network of 2015 is the source of microdata.


Public policies Environmental impact Regional sustainability Implementation of public policies 



  1. Agnoletti, M. (2007). The degradation of traditional landscape in a mountain area of Tuscany during the 19th and 20th centuries: Implications for biodiversity and sustainable management. Forest Ecology and Management,249(1–2), 5–17. Scholar
  2. Brady, M., Hristov, J., Höjgård, S., Jansson, T., Johansson, H., Larsson, C., Nordin, I., Rabinowicz, E. (2017). Impacts of direct payments–lessons for CAP post-2020 from a quantitative analysis. AgriFood Economics Centre no. 2017: 2.Google Scholar
  3. Cagliero, R., Henke, R. (2006). Evidence of CAP support in Italy. Between first and second pillar [Common Agricultural Policy]. PAGRI-Politica Agricola Internazionale (Italy).Google Scholar
  4. Ciliberti, S., & Frascarelli, A. (2018). The CAP 2013 reform of direct payments: Redistributive effects and impacts on farm income concentration in Italy. Agricultural and Food Economics,6, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Council of the Economic Community. (1965). Council Regulation No. 79/65/EEC of the 15 June 1965 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Economic Community. Official Journal 1859/65. Accessed 19 Mar 2018.
  6. Council of the Economic Community. (1975). Council Directive No. 75/268/EEC of the 28 April 1975 concerning mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less- favoured areas. Official Journal L128/1. Accessed 21 Mar 2018.
  7. Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., & Mozzato, D. (2018). To leave or not to leave? Understanding determinants of farmers’ choices to remain in or abandon agri-environment schemes. Land Use Policy,76, 460–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudu, H., Smeets Kristkova, Z. (2017). Impact of CAP Pillar II payments on agricultural productivity. EUR 28589 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-68723-5, JRC106591,
  9. Esposti, R. (2017). The heterogeneous farm-level impact of the 2005 CAP-first pillar reform: A multivalued treatment effect estimation. Agricultural Economics,48(3), 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2018). Future of the common agricultural policy, legislative proposal. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
  11. European Commission. (2019). The environmental objectives of the future CAP. Accessed 4 Apr 2019.
  12. European Union. (1957). Treaty establishing the European community (Consolidated Version), Rome Treaty. Accessed 10 Mar 2018.
  13. Governo Italiano—Agenzia per la Coesione Territoriale. (2013). Accordo di Partenariato 2014–2020, Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne. Accessed 16 Apr 2019.
  14. Haddaway, N. R., Styles, D., & Pullin, A. S. (2013). Environmental impacts of farm land abandonment in high altitude mountain regions: A systematic map of the evidence. Environmental,2, 18.Google Scholar
  15. Hinojosa, L., Napoléone, C., Moulery, M., & Lambin, E. F. (2016). The “mountain effect” in the abandonment of grasslands: Insights from the French Southern Alps. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,221, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Istat. (2010). Data on the agriculture census of 2010 in Veneto. Accessed 15 Nov 2019.
  17. Istat. (2011). Data on Veneto demography. Accessed 5 Apr 2018.
  18. Longhitano, D., Bodini A., Povellato A., Scardera A. (2012). Use of FADN for monitoring farm sustainability: Strengths and weaknesses of current database. In: Vrolijk H. (Ed.), Pacioli 19, The role of FADN after the CAP reform, LEI Memorandum 12-014, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  19. Mary, S. (2013). Assessing the impacts of pillar 1 and 2 subsidies on TFP in French crop farms. Journal of Agricultural Economics,64(1), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury P., Gutierrez Lazpita, J., & Gibon, A. (2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management. Accessed 10 May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Montagna Veneta 2020. (2013). Un patto per la crescita intelligente, sostenibile e inclusiva delle zone montane del Veneto. Position Paper dei Rappresentanti delle zone montane del Veneto sulla preparazione dei Programmi operativi e del Programma di sviluppo rurale del Veneto per il periodo 2014–2020—11 dicembre 2013. Accessed 29 Mar 2019.
  22. Partidário, M. R., Sheate, W. R., Bina, O., Byron, H., & Augusto, B. (2009). Sustainability assessment for agriculture scenarios in Europe’s mountain areas: Lessons from six study areas. Environmental Management. Accessed 15 Apr 2019.
  23. Regione Veneto. (2015). Guida al PSR Veneto 2014–2020. Veneto Agricoltura Azienda Regionale per i Settori Agricolo Forestale e Agroalimentare. Accessed 22 Apr 2019.
  24. Rizov, M., Pokrivcak, J., & Ciaian, P. (2013). CAP subsidies and productivity of the EU farms. Journal of Agricultural Economics,64(3), 537–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Severini, S., Tantari, A., & Di Tommaso, G. (2016). Do CAP direct payments stabilise farm income? Empirical evidences from a constant sample of Italian farms. Agricultural and Food Economics,4, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siciliano, G. (2009). Social multicriteria evaluation of farming practices in the presence of soil degradation. A case study in Southern Tuscany, Italy. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Scholar
  27. Strijker, D. (2005). Marginal lands in Europe—causes of decline. Basic and Applied Ecology,6(2), 99–106. Scholar
  28. Unionecamere Veneto. (2016). La situazione economica del Veneto. Rapporto annuale 2016. Unioncamere del Veneto—Area Studi e Ricerche, Venezia (2016). ISBN 978-88-902310-5-6. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.
  29. Vanni, F., Povellato, A. (2010). Delivering public goods through agriculture. Some evidence from viticulture in Veneto region. In Proceedings of the international conference “Enometrics XVII”. Palermo June 9–12, 2010.Google Scholar
  30. Verburg, P. H., & Overmars, K. P. (2009). Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modelling: Exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landscape. Scholar
  31. Westhoek, H. J., Van den Berg, M., & Bakkes, J. A. (2006). Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,114(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhu, X., Milán Demeter, R., & Lansink, A. O. (2012). Technical efficiency and productivity differentials of dairy farms in three EU countries: The role of CAP subsidies. Agricultural Economics Review,13(389-2016-23490), 66–92.Google Scholar
  33. Zolin, M. B., Ferretti, P., & Némedi, K. (2017). Multi-criteria decision approach and sustainable territorial subsystems: An Italian rural and mountain area case study. Land Use Policy,69, 598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCa’ Foscari University VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations