Europeanization and Rural Development in the Central and Eastern

European Countries

A Thesis

Presented to
The Faculty of the International Studies Department
College of Liberal Arts
De La Salle University

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirement for the Degree
AB International Studies major in European Studies

Submitted by:
Mendoza, Jonathan Gabriel M.
Tamayao, Brian Lance Guiller L.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………2
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………..….3
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………...……4
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...……….5
Chapter 1: Introduction
a. Background of the Study………………………………………………………………….6
b. Statement of the Problem…………………………..…..……………………………..….12
c. Variables……………….………………………………………………………………...13
d. Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………..13
e. Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………...14
f. Scope and Limitations…………………………………………………………………....15
g. Review of Related Literature…………………………………………………………….17
h. Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………..…29
i. Methodology…………………………………………………………………………..…43

Chapter 2: Europeanization, SAPARD, the CAP and Rural Tourism

a. Pre-accession……………………………………………………………………………..45
b. Post-accession…………………………………………………………………………....60
c. Conclusion……………………………………………..……………………………..….86

Chapter 3: Europeanization, SAPARD, the CAP and Forestry

a. Pre-accession …………………………………………………………………………….89
b. Post-accession………………………………………………………………………..…101
c. Conclusion…………………………………………….………………..……………....108

Chapter 4: General Conclusion…………………………...……………………………..……...110

Bibliography…….……………………………………………………………………………...115

2
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: SAPARD: Annual Indicative Budget Allocations

Table 2: Bulgaria’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 3: Czech Republic’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 4: Estonia’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 5: Hungary’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 6: Latvia’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 7: Lithuania’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 8: Poland’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 9: Romania’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 10: Slovakia’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 11: Slovenia’s Funding of Different Sectors Related to Rural Tourism

Table 12: Forest and Wooded Land Areas in the EU-15 and CEEC-10, 2000

Table 13: Percentage of Rural Population within CEECs (SAPARD)

Table 14: Percentage of Rural Population within CEECs (CAP)

Table 15: CEEC Funding Distribution on Forestry Projects

Table 16: CEEC Funding Distribution on Forestry Projects (Graph)

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CAP- Common Agricultural Policy

CEEC- Central and Eastern European Countries
DG- Directorate-General
EAFRD-European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
EAGF- European Agricultural Guarantee Fund
ENRD –European Network for Rural Development
EU- European Union
GDP-Gross Domestic Product
ISPA- Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession
NARDP-National Agricultural Rural Development Policies
NMS- New Member States
NRN- National Rural Networks
PHARE- Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies
RD-Rural Development
RDP-Rural Development Policy
SAPARD- Special Agricultural Pre-accession Assistance for Rural Development

4
 ABSTRACT

This thesis intends to contextualize the rural development of the Central and Eastern

European Countries (CEECs) within the theory of Europeanization. This is done by examining

two of the biggest, most important, and most sustainable rural industries in the CEECs: tourism

and forestry. These industries provide new employment opportunities and are compliant with the

multi-functional agriculture promoted by the Agenda 2000 and the Common Agricultural Policy.

It is found that different kinds of Europeanization occurred in different industries in pre-

accession and post-accession. The intensity of co-financing of the Special Agriculture Pre-

Accession Assistance for Rural Development and the applicant states for infrastructure and

business diversification in pre-accession rural tourism is indicative of the potential success of

their rural tourism industries in post-accession. States that invested more and that followed EU-

promoted norms using EU funding reaped its benefits during CAP implementation since there

was an influx of tourists especially from Western Europe. In the same manner, there was a

proliferation of EU-funded forestry projects which were geared to cater to the economic and

environmental purposes of the sector. Rural development as a whole was Europeanized by CEEC

compliance with EU norms, policies and values such as business diversification, community

support, preservation of rural heritage, capacity-building, and sustainable forestry management

to name a few.

5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The 2004 and 2007 enlargements of the European Union were unprecedented in sheer

scale; the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia,

Malta and Cyprus joined in 2004 while Bulgaria and Romania acceded in 2007. This ushered in

a wave of Europeanization in their domestic politics. As new member states, they are obliged to

apply EU norms and policies at the domestic level while bringing domestic issues and problems

to a European level. One such policy they must implement is the Common Agricultural Policy

(CAP). This policy will prove pivotal and crucial to the rural development of the CEECs as 70%

of their land area is rural.1 The GDP share of agriculture in the CEECs was 4.6% in 2000 which

was the year they started to implement pre-accession financial instruments as compared to 2% in

the EU-15.2 Employment in agriculture in the EU-15 was only 4.3% while the CEECs had 21%

employment in agriculture.3

The CAP, which has been implemented since 1958, was included in the Treaty of Rome

to initially ensure food security in a post-war Europe. It provides income support and direct

payments to farmers using various mechanisms, such as direct payments and price support

mechanisms. Direct payments are given to farmers through the Single Payment Scheme which is

given directly to farmers and the Single Area Payment Scheme which is given per acre or hectare

of farmer’s land. At present, the CAP has two pillars which are also its sources of funds: the

1
Jesmina Behan, “Rural Land Use: Traditional Agriculture or Forestry?” University of Wisconsin Press: Journals
Division (2006): 14.
2
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Analysis of the Impact on Agricultural Markets and
Incomes of EU Enlargement to the CEECs”, European Commission (2002): 1. European Commission, DG
Environment, Title (City: Institution, Year),
3
Ibid.

6
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development.4 The EAGF is related to direct payments and income support to farmers while the

EAFRD supports environmental programmes and infrastructure for village renewal.5 However,

upon application for accession, countries are prescribed the Special Pre-accession Assistance for

Rural Development which is given to applicant states by the EU to prepare their rural economies

for eventual accession and CAP implementation. The SAPARD is the first instrument of the EU

to aid the CEEC rural economies before the CAP. While the integration process was occurring

during this period, the Europeanization of the CEECs was simultaneously happening because of

their adoption of the SAPARD. Europeanization is the phenomenon whereby generally European

norms and values are adopted by other states on a political, social and cultural level. By adopting

the SAPARD, they have subjected themselves to a compulsory EU policy which is a requirement

for accession thereby letting them be Europeanized by the process of integration.

The Special Agricultural Pre-Accession Assistance for Rural Development (SAPARD) is

one of three pre-accession instruments given to applicant states, the other two being the

Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) and the Poland and Hungary:

Assistance for Restructuring their Economies (PHARE). The Agenda 2000 instituted these pre-

accession instruments in preparation for CEEC accession. It can be seen that the rural areas of

the CEECs were a big enough issue to already influence EU policy at this point. The ISPA and

the PHARE are implemented for economic restructuring prior to accession while the SAPARD is

solely for rural development. Even before the implementation of the CAP upon accession, the

SAPARD has already been funding and Europeanizing rural development of the CEECs. This

4
Jesmina Behan, 16.
5
Stefan Wegener et al., “Administering the Common Agricultural Policy in Bulgaria and Romania: Obstacles to
Accountability and Administrative Capacity,” International Review of Administrative Sciences 77, no. 3 (2011): 4.

7
fund, along with the CAP, is managed by the DG for Agriculture and Rural Development and

provided to the applicant states. When the applicant states adopt the SAPARD, they have to

create committees and institutions relevant to its implementation. This process is the same as the

Common Agricultural Policy. By adopting the SAPARD, applicant states had to set up local

institutions similar to that of the EU-15 to disburse SAPARD funding.

It will be shown here that Europeanization of the CEECs occurred much earlier than the

2004 and 2007 enlargements since the SAPARD was implemented in 1999 and was adopted by

the CEECs.6 Adoption of the SAPARD meant that they had to set up local institutions similar to

that of the EU-15’s internal market to manage the disbursement of SAPARD technical and

financial assistance for their local rural industries.

Rural areas have a low-population density as compared to urban areas; they only have

150 inhabitants per square kilometre.7 This poses a problem since the distance between towns

and communities makes it difficult for them to access public goods and services. Salaries in

urban areas are generally higher than in rural areas. Rural areas are highly dependent on

agriculture but income derived from agriculture is not appreciable, hence an urban-rural income

gap occurs.8 Rural areas are also politically marginalized; hence all these factors combined to

slow down development of rural areas.9 This problem is what rural development policies try to

solve. Rural development aims to diversify sources of income for farmers while at the same time

improving biodiversity, forestry, and the environment in the rural areas thereby contributing to

6
Directorate-General for Agriculture, “SAPARD: Special Pre-Accession Assistance for Agriculture and Rural
Development”, Information Policy on Agriculture and Rural Development (2000): 8.
7
Wegener et al, 4.
8
Strategy for Integrated Development and Agriculture of the Rural Areas in the CEECs. “Identification of the
Critical Socio-Economic Problems Facing Rural CEEC – and Policy Proposals”, Quality of Life and Management of
Living Resources (2002): 6.
9
Ibid.

8
its beautification. The aesthetic improvement of rural areas would then promote rural tourism,

while afforestation would bring about larger potential areas for future logging.

Rural tourism presents a unique and viable alternative for employment in the rural areas

of the CEECs. Tourism is one of the key industries in an improved, modern, peri-urban and

multi-functional agriculture.10 A multi-functional agriculture is agriculture that has evolved from

solely crop production to support other industries such as rural tourism, arts and crafts, village

renewal and forestry. In the past, however, rural areas were not primed for multi-functional

agriculture and much less for rural tourism.

Two products of intergovernmental meetings ensured the existence of the values carried

out through Europeanization: the EU Forestry Strategy and the Agenda 2000. Adopted in 1998,

the EU Forestry Strategy was launched to promote sustainable forest management, preservation

of the environment and endangered species, and the multifunctional role of forests, which would

be subdivided into two as economic and environmental objectives related to forestry such as

enhancing market competitiveness and preserving ecological health and biodiversity are aimed to

be achieved.11 Also, it works under the principles of subsidiarity and shared responsibility,

which means that the member states are primarily liable in drafting forestry policies. 12 The

Agenda 2000 reform was a product of negotiations between the Council and Commission back in

1995.13 With regards to the Common Agricultural Policy, Agenda 2000 prompted institutional

10
C. Keenleyside, “EAFRD regional programmes 2007-13 “An opportunity to be realised?” A report of the
PURPLE network based on work to date in 12 European regions in 8 Member States”, (2006) : 15.
11
European Commission. “Sustainable Forestry and the European Union: Initiatives of the European Commission.”
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (2003), 11.
12
Ibid.
13
European Commission, “Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Union”, Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities (1997): 11.

9
funding in rural development.14 It shed light on the growing importance of agriculture and rural

development competitiveness in the market and the compliance with the environmental standards

the institution has laid down.15 Subsequent actions in relation with rural development, mainly

forestry, were traced from these arrangements.

During the Cold War, tourism in the CEECs was “akin to an obstacle course.” Foreign

tourists had difficulty entering these countries; tourism in these countries then became an intra-

CEEC phenomenon.16 With the fall of communism and the liberalization of markets, tourism

became a key industry but was still limited to the capital cities of the CEECs. Following EU

accession in 2004, six of the eight that joined the EU had tourist arrivals relatively higher than

the EU average for 2004 which saw a 4.2 % increase.17 Over the succeeding years, tourist

destinations have diversified and not only focused on the major cities but on the rural areas as

well. Castles in the rural areas of Latvia and health spas in the outskirts of Budapest are now

attracting visitors all over Europe since it is cheaper to go to the CEECs than the usual summer

destinations from the Mediterranean countries. Countries are setting up infrastructure in rural

areas and building on the strengths of their rural tourism economies. The Czech government

decided to promote and develop its rural areas as golf courses as these proved to be cheaper

alternatives to the common golf destinations which are Spain and Britain.

The potential of rural and ecological tourism in the CEEC rural areas is immense because

the very diverse topographies they possess make for a variety of tourist activities away from the

common tourist destinations, which are the capital cities. However, this poses a corollary

14
Stella Zervoudaki, CAPReform: Rural Development (Brussels: European Commisson Directorate-General for
Agriculture, 2000): 11.
15
Zervoudaki, 1.
16
Howard Hughes and Danielle Allen, “Central and Eastern Europe and EU Accession in 2004: Views of the Impact
on Tourism,” Tourism and Hospitality Research (2009): 3-5.
17
Ibid.

10
responsibility as states must provide the funding, agencies and institutions to support these

burgeoning sectors to be competitive. With additional funding from the EAFRD, the

improvement of the rural tourism sector would be continued and may be accelerated by the

funding.

In the same manner, forestry is a valuable sector of EU agriculture. Forestry provides vast

opportunities for the EU, ranging from the usefulness of common products drawn from different

parts of trees to the significance of forests in managing land area use and preventing the

degradation of the environment.18 With less industrial and commercial activities occurring on the

countryside, rural residents can maximize earnings by engaging in activities related to forestry.

The forestry sector offers profitable utilization of various food and non-food products.

However, this should not be the only means of living for the rural population. Data gathered

from the World Bank indicates that there is a trend for overall growth in percentage of forest

land to the CEECs’ total land area, with Bulgaria remarkably recording the highest rise from
19
30.5% in 1999 to 36.7% in 2011. The extensive presence of forests in the CEEC countryside

thus gives the rural population an alternative from traditional crop agricultural practices.

Forestry is also a key contributor to environmental sustainability. It is common

knowledge that forests aid in absorbing CO2 emissions since carbon dioxide is vital to plants’

photosynthesis. The absorption of this compound also lessens the destructive capability of

carbon dioxide to the planet’s ozone layer, which protects the Earth from perilous exposure to

ultraviolet rays that may cause severe changes to the climate within a short period of time. There

18
Zervoudaki, 1.
19
World Bank, “Forest Area (% of Total Area),” Data, December 26, 2013, accessed December 26, 2013,
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS/countries.

11
are abundant afforestation and reforestation projects20, particularly in the CEECs. Moreover,

through these projects the EU ensures that afforestation efforts are done in line with

environmental standards–truly strengthening the region’s status as one of the world’s leading

agents against climate change.

For the forests in the CEECs to continue improving the rural population’s way of life and

at the same time keeping an environment-friendly nature, there needs to be more room for

sustainable projects adopted by the CEECs in the long term. Although benefits in this sector are

not as bulky as in industrial or service sectors mainly due to the long time needed in reaping

results21, these projects contribute to the well-being of the EU citizens, especially the rural

population. Prioritizing forestry in the budget allocation of CAP-funded projects in the CEECs

would be of big help in order to reward the modern agents of nature in the woods.

Statement of the Problem

The ten member states that joined in 2004 have been implementing the CAP for a decade

now, while the two member states that joined in 2007 is close to seven years of CAP

implementation. After all these years, one might ask if the CAP has positively or negatively

affected their rural development. In accordance to this, the researchers would focus on two

significant sectors in rural development: the tourism and forestry sectors. Their assessment of the

state of these sectors would answer the following questions:

1. How has the CAP been Europeanized leading to the rural development of the CEECs?

2. How successful was the SAPARD in the CEECs?

3. How did the tourism and forestry sectors in the rural areas benefit from CAP funding?

20
Zervoudaki, 3.
21
Ibid., 4.

12
 4. How successful were CAP measures intended to reform the forestry sectors of the

CEECs?

5. How was tourism in the rural areas improved by the CAP?

6. What is the impact of Europeanization in rural tourism and forestry?

7. What concrete evidences of improvement can be found in the tourism and forestry

sectors?

8. How did the CEECs’ rural development policies shape the rural development pillar at the

institutional level?

9. What values were downloaded by the CEECs and internalized in their tourism and

forestry sectors?

Variables

In this study, the independent variables will be the CAP, the European Agricultural Fund

for Rural Development, the SAPARD, the national paying agencies of the different CEECs and

the direct payments and income support of the CAP given to farmers. These are the factors that

affected positively or negatively the rural development of the CEECs. The dependent variables

of this study will be the tourism sector, the forestry sector, the employment in rural areas, quality

of life in rural areas, and the rate of amelioration of other sectors in rural development as a

whole.

Hypothesis

The accession of the twelve member states ushered in a wave of Europeanization in their

domestic policies. As argued by Schimmelfenig, the Europeanization of the CEECs can either be

domestically driven or be driven by institutional logics—meaning the imposition of sanctions

13
and rewards by the EU on the member states compels and encourages them to comply. 22 Thus it

can be said that the tourism and forestry sectors, which are two of the biggest sectors in rural

development, have been primed for accession by the SAPARD and they have benefitted and

improved because of the support added by EAFRD in 2007. Business diversification,

preservation of rural heritage and multi-functionality are some of the values promoted by the EU

related to rural tourism. Meanwhile, in the forestry sector, the EU is looking to introduce

capacity-building instruments that would make the sector more competitive. Also, sustainable

forestry management is set to be strengthened as values of environmental sustainability and

enhancement of biodiversity are incorporated in the CAP’s second pillar. The more the new

member states promoted these values in their rural areas, the more their rural development has

been Europeanized because of the funding they received and the European norms and values

they have promoted. The possibility of non-implementation of projects resulting from non-

compliance with CAP measures and the rewards of direct payments and of income and price

support encourage CEECs to implement the second pillar of the CAP regarding rural

development as effectively as their local institutions and agencies could.

Significance of the Study

The Common Agricultural Policy has undergone many reforms since its implementation

in 1958, it can thus be said that the CAP continually changes as more states join the EU since

there are now more recipients of CAP funding. The establishment of the European Agricultural

Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development in 2005 meant that

the CEECs had to comply with the norms and values these funds embodied. This suggests that

22
Frank Schimmelfenig, “Europeanization Beyond Europe,” Living Reviews in European Governance 4, no. 3
(2009): 6-8.

14
the progress of rural development in the CEECs is dependent on compliance with EU norms and

policies and lobbying in the EU by the new member states. The economic impact of CAP

funding of rural development policies in CEECs is a significant issue because 70% of their land

is rural and their economies are still agricultural.23

This study will specifically focus on tourism and forestry in the rural areas as not many

scholars have done research on the rural tourism and forestry during SAPARD and EAFRD

funding. Furthermore, the use of the theory of Europeanization on rural development would

prove useful and timely since Croatia just recently joined while Turkey, Macedonia and

Montenegro are all preparing for EU accession. These candidate countries also have relatively

large rural areas.

Scope and Limitations

Although this study uses Europeanization as a theory to explain why the SAPARD and

CAP were implemented in the tourism and forestry sectors in rural development, it does not

disregard the impact of domestic policies in the improvement of the rural tourism and forestry

sectors through CAP funding. This study will also discuss data about rural development in

general and not only specifically its tourism and forestry sectors. However, this study will not go

into detail about the many different crops supported by the CAP under the first pillar but only

focus on the second pillar which is rural development. This study will not examine other

components of CAP such as the Pillar I which is the EAGF; instead, it will only focus on Pillar II

of the CAP which is rural development policy. The reason is that the EAGF is funding traditional

agriculture whilst our study focuses on multifunctional agriculture and rural development. The

23
Behan, 14.

15
study will cover the years from the disintegration of the Soviet Union until the culmination of

EAFRD implementation in the CEECs, with emphasis on the period of SAPARD and RDP

funding from 2000 to 2013.

16
Review of Related Literature

After Bulgaria and Romania acceded in 2007, the total percent of rural area in the EU

increased to 91%, and the total EU population living in these rural areas also increased to 60%.24

This sudden increase in land area which can potentially be utilized for multi-functional

agriculture prompted much debate about how these lands should be developed, what kind of

financial instruments should be given to farmers and what institutional linkages should be

created between the EU and the CEECs regarding rural development.

Some authors such as Matthews (2009) and Albu (2011) agree that the CAP would

improve the agricultural economies of the CEECs but their views vary on how it should be

implemented. In contrast, Gorton, Hubbard, and Hubbard (2011) see the CAP as inappropriate to

the CEECs since the CAP that was implemented in the CEECs is derived from the original EU-

15, which has very different agricultural economies and geographies.25 The recurring themes in

the literature are the institutions for CAP fund disbursement and the different financial schemes

and the industries under multi-functional agriculture. Scholars appear to be divided on the ways

the CAP should be structured and payment schemes that should be implemented.

There has also been voluminous literature on the CAP and its implementation in the

CEECs but little research has been done on the CAP and specifically on rural development,

much less on rural tourism and forestry. Most authors focus on the CAP’s first pillar and less on

the second one, rural development. A good number of authors prefer to use Game Theory to

analyse the gains and losses of the CEECs regarding the CAP implementation. Europeanization

24
R.G. Albu and L.C. Nicolau, “Sustainable Development of the Romanian Rural Areas Within the Present
European Context”, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov 4, no. 53 (2011): 3-7.
25
Matthew Gorton, Carmen Hubbard, and Lionel Hubbard, “The Folly of European Union Policy Transfer: Why the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Does Not Fit Central and Eastern Europe.” Regional Studies 43, no. 10 (2009):
1305-2317.

17
then, is not a common theory used to view the CAP and CEEC rural development. Although

there has not been much study on the effects of SAPARD, CAP and Europeanization on the rural

development of the CEECs, we would show that there has been positive varied change since pre

and post accession in their tourism and forestry industries brought about by the SAPARD, CAP

and Europeanization underlying them both. This is because of the possibility of rewards and

punishment from the EU should they comply or fail to. To analyze how the SAPARD and CAP

positively affected the rural tourism and forestry sectors of the CEECs, it is necessary to know

the current debate, the different angles and takes on the issues.

Rural Tourism

The literature on rural tourism in the CEECs focused on the importance of the public

sector funding for infrastructure and biodiversity conservation. They argued that to promote

tourism growth, there has to be a holistic approach to rural development between the public and

private sectors. Tourism is seen as one of the industries that would provide alternative

employment opportunities in the rural areas away from traditional agriculture especially upon

accession. However, no analyses of pre and post accession changes were made in the different

literature. Although rural tourism promotes partnerships through the rural networks, rural

tourism would only be successful in post-accession if the CEECs have funded rural

infrastructure, rural heritage, biodiversity conservation, training and village renewal with

SAPARD funding. These would prime the rural economies for accession especially with the

influx of tourists from Western Europe who see CEEC tourism as possessing a novelty value

because of the lifting of the iron curtain of communism. Since rural tourism provides sustainable

and holistic rural growth, the approach to it should also be holistic. Investments in infrastructure,

18
training and biodiversity preservation should involve the EU, the public and private sector in

cooperation with the national rural networks.

In 2007, Herslund claimed that rural tourism opportunities should be supported by rural

development funds. Agricultural production and employment has decreased dramatically and

rural unemployment is high in the CEECs. One way of solving these problems is through rural

diversification and one good way of diversifying and maximizing rural potential is through

tourism.26 The challenge for rural development policy then is to extend the possibilities of the

rural inhabitants to exploit new opportunities because rural diversification seems essential to

avoid increasing poverty and is high on the agenda for rural development in the years to come

since policy makers assume that rural diversification makes a significant contribution to rural

development.27Alternative activities on farms are expected to help absorbing some of the excess

farm labour, alleviate poverty and contribute to the development of employment in rural areas.28

As most of the CEECs were socialist states, their socialist views on tourism also reach to the

present times. The socialist countryside has been described as a place of agricultural production

above all. Tourism and recreational activities were insignificant. Therefore tourism is today

posed as the main opportunity for rural diversification in the post-socialist countryside.29

Albu (2011) stressed the importance of environmental sustainability as the driver of

tourism in the rural areas. He says that tourism necessarily stems from the promotion of multi-

functional agriculture. Even though developing a multi-functional agriculture is less

economically rewarding, Multifunctional agriculture has six functions: producing raw food

materials and food necessary for population supply, producing raw materials for the non-food

26
Lise Herslund, “Diversification in the Baltic Countryside: A Local Perspective”, GeoJournal (2008): 7.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid, 6.

19
processing industry, producing raw materials as energy sources, developing the tourism potential

by maintaining and increasing the natural beauty of the landscape patrimony, preserving the

environmental factors (soil, air, water, flora, fauna) through a sustainable exploitation within an

ecological agriculture that would ensure the stability of the agricultural ecosystems and finally,

harmonizing the rural area in a tight connection to a healthy and diverse agriculture. He says that

CEECs adoption of the CAP makes it mandatory for them to adopt steps to ensure environmental

sustainability.30 This will lead to beautification of the rural areas and its biodiversity primed for

tourism.

Forgacs (2010) explained rural tourism within the context of CEEC rural development.

Rural tourism has developed considerably in certain areas but there are still many opportunities

left to be explored. The more the local resources can be realised through different activities, the

better the chance for the rural region to maintain attractiveness of rural life, he argues.31 He

stresses the importance of holistically developing the countryside to increase its tourism value.

However, he does not go into detail as to how both SAPARD and CAP primed the rural areas for

tourism, especially in infrastructure. Furthermore, he does not explain how accession increased

tourist numbers in the CEECs.

Hegarty and Przezborska (2005) assessed the physical, economic and social impacts of

enlargement in rural tourism in Eastern Europe. They compared old and new member states’

rural tourism industries by assessing Poland and Ireland. They compared a new member state’s

rural tourism industry against that of the old one. They found that the level of diversification

30
Albu and Nicolau., 5.
31
Csaba Forgacs, “Focusing Rural Development in Central and Eastern European Countries,” Studies in
Agricultural Economics 5, no. 22 (2010): 12.

20
ultimately determines rural tourism development.32 Their comparison of a new and old member

states’ tourism industries is remarkable, but this only shows an incomplete picture. They do not

explain the impact of pre-accession instruments in improving tourism. Furthermore, the authors

discount the importance of EU institutions in aiding tourism development in the CEECs under

the SAPARD and CAP.

Hughes and Allen (2009) explain the effects of accession on the CEEC tourism industry

as a whole. Tourists from the United Kingdom and constitute the majority of the CEECs the

most.33 They aptly explained how accession increased tourism influx into the CEECs, and the

various reasons why they chose Eastern Europe over other conventional destinations. However,

they focused solely on the visitor aspect of tourism. They made neither mention of the SAPARD

nor the CAP in their article. They did not factor in the effect of EU institutions and funding in

their work. They also made no mention of the phenomenon of Europeanization.

Barbu Ionel (2011) discussed the rural tourism in Romania and the relevant factors for its

success. He argues that the public sector is responsible for policy formulation, research and

planning, development of basic infrastructure, the development of certain landmarks,

establishment and management of service delivery standards, while the private sector is

responsible for the development of accommodation services, travel agency operations, the

activity of commercial tourist enterprises all based on existing infrastructure provided by the

public sector.34 While he highlights the importance of cooperation between the public and private

sector, he does not factor in the importance of the EU. Furthermore, he makes no distinction

32
Cecilia Hegarty and Lucyna Przezborska, 3.
33
Hughes and Allen, 2.
34
Barbu Ionel, “The Factors Appearance and the Development of Rural Tourism”, Economics Science Series
(2011):1.

21
between the pre-accession and post-accession state of rural tourism. His work is only limited to

Romania and does not mirror the reality in all of the CEECs.

Pavlickova and Kysilkova (2010) discussed the role of agro-tourism in regional

development. They argue that tourism in the rural areas will intensify with non-agricultural

activities. Present trends in the CEECs show that aside from rural tourism, ecotourism and agro-

tourism have become more popular among tourists. 35 They also stress the importance of natural

conditions and the geography of the area for the potential of tourism in it. They stipulate how

agro-tourism and ecotourism in the rural areas go hand in hand with rural tourism. These

industries serve to provide new opportunities for employment but support from the government

is vital. Their work does not factor in the EU in any way and does not stress the importance of

funding from institutions.

Radnic, Gracan and Zadel (2011) analysed rural tourism in the EU and Croatia. Rural

tourism revitalizes rural areas and prevents depopulation. Their work explains how EU funding

through its rural development programmes affects rural tourism.36 It compares a rural tourism

industry that is beginning to receive support from the EU and rural tourism industries that have

been continuously funded by the EU. However, it does not go in-depth and explain the effects of

the SAPARD and the CAP on rural tourism. It merely talks about the EU’s RDP but not the

different funds that could improve the rural tourism in the CEECs.

35
Helena Pavlickova and Barbara Kysilkova, “The Role of Rural and Agri-Tourism in Regional Development,”
Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry (2010): 325.
36
Romina Radnic, Daniela Gracan, and Zrinka Zadel, “Analysis of Rural Tourism in the European Union and
Croatia”, International Journal of Tourism Research (2011): 2.

22
 Stankova (2010) suggested that locally owned small enterprises would organize rural

tourism and increase opportunities for rural attractions.37 Partnerships and organizations provide

platform for the articulation of needs by a number of groups in the interests of consensus and

may promote strategic, long-term planning.38 She argues that the level of tourism required

attracting visitors, and generating regional distinctiveness, from which a quality image can be

derived, is best achieved through collaborative working practices.39 Her work emphasizes the

importance of networks such as the national rural networks and European Network for Rural

Development but she does not explain how businesses are improved by EU, public and private

sector funding. Moreover, she does not explain how these networks are Europeanized because of

the accession of the CEECs.

Forestry

This part illustrates the changes undergone by the CEECs in association with EU rural

development. The research done on the CEECs’ forestry sector is abundant and explores a lot of

aspects. Together, the authors cited in this part contributed a lot in demonstrating the relationship

among several variables of our research; namely forestry, the CAP’s rural development pillar,

CEEC forestry policy making, the 2004 and 2007 enlargement, and the influence of the former

USSR to CEEC forestry in the middle of the 20th century. The extensive coverage of the

literature present in this part is acknowledged. Yet, it is also established that this research is sui

generis. Although some were slightly similar to the focus of the study, none of these authors

individually covered the entire scope of our study.

37
Mariya Stankova, “Diversification of Rural Tourism Trough Partnership Approaches in Eastern Europe
Destination”, Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business 5, no. 2 (2010): 1-4.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.

23
 Jesmina Behan (2006) highlighted the importance of forestry as she concluded that the

sector was also important in rural development. Although the 1992 McSharry reforms have made

income support payments or direct payments coupled to land and, hence, capitalized into land

values, it is reducing the relative attractiveness of forestry as a competing land application.40

Landowners and farmers are given incentives to diversify from solely agriculture to forestry but

this is complicated by the simplification of CAP instruments made available to farmers. She then

argued that the CAP should also prioritize forestry under rural development because forestry is

closely related to agriculture and the rural environment which the EAFRD seeks to improve.

This need is amplified in the CEECs as about 70% of its land is rural.41

In support of Behan’s argument, Nickola Stoyanov and Maria Stoyanova (2005)

discussed the formation of modern Bulgarian forestry policy. The Bulgarian government devised

a long-term plan on its forestry policy.42 Changes made were in line with the transition of

Bulgaria from command market to open market.43 Its Forestry Development Project was

formulated by consulting the World Bank44. En route to its acceptance of Bulgarian and

Romanian entry to the Union, the EU required Bulgaria to lay down a forestry policy that would

protect public interest on its forests. In essence, EU funding is essential in proliferating forests

and harmonizing the forest policy in Bulgaria to the Union’s.45

Likewise, Karel Vančura, Patrik Pacourek and Jan Řezáč presented in 2004 their study

that found the Czech Republic’s forestry sector stable in managing its forests for over the past

200 years. According to them, although it has never lost forest areas, its forests have begun

40
Behan, 7.
41
Ibid.
42
Nickola Stoyanov and Maria Stoyanova, “Bulgaria Forest Development Project,” in Legal Aspects of European
Forest Sustainable Development Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium Poiana Brasov, Romania, ed. Ioan
Vasile Abrudan, Franz Schmithüsen, and Peter Herbst (Brasov: Translvania University, 2005), 9.
43
Ibid, 6.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.

24
deteriorating.46 The post-WWII political system of the country negatively altered Czech

Republic forestry.47 The country’s Ministry of Agriculture ensured that steps should be taken

towards the development of the economic aspect of forests.48 Meanwhile, the role of the forestry

sector’s environmental aspect has been significant from the time that it was incorporated into the

legal framework of Czech forestry.49

Meanwhile, Karl Hogl (2004) used the experience of Austrian forestry to assess

Europeanization’s impact in an EU member-state’s national forestry policy-making. Notably,

Austria acceded into the EU in 1995, the latest wave of enlargement prior to the massive 2004

accession. Hogl claimed that the evolution of policy-making in the EU makes it different from

inter-governmental process that occurs in other organizations.50 Prior to Austrian accession to the

EU, it was seen that forest interest groups in Austria were essential in forest policy-making at the

national level.51 With its entry to the Union in 1995 and the introduction of the EU forestry

strategy in 1998, Austrian forestry policy formulation shifted from an inter-governmental

approach that would see national actors align their policies with one another to a supranational

approach that would involve more people in policy-making; thus, forest interest groups were said

to have a tendency of actively dealing with the preference formation of both national and

institutional actors to effectively coordinate their interests into the unified strategy.52

Also focusing on reforms within the CEECs, Louis Bouriaud and Franz Schmithuesen

(2005) discussed how forest policies and property rights in the CEECs affected the process of

46
Karel Vančura, Patrik Pacourek, and Jan Řezáč, “Development of the Czech Forest Related Policy and Institutions
in the Threshold of the 3rd Millennium”, Journal of Forest Science 50, no. 11 (2004): 505.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid, 506.
49
Ibid.
50
Karl Hogl, “The Austrian Domestic Forest Policy Community in Change? Impacts of the Globalisation and
Europeanisation of Forest Politics”, Forest Policy and Economics 1 (2000): 8.
51
Ibid., 4.
52
Ibid., 13.

25
restitution and privatization of forest land acquired by the governments under socialist regime.

Their research revealed that there is a set of requirements imposed on private forest owners

regarding the forests’ environmental aspect.53 This illustrates the link between the policies

received by the CEECs from the EU, an actor which puts premium on environmental measures,

and their national policies. As restitution and privatization happened towards the CEECs’

accession, environment-related measures on forestry are among the priorities of their adjustment

once they enter the EU.

Jan Ilavský (2005) assessed the structural change that the 2004 CEECs enlargement

brought into the institutional framework. He found out that CEECs have been participating

actively in the institutional dialogues since their accession to the EU.54 Furthermore, he thinks

that the CEECs, who have gained experience from the process, can serve as agents between the

institution and the applicant and candidate countries because of their knowledge of the two

different economic systems that they have experienced in recent times.55 At the same time, the

CEECs can also cooperate amongst themselves through seminars, workshops and other

mechanisms of cooperation.56

Focusing more on the changes that happened solely within the EU, George Winkel

(2009) reported that several actions were launched by EU’s supranational actors were largely

involved towards establishing a unified European forest policy. The European Parliament’s

lobbying of the European Forestry Strategy ended with its eventual establishment, but the roles

played by other EU-level actors cannot be ignored. With only the Commission and Parliament

53
Laura Bouriaud and Franz Schmithuesen, “Allocation of Property Rights On Forests through Ownership Reform
and Forest Policies in Central and Eastern European Countries”, Schweiz, Z. Forstwes. 156, no. 8 (2005): 303.
54
Jan Ilavsky, “15 Years of Economies in Transition: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead for the Forestry
Sector”, Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute (2006): 70.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid., 71.

26
seeking to lay down a legislative aspect of the strategy, it remained as a non-legally binding

resolution of the Council.57 One of the products of supranational involvement is the Standing

Forestry Committee, which acts as a venue for all EU member-states to convene on decisions

that would influence the direction of forestry policy development in the region. 58 Another thing

Winkel’s report touched was the role of the CAP in promoting and implementing the values

incorporated in the EU Forestry Strategy. Acknowledging the transformation of CEEC national

forest policies from both ends of the accession processes and determining the significance of EU

funding to projects related to its promoted values in EU forestry would identify the acquisition of

EU values that may or may not have taken place.59

In the analysis of the new program in place, Carmen Hubbard, Matthew Gorton, Lionel

Hubbard (2007) discussed the EU’s rural development policy and its compatibility with the

CEECs. The Agenda 2000 established Rural Development Policy as the CAP’s second pillar; the

EU imposed particular measures to all its member states. To the CEECs, this meant a

formulation of rural development policies which would be calibrated in accordance with EU

rural development measures.60 In the process, the CEECs were required to incorporate the agro-

environmental measure into their Rural Development Programmes. What concerns their study

most is the capacity of the CEECs to enforce these measures into their areas. The trio doubted

the capability of the CEECs in imposing the non-agricultural measures to produce substantial

outputs following the strong attachment of the CEEC rural population to agriculture for its

economy.61

57
Georg Winkel et al., EU Policy Options for the Protection of European Forests Against Harmful Impacts (Berlin:
Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg Institute of Forest and Environmental Policy & Ecologic Institute, 2009), 37.
58
Ibid, 38.
59
Ibid, 40.
60
Carmen Hubbard, Matthew Gorton, and Lionel Hubbard, The Introduction of EU Rural Development Policy in
Central and Eastern Europe (Novi Sad: Regional Chamber of Commerce Novi Sad, 2007), 102.
61
Ibid, 108.

27
 Ultimately, Gerhard Weiss, Ivana Gudurić, and Bernhard Wolfslehner (2012) revealed

the impact of Soviet prohibition against private ownership of forests on the evolution of forestry

in six of the CEECs. The USSR placed all forests within its territory under government control. 62

When the USSR was disintegrated, privatization and restitution of forests the impact was not

negative as the steps taken invigorated the already perishing conditions of forests in the

CEECs.63

62
Gerhard Weiss, Ivana Gudurić, and Bernhard Wolfslehner, “Review of Forest Owners' Organizations in Selected
Eastern European Countries.”, Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper (2012):
63
Ibid.

28
Theoretical Framework

A. Overview

Implementation of the SAPARD and CAP in the CEECs can be conceptualized with the help

of Europeanization. It will be explained here how the two rounds of enlargement brought a wave

of Europeanization which ameliorated the rural tourism and forestry industries in the CEECs

post-CAP funding. Although Europeanization is different from integration, Europeanization is a

useful theory in our study because Europeanization occurs simultaneously with integration.

After accession, CEECs set up national paying agencies to disburse EAFRD funding to

bolster their rural economies.64 Europeanization then occurred here in a two-way process since

the CEECs “downloaded” EU norms, policies and institutions while they “uploaded” their

domestic rural issues and problems onto a European level. The phenomenon of Europeanization

forced the CEECs to comply with EU policies such as the CAP because of the possible rewards

and punishment of the EU if they comply or fail to comply. Compliance with the CAP

ameliorated their rural economies because of the additional funding to harness and to develop the

CEECs’ multi-functional agriculture. Compliance with the SAPARD and the CAP also meant

that the CEECs had to locally promote European norms and values such as multi-functional

agriculture and sustainable forestry.

During the Soviet era, multi-functionality of agriculture and rural networks were not

promoted because of the command economy the countries possessed.65 Thus, the privatization of

farms after the dissolution of the Soviet Union proved to be unproductive in promoting multi-

functionality because owners did not have finances to support them. CEECs have tried to support

64
Directorate-General for Agriculture (2000), 8.
65
Elena Kovtun, Kateryna Gnatyshak, and Lyudmyla Chornenka, “The Future Role of Agriculture in Multi-
Functional Rural Development,” Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce – APSTRACT (2010): 5.

29
farmers during the 1990s through direct and indirect subsidies.66 However, the subsidies were

unsuccessful because they lacked expenditure planning and continuity. This is because the

governments lacked any official agricultural or rural development policies.67 Through the

SAPARD, the EU was able to force the CEECs to create their own rural development policies as

this is a requirement of the SAPARD. The EU was able to Europeanize the CEECs by forcing

them to create their own rural development policies that would promote multi-functional

agriculture and other tourism values such as preservation of rural heritage, biodiversity

conservation and community support.

The multi-functionality of forests and other wooded areas and sustainable forest

management are values which also promoted in the EU Forestry Strategy.68 Forests in the

CEECs during the Cold War were mostly unmanaged and the flora and fauna in these areas

deteriorated following the lack of supervision in these areas.69. With forests falling under the

control of the government, management practices were stuck in the past and were wiped out

prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain that divided Europe into Western

and Eastern Europe. In the process of accession, the CEECs were not only designated to

formulate policies in line with the EU, it also needed to examine the practices of the EU-15 with

regards to the privatization and restitution of forests to its pre-Iron Curtain era owners.70 With no

concrete rural development programmes similar to the EU-15, the CEECs had to rely on existing

EU policies for the development of their own policies. The instrument towards the establishment

of this policy was the SAPARD. The said financial instrument aided the harmonization of

policies so that there would be coherence amongst the EU member states’ rural development

66
Kovtun, Gnatyshak and Lyudmyla, 5.
67
Ibid.,6.
68
Sustainable Forestry. 9.
69
Weiss, Guduric, and Wolfslehner, 19.
70
Ibid.

30
policies come the time of the 2007-2013 implementations of the CAP-funded EU Rural

Development Policy projects. In harmonizing these policies, the EU introduced values

incorporated into the SAPARD and RDP measures that would “Europeanize” the sector. The

main values, which are in line with both institutional funding instruments, are multi-functionality

of forests, sustainable forestry management—both of which are emphasised in the EU Forestry

Strategy of 1998—and the enhancement of market competitiveness, improvement of social

conditions in the rural areas and the preservation of the environment in the forests—which were

encapsulated in the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP that established Rural Development as the

its second pillar.

Agency Theory and Rural Development

Fatkowski used agency theory in his work to explain the implementation of the

LEADER+ program in Poland. The LEADER+ is one of the programs under the CAP promoting

partnerships between institutions and empowering farmers on a local level.71 It promotes

partnerships between civil society, the government and the private sector.72

By using the principal-agent theory, he was able to determine the synergy among the

private sector, public sector and the EU. Agency theory is a popular theory in economics,

political science and law. The actors in agency theory are the principal and the agent.

The principal delegates work to his or her agent because delegating it would be more

efficient for the agent to do the job.73 Incentives are then exchanged between the two. However,

an agency problem arises when the goals of the agent and principal conflict, if it is difficult for

the principal to check what the agent is doing or if there exists asymmetric information between

71
Jan Fatkowski, “Political Accountability and Governance in Rural Areas: Some Evidence from the Pilot
Programme Leader+ in Poland”, Journal of Rural Studies 32, no. 70 (2013): 72-73.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.

31
the principal and the agent.74 This conflict is avoided by the enforcement of a contract between

the two which stipulates the parameters of the powers of the agent.75 In the case of the CAP, the

principals are the CEECs while the agent is the EU. They delegated the task of supporting rural

development to the EU because the EU has more expertise in supporting farmers and its

Common Agricultural Policy will make rural support more efficient.

Fatkowski argued that the optimal policy choice for the CEECs was to delegate rural

development to the EU by implementing the CAP; however, the EU enjoys informational

advantage since it has more experience.76 The agency theory aptly explained why the CEECs

chose to delegate this task to the EU but this appears to be a bottom-up approach. It does not

explain how rural development in the CEECs affected CAP reform. It does not explain how CAP

is implemented on the ground in the CEECs and it does not explain how the CEECs adapted to

accession and adopted EU norms and values, something that Europeanization can explain.

C. Europeanization

Europeanization is a phenomenon whereby generally practiced European norms, policies

and institutions are adopted by other states on a political, social, cultural and economic level.

These norms are diffused by countries inside Europe or member states of the European Union

and this phenomenon is most pronounced in furthering European integration. Through coercive

and non-coercive instruments, Europeanization takes place and affects states that are willing to

adopt European norms. 77

74
Kathleen Eisenhardt, “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review”, The Academy of Management Review 14,
no. 1 (1989): 64.
75
Ibid.
76
Fatkowski., 73.
77
Miroslav Beblavy “Europeanization and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the New Member States: A Case Study of the
Agricultural Paying Agency in Slovakia”, Public Administration 87, no. 4 (2009): 2.

32
 Anastasakis defines Europeanization in light of the accession of CEECs. He defines

"Europeanization, Eastern style" as an illustration of activities leading to the revolution of

political and economic structures in the CEECs hence Europeanization is internalized differently

by the various states or national actors in Eastern Europe, and its degree of success relies on their

ability and willingness to change. 78

Radaelli defines Europeanization as ultimately providing a theoretical lens on the effects of

integration on domestic political structures. He differentiated Europeanization from other

integration theories. Europeanization is a set of post-ontological puzzles that assume that

integration has already started, while integration theories, such as supranationalism and

intergovernmentalism, try to answer how and why integration started.79 These integration

theories explain the dynamics and outcomes of European integration while Europeanization

explains the domestic effects. 80

According to Hill and Wong, there are three aspects of Europeanization of a state:
81
adaptation and policy convergence, national projection and identity reconstruction. Indicators

of adaptation would be increasing salience of EU policy agenda, adherence to common

objectives, internalization of integration process and organizational change in national

bureaucracies.82 Indicators of national projection would be the national foreign policy’s

projection onto a European scale to multiply its influence and the seeking of a state to spread its

influence in Europe. Lastly, the indicators of identity reconstruction would be the emergence of

78
Othon Anastasakis, “The Europeanization of the Balkans,” Brown Journal of World Affairs 12, no. 1 (2005): 1-4.
79
Claudio Radaelli. “Europeanisation: Solution or Problem?” European Integration Online Papers 8, no. 16 (2004):
2. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016a.htm.
80
Ibid.
81
Christopher Hill and Reuben Wong, “National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization?”
Routledge (2011): 2.
82
Ibid.

33
common norms with the EU and shared definitions of European and national interests.83

According to them, Europeanization has been popularly applied as an explanation to the changes

seen in the domestic politics and policy processes of EU member states.

For Graziano and Vink, Europeanization is a multifaceted concept in the sense that it can

be applied to different situations thus is a general process.84 In spite of the different varieties of

Europeanization, authors and scholars agree that Europeanization is the diffusion of norms and

policies between the EU and either non- member states or new member states.

The important actors in Europeanization are the diffusers of EU norms and the acceptors

of these norms.85 In this case, the European Union diffuses these norms and values, while the

acceptors are the CEECs and their local government institutions. Throughout the process of pre-

accession and accession, countries are gradually being Europeanized because of the steps they

are taking towards integration and the values they are downloading.

Europeanization is generally used in many ways. Europeanization can refer to territorial

politics, common European administrative system, or something akin to globalization or

internationalization.86 Since Europeanization is at risk of conceptual overstretch and

generalization according to Buller and Gamble, Radaelli identifies its limit. Europeanization

should neither be confused with convergence nor with political integration. Convergence is a

consequence of integration but is not synonymous with Europeanization since there is a

difference between its processes and consequences.87

83
Hill and Wong, 2.
84
Paolo Graziano and Maarten Vink, Europeanization: New Research Agendas (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
2008), 7.
85
Ibid,, 8.
86
Jim Buller and Andrew Gamble, “Conceptualising Europeanisation,” Public Policy and Administration Summer
17, no. 1 (2002): 4-5.
87
Radaelli., 4.

34
 There are three main varieties of Europeanization. The first one is the top-down approach

explained by Schimmelfenig and he argues that most of the literature on Europeanization focuses

on the domestic effects of EU integration.88 EU norms and policies are absorbed by new member

states or applicant states. It is a top-down approach because the new member states merely

download EU norms and bureaucratic processes and integrate these into their domestic politics.

The pressure then for Europeanization at the domestic level is to help new member states

successfully fit into different policies however, this fit is dependent on how well the country is

adjusted or integrated into the EU.89 EU policies and norms then force member states to reform

their domestic political institutions and align them with those of the EU. It is then the job of the

new member states to adapt to the EU and not the other way around.90

The second variety is the two-way approach described by Borzel.91 It contends the

usefulness of the top down approach with new insights.92 While the top-down approach only

incorporates the downloading by the new member states, the two-way approach includes the

uploading of new member states’ norms, problems and issues onto the EU level while inversely

downloading the norms and policies of the EU onto their domestic political contexts. It is also

two-way in the sense that the new member states seek to minimize costs of implementing EU

norms while maximizing their influence at the EU level.93

The last approach is the horizontal approach. This approach says that Europeanization

has horizontal dynamics with vertical processes. This means that the interchange of norms and

88
Schimmelfenig, 7.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Tanja Borzel, “When Europeanization Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change,” European Integration
Online Papers 4, no. 15 (2000): 15-18, accessed November 29, 2013, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-015a.htm
92
Richard Vale, “Is Europeanization a Useful Concept?,” E-International Relations, January 17, 2011, accessed
November 3, 2013, . http://www.e-ir.info/2011/01/17/is%E2%80%98europeanization%E2%80%99-a-useful-
concept/.
93
Ibid.

35
policies is vertical while its implementation on the domestic level is horizontal.94 In addition,

horizontal Europeanization is driven by wealthy states since it is they who fund the new policies

that are downloaded and enacted by the new member states. In the case of the CAP, Germany

and France are the biggest contributors and recipients of CAP funds however after the 2004 and

2007 enlargements; the CEECs have also been getting the biggest shares through the revamped

CAP fund sources which are the EAGF and EAFRD.95

Some authors such as Featherstone argue that Europeanization is too faddish and too

broad and these render it minimally useful.96 Because there is no one direct theory of

Europeanization, this makes it difficult to pin down its exact concepts.

On the other hand, Radaelli tries to defend Europeanization from the charge that it is a

fad. In his view, Europeanization has been an emerging field of inquiry for almost three decades

now and the literature on the topic has accelerated rather than decelerated. Europeanization is

unlikely to be a passing fad as it relates to major developments affecting states, societies, and

European Union institutions.97 Europeanization is also important in contemporary political

debates because much attention is focused on how far the European Union has gone in

constraining domestic political and policy choices and how far it should be allowed to go.

Although when taken separately, each Europeanization theory is of limited use since no one

theory accounts for all the various causes and effects of European integration, when considered

together these different definitions prove Europeanization to be an indispensible concept capable

of providing a comprehensive overview of the methods and processes through which the

94
Borzel, 4.
95
Ibid.
96
Kevin Featherstone and Claudio Radaelli eds., The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003), 328-35.
97
Ibid.

36
domestic politics and institutions of European states are influenced by external actors operating

from, or through the EU.

D. Application

The three variants of Europeanization when used together will provide a comprehensive

understanding of the improvement of the rural tourism and forestry sectors in the CEECs. As the

Central and East European experience has shown, Europeanization in the preparatory phase of

pre-accession is an externally-driven process of change defined by EU institutions.98 The EU

then plays the role of providing the norms and policies and the CEECs are the ones that adopt the

set of norms. Europeanization of the CEECs by the EU initially occurs as a top-down process

since the CEECs have no power over what pre-accession procedures they will undertake as

defined by the EU; they simply needed to comply.99

The need for reforms in the rural economies of the CEECs was amplified by accession,

but some reforms were also initiated after accession. European norms, values, and practices

originated from the EU and the 2004 and 2007 enlargements could then be seen as the

acceptance of the CEECs of EU norms and practices, in this case, the CAP. These associated

values and norms such as multi-functionality of agriculture, environmental protection,

biodiversity conservation, rural area diversification and enhancement of market competitiveness

with the subsidies and funds made available to farmers are EU-wide norms under the Common

Agricultural Policy. The norms were adopted by the CEECs starting from their acceptance of the

SAPARD program in 2000. However, with their accession in 2004 and 2007, these countries

have “downloaded” this norm and accepted responsibility for the implementation of EU norms

and policies on a domestic level as they are now member states of the European Union. Initially,

98
Anastasakis, 3.
99
Ibid., 5.

37
the CEECs downloaded the template of the CAP as implemented in the original EU-15, but they

made the necessary local policy adjustments to efficiently implement the CAP in their states. 100

In the pre-accession stage, the EU funds 75% of the rural development funds of the CEECs while

the national governments provide the remainder.101 However in post-accession, the national

governments now fund more than the EU thereby showing that the national governments are now

in a better position to influence EU policies as they are now new member states.102 By virtue of

accession, Europeanization occurred since according to Cerami, exogenous forces of

Europeanization have come in to blend with the endogenous norms inside the CEECs.103 The

governments of the CEECs then transposed these policies and implemented them domestically.

The governments adopted European policies and institutions and evidence of this is their

administration of CAP funds for rural development. Following accession to the European Union,

new members become more engaged in internal EU processes. They now have to closely

coordinate their rural development policies within the European Network for Rural Development

which is the network of all those connected to rural development across the EU and the DG for

Agriculture and Rural Development which manages the CAP. As a result, the CEECs are

currently better placed to influence the content, agenda and the direction of Europeanization.104

Aside from direct payments given to farmers by the CAP, funds are channelled through a

national paying agency set up by a CEEC to disburse EAFRD funds to farmers and these

agencies are similar to those in the original EU-15. These agencies then disburse the funds and

oversee rural development in their provinces. Moreover, funds are given by the EU to rural

100
Anastasakis, 5.
101
Vale, 1.
102
Ibid.
103
“Europeanization and Social Policy in Central and Eastern Europe,” in Européanisation d'ouest en Est, ed.
François Bafoil and Timm Beichelt (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2008), 4.
104
Anastasakis, 5.

38
businesses and these businesses use these funds to diversify and expand. By expanding, these

businesses have created more employment opportunities, thus the funds are disbursed

horizontally and trickled down to very many actors. This is the effectuation of the horizontal

approach to Europeanization since the exchange of norms here were from the EU to the CEECs

but CAP implementation is locally driven and spread throughout the provinces. The CEECs try

to minimize EU influence on their rural economies by having to set up local paying agencies for

rural development rather than EU directly giving aid to farmers for rural development. Thus, the

main driver of Europeanization which is the funding from the SAPARD and EAFRD also

becomes Europeanization’s biggest incentive.

By using Hill and Wong’s model, analysis of policy convergence and adopted norms

between the CEECs and the EU is possible. The CEECs, in pre and post accession, have

downloaded the EU values of multi-functional agriculture, preservation of rural heritage and

business diversification, and have developed their rural development policies around these

values. As with forestry, norms such as capacity-building and sustainable forestry will also be

adopted by the CEECs while at the same time complying with the EU Forestry Strategy. They

would seek to increase its influence in the EU through national projection through the rural

networks while emergence of shared norms will also occur.

CEECs “upload” their norms, issues and problems onto a European level through their

efforts to diversify the categorization of multi-functional agriculture in the EU-level. Private

firms in the rural areas diversified and invested in different industries such as sawmills, retail

outlets, forestry patches and hotels which would spur tourist visits. 105 Emergence of the potential

of rural areas aside from agriculture may have forced the EU policymakers to put rural

development at the forefront of CAP implementation in the CEECs. The close coordination
105
Herslund, 58.

39
between the national and EU Rural Development Policy shows that the two policies are now

influencing each other. This way, they have “uploaded” their issues and influenced EU

policymaking thus fulfilling the two-way approach to Europeanization. Hence from pre-

accession towards CAP implementation, the tourism and forestry sectors in the rural areas of the

CEECs were Europeanized and in turn, these domestic issues were significant enough to be

“uploaded” onto a European level so as to institutionalize massive support for rural development

in Eastern Europe. Thus, the SAPARD and CAP implementation in the CEECs has demonstrated

the three approaches to Europeanization.

E. Operationalization of Concepts

CONCEPT CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION OPERATIONALIZED DEFINITION

Transposition States transpose EU policies into their CEECs use paying agencies similar to

own so as to maximize its efficiency those of the EU-15 to effectively

on a local level. disburse EAFRD funds for rural

development, rural tourism,

afforestation and beautification of the

countryside.

Diffusion of European Norms and Bureaucratic Sustaining the countryside and

European Norms Practices are diffused to the different harnessing its potential for multi-

member states and their intensities functional agriculture are some of the

are dependent on how these states norms diffused. Through the

adapt establishment of national paying

agencies, CEECs have adopted EU

40
 bureaucratic processes.

Adjustment to Adjustment as a top-down approach Upon accession, the CEECs have taken

EU policies is dependent on the fitting of EU measures to comply with the objectives

policies on the domestic context. of the EU’s CAP.

Top-down The diffusion of European norms CEECs accept European norms coming

Approach starts from the top and trickles down from the EU and these norms trickle

to the different states and their down to their agencies and local

constituents. government institutions.

Uploading and New member states download EU The CEECs upload their problems and

Downloading policies and norms while they upload issues onto the EU arena such as the

their policies, concerns, issue areas issue of their poor yet potential-filled

and norms onto the European level. rural economies while downloading EU

norms and policies such as the CAP and

other important EU policies.

Horizontal The way which describes how The CEECs applied various strategies

Approach policies are implemented in the such as national rural networks and

domestic level. paying agencies in compliance with the

41
 objectives of the Common Agricultural

Policy.

F. Conceptual Diagram

s Pre- Accepts new member states Post enlargement

enlargement EU
EU

EUROPEANIZES ALL THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS

Gives funds uploads issues downloads norms

Join EU
Other States NEW
member
states

G. Operational Diagram

Pre enlargement CAP Accept CEECs Post enlargement CAP

(SAPARD) (EAFRD)

IMPLEMENTS CAP THROUGHOUT Uploads issues (rural tourism & forestry)

Gives Special

Pre-accession funds (SAPARD) downloads CAP and other institutions

Join EU Join EU CEECs now part of EU

CEECs

42
Methodology

A. Research Design

This study shall be a mixed research since the researchers will be employing both the

methods of a quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative data will be utilized side by side

with qualitative data so as to sufficiently produce evidence for the researchers’ hypothesis. The

data the researchers would be gathering would be relevant to their independent and dependent

variables. The research would also be descriptive since it simply seeks to further understanding

of the phenomenon of Europeanization and its effect on the rural development of the CEECs.

This will also be basic since it only aims to increase knowledge on the principles of the CAP and

how it affected the CEECs whether positively or negatively. The research shall utilize the theory

of Europeanization and suitably apply its different kinds in examining the state of rural

development in the CEECs along with the dependent and independent variables. Malta and

Cyprus would be excluded from the study because they do not have substantial rural economies

and their CAP implementation is negligible compared to the ten countries in this study.

B. Procedures

The study would require a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. The sources

of data would be books and journal articles consisting of scholarly articles and European Union

communications and reports. Descriptive and qualitative research methods will be used to further

discuss the data. The research will be deductive and descriptive because from the hard data they

garnered from different sources, the researchers will be able to compare, analyze and tally the

different effects wrought by accession. From here, the researchers can deduce and conclusively

back their initial hypothesis. It is beneficial to utilize both qualitative and quantitative data in the

43
study to aptly explain quantities and other data which are not numerical in nature. A mixture of

both would properly support, validate and justify this study.

44
CHAPTER 2: EUROPEANIZATION, THE CAP, AND RURAL TOURISM

This chapter on rural tourism would be divided into pre-accession, post-accession and a

conclusion for the whole chapter. Pre-accession would focus on the SAPARD while post-

accession would focus on the CAP’s Second Pillar which is the EU Rural Development Policy.

This is divided into pre and post-accession because this division would aptly show what kind of

and how Europeanization occurred during these two different periods. Lastly, a conclusion

would show how Europeanization of the rural tourism industries took place in the two periods.

A. Pre-accession

The CEECs were either part of the Soviet Union or within its sphere of influence.

Because of this, farmers for a long time focused on maximizing food production without regard

to the multifunctional potential of the rural areas in the CEECs. Multifunctional agriculture

implies a sustainable agricultural economy that does not only focus on production, but diversifies

into other sources of income, e.g. tourism in the rural areas, that would also produce alternative

sources of income while taking care of the environment and biodiversity. 106 The CEECs also

have the largest rural areas in the EU, but their agricultural economies are some of the smallest.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, CEECs’ rural economies were in a transition phase by

being liberalized and privatized. Traditional markets were lost and output spiralled downwards.

However following accession, each country will have to develop its rural areas at different rates

and at different specializations.107 One of these important specializations is tourism. The tourism

industry requires a holistic approach to rural development because it encapsulates multiple

sectors, for example, hospitality, food and craft, and can have significant benefits for local rural

106
D. Kopeva, M. Kopeva, and S. Madjanova, “Assessing EU Policy Impacts On the Multifunctional Characters of
Rural Areas” Trakia Journal of Sciences 10, no. 4 (2012): 3-7.
107
Directorate-General for Agriculture, 7-10.

45
areas. Yet tourism offers change in employment, regional development, environment or

consumer protection, health, new technology, transport and culture.108 Thus, the approach to

rural tourism should be holistic so that its benefits would also be holistic and would contribute to

overall betterment of the quality of life in the rural areas. How well a country funded key

industries in the rural areas such as infrastructure, village renewal, training of farmers, rural

heritage and business diversification in pre-accession SAPARD funding would be indicative of

the success of rural tourism upon accession and CAP implementation. These indicators would

also show how well these countries adopted European values of multi-functional agriculture,

preservation of rural heritage, business diversification, community support and biodiversity

conservation.

Right after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, a rapid rise in rural unemployment occurred.

Because of this, tourism was identified as a catalyst to stimulate economic growth in the rural

areas, increase the viability of underdeveloped regions and improve the standard of living of

local communities.109 Thus, CEECs sought to renew the image of their tourism industries. Rural,

cultural and nature tourism were heavily promoted with professional marketing undertaken by

local and central government, NGOs and the private sector.110 Poland, Slovenia, Romania and

Bulgaria sought to market themselves as the “Green Piece of Europe” in a bid to promote their

rural and cultural tourism. They also saw partnerships and rural networks to be vital for tourism

development to be sustainable. Prior to SAPARD, there has not been any substantial help from

the EU to specifically revamp their rural tourism economies.

108
Cecilia Hegarty and Lucyna Przezborska, 2.
109
Jenny Briedenhann and Eugenia Wickens, “Tourism Routes as a Tool for the Economic Development of Rural
Areas—vibrant Hope or Impossible Dream?”, Tourism Management 25 (2004): 2.
110
Mariya Stankova, 2.

46
 There are three main geographical classifications of areas: the first is the urban area

which is metropolitan and the centre of commerce, the second is the intermediate area, which is

peri-urban and surrounds the urban areas, and last is the rural area which accounts for most of the

land area of CEECs.111 Because of this, the rural development agenda in the CEECs is vital for

the betterment of the rural communities. The Agenda 2000 and their accession to the EU, their

pre-existing rural development policies had to change and conform to the EU’s rural

development policy that promoted eco-friendly, sustainable and multifunctional rural

development.112 Agenda 2000 was adopted for the rural economies of the CEECs and of the

unprecedented number of acceding states in the CEECs, but they had minimal to no influence in

guiding the reforms or influencing the menu of pre-accession instruments.

Upon application for accession, the candidate countries undertook the Special Accession

Programme for Agriculture & Rural Development. The SAPARD programme enables the

Community to provide financial and technical assistance for agriculture and rural development in

candidate countries as they prepare for EU accession.113 However, aspirant EU states may not

change SAPARD provisions—they merely have to comply to join.

SAPARD is one element of the pre-accession assistance available to candidate countries

and applies solely to the agriculture and rural development sector. Other Pre-Accession

assistance is provided under the PHARE Programme and ISPA (Instrument for Structural

Policies for Pre-Accession) that focus on economic and social development.114 The instruments

were designed for the acceding countries to implement the plethora of already existing European

Union measures, instead of promoting new national policies. The SAPARD then became the

111
Albu and Nicolau, 3-7.
112
Ibid., 9.
113
Directorate-General for Agriculture (2000) , 8.
114
Ibid.

47
main source of funding of the EU for rural tourism in the CEECs even before their accession.

Since most of the CEECs were in transition during this period and possessed no definite rural

development policy, rural development, which also preaches multi-functional agriculture and

business diversification as important values, as a whole appears to be a value in itself that the EU

promoted in the CEECs which they were forced to adopt so they could accede. Before accession,

they must first adopt the SAPARD.

The SAPARD is a seven-year programme that funded around 75% of projects, while the

local governments fund the remaining 25%. It was an ambitious programme of assistance for

restructuring the agriculture and rural sectors of candidate countries leading up to accession.115

The development of rural infrastructure, renovation and development of villages, improving

vocational training and economic diversification are all covered by the SAPARD.116 While the

SAPARD funded the majority of the costs of the projects, the share of the public sector was open

for private sector investment; however, funding between the private and public sector had to be

equal. The private sector would invest more on hospitality facilities and other business ventures,

while village renewal, revival of the rural heritage and rural infrastructure were funded mostly by

the public sector since these are public goods.

115
Directorate-General for Agriculture (2000), 9.
116
Ibid, 10.

48
 In the case of CEECs (except Malta and Cyprus), 520 million Euros were given by the

EU to support their rural development. The SAPARD was a co-financing agreement between the

applicant states and the EU. However, the EU only released funds once the different rural

development programmes of the states had been approved. This is the first time in the history of

the EU that external aid will be conferred on applicant countries on a fully decentralised basis,

requiring an enormous legislative and administrative effort on both sides.117

Table 1: SAPARD: annual indicative budget allocations (in million Euros, at constant 1999 prices)

Bulgaria 52,124

Czech Republic 22,063

Estonia 12,137

Hungary 38,054

Latvia 21,848

Lithuania 29,829

Poland 168,683

Romania 150,636

Slovakia 18,289

Slovenia 6,337

Total 520,000

Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture. “SAPARD: Questions and Answers.” European Commission (2005).

117
Directorate-General for Agriculture, “SAPARD: Questions and Answers”, European Commission (2005): 1.

49
 Since the SAPARD is a necessary programme that aspirant states must undertake before

acceding, it is prescriptive: they could not change the provisions of the SAPARD. Also, since the

EU had the monopoly of technical support to be provided to the aspirant states, this could be

seen as an extension of their influence and slowly creeping power and influence over the

CEECs.118 Thus, the Europeanization of the rural tourism of the CEECs began even before

accession; it started in pre-accession when they subjected themselves to the SAPARD program

of the DG for Agriculture and Rural Development that provided funding, prescribed new

institutions to efficiently disburse funding and required reports from the different national

SAPARD agencies. The aspirant EU states did not yet have power to influence EU policies at

this point. They were merely recipients of EU norms and bureaucracies while the EU acts as the

source of norms and policies. Hence in pre-accession, the Europeanization of rural tourism

occurred top-down because the CEECs could not yet influence the different actors who are

sources of Europeanization. The tourism industry encapsulates multiple sectors such as

hospitality, food and craft, and can have significant benefits for local rural areas hence the need

for a holistic approach to rural development to improve rural tourism.

The biggest, most important and most European actor in pre-accession is the DG for

Agriculture and Rural Development. It implemented the SAPARD in compliance with the

Agenda 2000 Reform which aimed to promote the multi-functionality of the rural areas,

transparency in managing programmes, flexibility in managing aid and creation of new

employment opportunities.119 The role of the DG for Agriculture and Rural Development in

SAPARD implementation was crucial since it is the EU institution that was directly involved

with the national governments. The DG handled the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund from

118
J.R.A. Clark and A.R. Jones, “Europeanization and Its Discontents”, Space and Polity 13, no. 3 (2009): 197.
119
Directorate-General for Agriculture (2005), 1.

50
which SAPARD funding was derived. SAPARD dynamics required that national governments

formulate their own rural development policies that the DG would fund for. The DG acted as an

administrator in SAPARD implementation since SAPARD is unique that it gave candidate

countries full responsibility for managing investment projects from selection to final payments.

The goals of the DG were to ensure that applicant states complied with SAPARD provisions and

measures, implement them efficiently and restructure their rural economies as preparation for

accession. It was based on a decentralized management of aid coming from the top which is the

DG, to the beneficiaries, the farmers. DG Agriculture also created the National Fund. It is the

treasury of SAPARD funding for each state that is headed by a National Authorizing Officer.

The National Fund also managed the two other pre-accession instruments which are the ISPA

and PHARE. The DG did not directly approve the individual projects since the sheer number of

projects was too big. It simply delegated these tasks to the different institutions so they could

gain experience in the application of EU policies.120 Delegation is important since the number of

projects is too big and this also reflects the whole ethos of the enlargement process.121 Funding

from the DG, the main driver of Europeanization, trickled down from top to bottom. In the

process, it passed through different EU-prescribed institutions until it reached the farmers who

would follow the national rural development policies compliant with the Agenda 2000 reform.

The DG also received accreditation and certification results from the National Authorizing

Officer. The Commission and Parliament are one in saying that rural tourism and agro-tourism

should improve the local communities, bring economic and income-source diversity to rural

areas, create jobs in these regions, protect the environment and biodiversity, and establish a

120
Directorate-General for Agriculture (2000), 10.
121
Ibid.

51
direct link with the promotion of traditional, ecological and natural food products. 122 The

Committee on the Regions, on the other hand, promoted infrastructure such as roads and bridges

in the rural areas through the EU Regional Policy. These different institutions go hand in hand in

promoting holistic rural development in the CEECs.

The applicant state had to formulate a rural development programme if it had none before

application. Once it already had an RD programme, it had to submit it to the DG for Agriculture

for approval. Once the DG approved it, applicant states signed the multi-financing agreement

and afterwards, SAPARD will be implemented.123 It is noticeable that applicant states cannot

influence EU policy towards them at this point.

Next was the state-appointed National Authorizing Officer who headed the National

Fund of each applicant state. The National Fund was the treasury of funding for the SAPARD,

PHARE and ISPA. The National Authorizing Officer was the only actor that could accredit

national SAPARD agencies who approved projects in the rural areas. The National Authorizing

Officer was checked by the DG since it had to submit accreditation and certification results to it

and submit reports and amendments of each project to the Monitoring Committee.124

The Monitoring Committee was created by the DG to check the National Fund, the

SAPARD agencies and the different economic and social partners. It received annual reports

about the programme from the three actors and submitted them to the DG for Agriculture.125

122
Directorate-General for Internal Policies, “Industrial Heritage and Agri-Rural Tourism in Europe”, European
Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism (2013): 12.
123
Directorate-General for Agriculture (2000), 10.
124
Ibid., 18.
125
Directorate-General for Enlargement, “The Enlargement Process and the Three Pre-Accession Instruments:
PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD”, European Commission (2002): 5.

52
Reports should have a quantified description of the current situation showing disparities, gaps

and potential for development and employment in other key industries.126

The SAPARD agencies could be seen as the middle man between the DG and the end

beneficiaries of funding. There could only be one SAPARD agency per country and they sought

to be accredited by the National Authorizing Officer. Once they had been accredited, they may

already receive funding, select and approve projects to implement and pay the end

beneficiaries.127 The SAPARD agency will have sole responsibility for selecting and managing

projects, arranging finance and carrying out controls. Payments by the SAPARD agency should

be based on expenditure incurred by beneficiaries.128 Agencies had to choose which projects

need funding most and agencies had to fund a multitude of projects and stakeholders in the rural

areas. However, they should prioritize improving market efficiency, creation of jobs and

environmental protection. SAPARD agencies should also give annual reports to the monitoring

committee about its funded projects. It checks applications, on-the-spot checks, issue approvals

and monitor progress of projects.

Local authorities’ role was to disseminate information and support activities aimed at the

potential beneficiaries of the Programme during the Programme implementation. Seminars,

symposiums, fairs and scientific sessions were conducted. They also collaborate with the
129
regional SAPARD agencies to efficiently disburse information and funding. Press

conferences and advertisements to encourage farmers to apply were in place.

126
Council of Ministers, “Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999”, Official Journal of the
European Communities (1999): 88-98.
127
Directorate-General for Enlargement, 7.
128
Ibid.
129
Ministry for Agriculture, “Final Report on Sapard Programme Implementation in Romania”, Ministry for
Agriculture (2011): 71.

53
 The end recipients of the funding were the beneficiaries, the farmers and workers in the

rural areas. Seminars and workshops were conducted in most of the rural areas across the CEECs

about development of vocational training in tourism and diversification into non-agricultural

activities with alternative incomes.130 After all necessary SAPARD-related institutions were in

place, farmers and members of the local communities must apply to join the SAPARD database

in order for them to receive funding for their farms which they can transform into tourist

destinations. Foremost at the agenda of agricultural diversification is transformation of farms

from merely places of production to places of tourism where potential to draw tourists is

harnessed based on the area’s comparative advantage. Farmers receive funding based on their

farming history output and are given more incentives if funding is spent on environmentally-

sustainable businesses away from traditional agriculture.131 Through the seminars and

workshops, the end recipients of SAPARD funding became knowledgeable on how they should

transform their farms, businesses and rural landscapes to make it more marketable for tourism so

they may derive income from this.

The effects of the SAPARD funding on the end recipients were varied across the ten

countries and across the different rural regions. It is important to note that the outcomes varied

depending on the geography of that area. Least-favoured areas which had low potential for

agricultural diversification into tourism industries have low employment, but were still funded

by the SAPARD. These were areas which have low potential for tourism since the rural

topography is not primed for it. These least-favoured areas are scattered across the CEECs.

Unfortunately, even if SAPARD was created to help the rural areas of the CEECs prepare for

enlargement by making its rural economies competitive through diversification, it spent nearly

130
Ministry of Agriculture, 71.
131
Forgacs, 5.

54
35% of its fund on improving processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products of

CEECs. Only 10.3% was spent on forestry, the beautification of the rural scenery, roads, bed

spaces and farm diversification.132 Most of SAPARD funding and implementation still

prioritized agricultural production even if this was not the initial goal. However, different

CEECS funded different industries at different rates.

With SAPARD funding, Estonian rural development policy followed other CEECs’ rural

development policies by focusing on large investments in agricultural holdings to promote

production and competitiveness upon accession.133 They met their planned expenditure for

tourism and exceeded their expenditure for roads, but they only invested 3% of their budget into

arts and crafts. This is considerably below their planned expenditure for this sector.

Like Estonia, Slovenian rural development focused on production but on goods such as

milk and meat without significant investment in tourism goods. 25% of funding was spent on

rural infrastructure, technical assistance and business diversification.134 After the EU, public and

private sectors funded industries relevant to rural tourism, gross revenue increased by an average

of 27%. Overall, positive impact was seen with the number of tourists visiting farms, renting

rooms in the countryside, etc.

Poland allotted almost half of its budget for production too, but at least 25% was invested

on farms while 16.8% of its budget was targeted at potential industries, economic diversification,

improvement of infrastructure, and training and development.135 It improved rural infrastructure

132
Forgacs, 5.
133
Ibid, 10.
134
Janja Kokolj Prošek, “Sapard Programme 2000 - 2006 in Slovenia: A Story of Learning and Positive
Experiences” (report presented at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Food, Montenegro, Septermber 4, 2008).
135
Forgacs, 15.

55
but only minimally. Poland aimed to promote not only rural, but also ecological and forest

tourism, and it was successful in developing the necessary infrastructure.136

Romania invested 37.2% in agricultural production while 14% went to diversification. It

aimed to promote sustainable rural development and also implemented environmental protection

programmes.137

Hungary spent 33.4% on the improvement of efficiency of production through assisting a

transition towards optimal utilisation of land.138 The environment and forests were given priority

to later develop parts of them into national parks and camping sites.

Slovakia was the only country to prioritize rural development over agricultural

production payment because it funded rural development more than agricultural production. The

priority of support of sustainable rural development covered five different areas including the

adjustment and development in rural areas, forestry and fisheries, training and technical

assistance.139

Lithuania supported employment and infrastructure for tourism in its SAPARD budget.

With the SAPARD, Lithuania supported farmers’ early retirement, trained young farmers,

restructured semi-subsistence farms and improved forest and tourism-related infrastructure.140

Because of this, rural tourism became one of the fastest-growing industries in Lithuania. In 2006,

Lithuania had 531 rural tourism facilities, up from over 100 in 2000 and 203 in 2001. In 2005,

rural tourism facilities were able to accommodate 6,740 people and the average number of bed

136
Miroslava Giorgieva, “SAPARD Review in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and
Romania”, European Institute Foundation (2005): 179.
137
Forgacs, 20.
138
Ibid.
139
Ibid.
140
Ibid., 25.

56
spaces increased by 28% and the number of nights spent rose by 40.4%.141 EU assistance had a

positive impact on the development of tourism and alternative activities.

Latvia invested heavily in rural tourism using SAPARD funding. It invested in rural

infrastructure such as road networks, waterlines, internet and training for hospitality but the

impact on increasing the employment and diversifying the income was not considerable.142

The Czech Republic’s efforts to improve its rural tourism focused rather on agro-tourism.

In spite of the fact that the measure for rural development focused also on the start-up of new

businesses and diversification of farmers' income, the realized diversification of farmers’

activities, and the rural tourism accounted for less than 10 % each.143 The SAPARD

implementation was effective in helping big businesses rather than small ones. The SAPARD

focused on economic diversification and not directly tourism.

Bulgaria covered the renovation of rural villages, diversification, land improvement but

not tourism and crafts development. This is in spite of the fact that Bulgaria was the first to meet

the requirements for SAPARD implementation. They did not cover rural tourism because

employment in tourism only accounted for 8% of the jobs in the rural areas even if its geography

and climate are perfectly suited for tourism.144 Bulgaria has plenty Baltic Sea resorts, 18 national

parks, and 383 natural monuments but specialised tourist products such as walking, hiking,

mountaineering, educational, ecological are poorly developed or mixed and balanced. Poor rural

141
Ministry of Agriculture of Lithuania, “Final Implementation Report Special Accession Programme for
Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD) 2000–2006”, National Rural Development Plan of
Lithuania (2006): 15.
142
Giorgieva, 161.
143
Ibid. 72.
144
Republic of Bulgaria, “National Agriculture and Rural Development Plan Over the 2000 – 2006 Period under the
EU Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD)”, National Rural Development
Plan of Bulgaria (2004): 59-60.

57
tourist services and accommodation and public amenities blight the Bulgarian rural areas.145

Although Bulgaria’s rural areas are multifunctional, they have not maximized its tourism

potential during pre-accession because they did not see that it would yield profits quickly since

most tourism at this point is merely intra-CEEC. Tourists from West Europe, who had much

purchasing power, were scarce.

Overall, SAPARD funding helped the CEECs build on their comparative advantages in

tourism. Most CEECs developed the necessary infrastructure for tourism to thrive. The rural

heritage, villages, roads and amenities were funded but the success varied. Other countries were

more successful than others. Rural tourism in the CEECs is essentially private sector, and

primarily driven by economic goals and employment creation, often by developing part-

time/pluri-activity jobs. It is important in terms of rural income and employment, typically

providing between 10 and 20% of rural income and employment, twice tourism's income and

employment levels averaged across Europe.146 Other countries prioritized agricultural payments

over support for economic diversification into tourism and crafts. Employment in the rural

tourism industry is small and seasonal that is why few CEECs chose to specifically fund this

industry. But following accession, these would change since the influx of tourists from the EU-

15 would help regularize employment. In pre-accession, rural tourism was intra-CEEC but in

post-accession, more tourists would be drawn to the CEECs as their rural areas would be seen as

cheaper alternatives to the usual holiday destinations in the Mediterranean and Iberian Peninsula.

Different regions have different geographical characteristics. Because of this, different

states have different foci on their funding for biodiversity and heritage preservation. Romania,

145
Republic of Bulgaria, 59.
146
Directorate-General for Internal Policies, “14.

58
Hungary, Bulgaria and Lithuania were the states that promoted this most through their funding of

their rural landscapes. This is also due to the fact that their rural areas are abundant with

greeneries, unlike Latvia’s which is full of dense and scattered forests.

The preservation of rural infrastructure and heritage sites was heavily funded by the

SAPARD. 33.1% of its budget was devoted to the development and improvement of

infrastructure in pre-accession, which is in poor shape in CEECs, while only 18% of the budget

was spent on investments in agricultural holdings and increasing competitiveness.147 After Soviet

rule, CEECs sought to rediscover their own cultures and this translated into benefits for rural

tourism. Bulgaria and Romania have diverse rural attractions, e.g. farmhouses as bed spaces,

large public parks where people could camp out, et cetera. These were in terrible state during the

period of transition but were improved with funding from the SAPARD, public and private

sector.

Community support as a value was promoted much by Lithuania because it prioritized

the funding for early retirement of farmers and the training of young farmers which contributes

to community growth as a whole. While others focused on infrastructure, Lithuania chose to

support rural communities. This focus was also evident in post-accession because its public

sector funded nearly € 20,000,000 more than the EAFRD.

The rural tourism industry was small, but full of potential. Funding is now differentiated

between agricultural production and multi-functional agriculture, which is a key EU value in

rural tourism. The top-bottom Europeanization of the CEECs by SAPARD also Europeanized its

rural tourism industry. Top-bottom Europeanization occurred in this period because there was no

147
Forgacs, 8

59
avenue yet for the CEECs to upload their domestic issues onto a European level. By adoption of

the SAPARD, internalization of the different tourism values and compliance with the different

indicators, CEECs let themselves be Europeanized by the process of accession. Before

SAPARD, they did not have their own rural development policies but the SAPARD forced the

CEECs to create their own agricultural and rural policies which will be co-financed by the EU

and the CEECs. This goes to show that rural development, especially rural tourism was not an

industry the CEECs funded before SAPARD. During SAPARD, CEEC rural tourism was

Europeanized with the funding and values from the EU. Also, sustainable rural development was

partly triggered by the implementation of the SAPARD programme during the pre-accession

period.148

With SAPARD funding, rural development policies were nationalized, infrastructure was

improved, businesses were diversified and people were trained in hospitality. These were in poor

shape before SAPARD funding and these show the benefits Europeanization and convergence

can bring. This formed the foundation of a burgeoning rural tourism industry that will become a

full-blown key industry in rural development upon accession.

B. Post-accession

Tourism in the CEECs had a novelty-value through the 1990s, as opportunities slowly

opened up to visit countries with distinct and unfamiliar heritage attractions. The appeal also lay

in their being places that were previously unvisited and that had been forbidden territory; they

148
Pompei Cocean and Oana Ilovan, “Sapard Programme and Its Implementation in Tourism Development in
Bistrița-Năsăud County, Romania”, Journal for Geography 4, no. 1 (2009): 6.

60
had curiosity and prestige value.149 Upon accession, CEEC image was improved; thus they

became more inviting as tourist destinations. This coincided with the revamped CAP, which

institutionalized RD as its Second Pillar, thereby supporting this growth in rural tourism in the

CEECs. Multi-functionality’s value in this period was strongly promoted by the CAP and was

adopted by the CEECs. Therefore, the CEECs’ rural tourism industries would experience

massive growth and return of investment in post-accession because of the tourism influx brought

about by borderless travel, more control by the CEECs in funding projects, and the infrastructure

that was put in place during SAPARD implementation. Also, how well a CEEC downloaded EU

values of multi-functionality of agriculture, rural business diversification, preservation of rural

heritage and community support in pre-accession would contribute to the further

Europeanization of the rural tourism industry in post-accession. Europeanization would occur

two-way in post-accession because CEECs can now influence the agenda of the CAP as new

member states and because of the strong national rural networks that are further connected

through the European Network for Rural Development. While the CEECs were downloading EU

values, they appear to have uploaded the value of rural partnerships because the ENRD was only

institutionalized in 2008. The massiveness of the rural areas in the CEECs and the massive

funding during SAPARD and CAP implementation may have forced the DG for Agriculture and

Rural Development to institutionalize rural networks as an EU value.

The institutions that were in place during the SAPARD implementation were the same

institutions in the Common Agricultural Policy. Upon accession, the CEECs replaced the

SAPARD with the CAP, whose second Pillar is the European Agricultural Fund for Rural

149
Hughes and Allen, 12.

61
Development.150 The EAFRD, institutionalized in 2005, replaced the EAGF as the source of

funding for CEEC rural development. The EAFRD aims to accompany and complement the

market and income support policies of the EAGF and thus contribute to the achievement of the

CAP’s objectives.151 The EAFRD has 4 axes: improving the competitiveness of the forestry and

agricultural sector, improving the environment and countryside, improving the quality of life and

rural economy diversification and lastly, improving the implementation of the LEADER

program.152 The EAFRD covers very many sectors in the rural areas. However, these sectors

should complement each other to promote multifunctional agriculture and improve the overall

quality of life.153

In 2005, the Commission effectively institutionalized rural development as the CAP’s

second Pillar in the form of the EAFRD. Article 55 of the June 2005 Council regulation

explicitly encourages tourism activities. The encouragement of tourism activities is tied with

village renewal and upgrading of the rural heritage. Support for small-medium enterprises,

improvement of rural infrastructure, conservation of the rural heritage, bed spaces and

accommodation, and signposting of tourism sites is also encouraged. 154

Since Europeans can now enjoy borderless travel, the number of foreigners travelling to

the CEECs was expected to increase, thus countries that invested in tourism infrastructure and

training reaped its benefits. As new member states of the EU, they expected increased rural

tourism in the CEECs because of low budget airlines, free movement of people and domestic
150
Katarzyna Kosior “New Stakeholders in the Common Agricultural Policy: A Real Burden to Reform Processes in
the Enlarged European Union?” European Law Journal 11, no. 5 (2005): 575.
151
Council of Ministers, “Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 On Support for Rural
Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)”, Official Journal of the
European Union (2005): 2.
152
Ibid.
153
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Synthesis of Mid-Term Evaluations of Rural
Development Programmes 2007-2013”, European Commission (2012): 6.
154
Council of Ministers, 3.

62
policies supporting the rural tourism155 By 2013, at least 40% of the population in the rural areas

must be trained in tourism so as to support this industry.156

The CEECs are member states of the EU; hence they are now in a capacity to influence

EU policy towards them and enact it according to their own domestic agenda. Although CAP

implementation is dependent on how a state adjusted into the EU, a policy misfit is natural and

will eventually harmonize over time.157 During its pre-accession phase, SAPARD

implementation was characterized by top-down Europeanization but in post-accession, EAFRD

implementation appears to be a two-way approach with horizontal dynamics. The new member

states (NMS) can now influence the EU’s policies as new member states. Also, the EU did not

prescribe certain institutions for CAP implementation in the CEECs unlike in SAPARD.158

Although CAP implementation is still decentralized and delegated to the SAPARD, there

were less EU controls and the CAP was mainly localized through the public sector funding than

the EAFRD. The National Rural Network is a venue that serves as the platform of discussion of

all those locally involved in rural development. Also, it spreads out funding and Europeanization

horizontally across different rural areas and actors. Since the hospitality industry is one of the

fastest-growing sectors in Europe in terms of employment, special attention to tourism must be

given to meet this upsurge in employment opportunities.159 Hence, how well a country

implemented the SAPARD to improve infrastructure, training and employment will definitely

affect the success of CAP implementation with the influx of foreigners. Unlike SAPARD where

155
Enlarging the European Union: Effects On the New Member States and the Eu, ed. Graham Avery and Anne
Faber, trans. Anne Schmidt (Brussels: Trans-European Policy Studies Association, 2009), 68.
156
Dorel Bahrin, “Common Agricultural Policy: Romanian Perspective”, Hyperion International Journal of
Econophysics and New Economy 4, no. 1 (2010): 4.
157
Matthew Gorton, “The Folly of European Union Policy Transfer: Why the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Does Not Fit Central and Eastern Europe”, Regional Studies 43, no. 10 (2009): 4.
158
Ibid.
159
Hans Schmidt, “Rising Employment in Hotels and Restaurants”, EUROSTAT (2003): 4.

63
there was a 75% financing from the EU and 25% coming from the applicant states, the CAP

funded less than the NMS while the private sector funding is now substantial, especially in areas

of employment and business diversification. The EU’s role in funding pre-accession rural

tourism is prescriptive as it sets the framework for SAPARD within which the applicant states

can work. But in post-accession, new member states adopt the CAP and implement it in their

own way since the CAP is more flexible than the SAPARD. Fund juggling is possible between

Pillar I and Pillar II and this is called modulation.160

The implementation of the EAFRD, the actors involved and the processes are similar to

those of the SAPARD. With the exception of the National Fund made available to each member

states, the institutions of the SAPARD were retained by the CEECs to distribute EAFRD funding

even if they had full freedom of disbursement of funding in any way they wish. As in pre-

accession, the DG for Agriculture and Rural Development plays a vital role as the source of

funding. It manages the second Pillar of the CAP as a single fund.161 It makes sure that the new

member states implement the CAP as part of the EU’s acquis communautaire.162 They will

partner with the member states in preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the

RD programmes and the National Strategy Plan. In the first years of accession, they gave

funding to the CEECs at 25% of the level in the EU-15, and increasing by 5% per year.163 Unlike

in SAPARD, the DG does not channel its funding through the national authorizing officer, which

is the certifying agency, anymore. Instead gives it directly to the national paying agency. It

receives and coordinates the National Strategy Plans which are the RD programmes of the

160
S.H. Gay, B. Osterburg, and D. Baldock, “Recent Evolution of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): State
of Play and Environmental Potential” Impact of Environmental Agreements on the CAP (2005): 38.
161
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “The EU Rural Development Policy 2007-
2013”,European Commission (2006): 6.
162
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2006), 6.
163
Gorton, 7.

64
CEECs, and these plans would be implemented from 2007-2013.164 It makes sure that the CAP
165
implementation must be consistent and compatible with other EU legislation. If the DG

considers that a National Strategy Plan is not consistent with the Community strategic guidelines,

it shall request the Member State to revise the proposed programme accordingly. 166 It shall

receive reports of the implementation and progress of the National Strategy Plan of each state

every year.167Afterwards, the DG will report to the Commission about each country’s progress

and send it to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions.168 The DG supervises the implementation of CAP

in the CEECs and it also closely coordinates with them.

Equally important are the roles of the NMS. At this point, they acquired more capacity to

influence EU policy and have more power in managing funding from the EU. Each NMS shall

create a certifying agency to approve paying agencies and it shall designate the most

representative partners at national, regional and local level and in the economic, social,

environmental or other sphere.169 After dialogues with different partners and stakeholders in the

rural areas, it shall draw up a National Strategy Plan indicating the priorities of action of the

EAFRD and have it approved by the DG for Agriculture and Rural Development. The national

strategy plan shall be a reference tool for preparing EAFRD programming and it shall be

implemented through the rural development programmes.170 The CEECs must promote gender

equality and sustainable development through integration of environmental protection and

164
Council of Ministers (2005), 11.
165
Ibid, 10.
166
Ibid, 9.
167
Ibid.
168
Ibid, 12.
169
Ibid., 9.
170
Ibid.

65
improvement requirements.171 The ministries of agriculture must also draw up yearly reports of

EAFRD implementation and submit them to the DG for Agriculture and the Monitoring

Committee. The new member states shall implement the EAFRD for the programming period

2007-2013.

Certifying bodies are created by states to accredit and approve paying agencies. It shall

implement annual financial clearance of accounts and conformity clearance decisions. The

certifying body shall be responsible for certifying the completeness and accuracy of the paying

agency’s accounts.172 It shall receive the application of a paying agency and it is the sole

accreditor of paying agencies.

Paying agencies replaced the SAPARD agencies during post-accession. They still

functioned somehow as the middle man between the DG for Agriculture and the end

beneficiaries who are the farmers and businessmen in the rural areas. Paying agencies are

responsible for paying and declaring EU contribution, controlling of annual accounts, pursuing

and recovering sums in case of irregularities and statement of assurance.173 Like the SAPARD, it

receives applications from potential beneficiaries of funding and decides who gets how much

based on their output, farming history and compliance with sustainable rural development. The

difference is that it does not procure its finances from the National Fund but derives it directly

from the DG of Agriculture. It will choose which projects to fund and prioritize in the rural

areas. However, since the new member states now give more funding than the EAFRD,

cooperation with the ministries of agriculture becomes more important in pre-accession.

171
Council of Ministers, 9.
172
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “EU Rural Development: The Implementation
Structure”, European Commission (2005): 8.
173
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2005), 9.

66
 While the paying agency is the receiver and distributor of funding, the Managing

Authority is the administrative arm of the paying agency. The Managing authority is responsible

for ensuring that project selection is in accordance with criteria set out in programme,

coordinating with monitoring committee and evaluations, collecting and submitting monitoring

information and preparation of annual progress reports.174 The Managing Authority can delegate

tasks to other bodies and select projects but retains full responsibility for their correct

management and implementation.175 It has the responsibility of informing potential beneficiaries

of possible funding from the EU and the general public of the role of the EU in the RD

programmes and their results.

The Monitoring Committee is also chaired by the head of the Managing Authority. It

shall monitor the paying agencies using the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

which is the aggregation of outputs, results and impacts at the EU level and it help assess

progress in achieving Community priorities.176 The Monitoring Committee shall be made of

competent regional authorities, and economic and social partners.177 Its role is to consult project

selection criteria, do periodic reviews of projects and studies proposed programme changes.

To promote coordination and cooperation among the different stakeholders, countries

created their own national rural networks which are connected to the larger European Network

for Rural Development. The ENRD contributes to the efficient implementation of Rural

Development Programmes throughout the EU. 178 Each Member State has established a National

Rural Network which brings together the organisations and administrations involved in rural

174
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2005), 9.
175
Ibid.
176
Ibid. 14.
177
Ibid, 10.
178
European Network for Rural Development, “The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development: Examples
of Projects”, European Commission (2010): 2.

67
development. At EU level, the ENRD ensures the networking of these NRNs, national

administrations and European institutions.179 The ENRD ensures that the different stakeholders

are aware of projects in their areas and the different tourist areas in the CEECs are advertised on

an EU level. It has a very important role in information exchange in the form of brochures and

pamphlets published online.

The public and private sectors have much more importance in post-accession than pre-

accession because it is in post-accession where their synergy would equate to success of the rural

tourism industry. The public sector is responsible for policy formulation, research and planning,

development of basic infrastructure, the development of certain landmarks, establishment and

management of service delivery standards, establishing management measures and recovery

planning and environmental protection, setting standards for training and improving
180
employment, maintaining public health and safety. The private sector is responsible for the

development of accommodation services, travel agency operations, the activity of commercial

tourist enterprises, development of landmarks and advertising through specific marketing

activities, all based on existing infrastructure provided by public administration.181

Although EAFRD contribution is as substantial as the SAPARD, new member states

needed to invest more than the EAFRD because EAFRD funding is well below planned

expenditure.182 Hence, new member states took the lead in improving rural infrastructure and

thereby encouraging tourism activities. They built on what was achieved with the SAPARD and

179
European Network for Rural Development, 2.
180
Ionel, 1.
181
Ibid.
182
Ibid, 4.

68
reaped its benefits with more tourists coming in from West Europe, most notably from the

United Kingdom.183

Bulgaria invested in agro-environment and arts and crafts in the rural areas. By using

machinery, its woodcrafts industry had better products and better quality souvenirs for tourists.

Advances in modern technology mean high precision and high quality woodcrafts at a cheap

price.184 Bulgaria, through its national rural networks, encourages environmentally sustainable

agriculture specifically through the use of EAFRD payments. Most tourists had come from

Britain. It built on its SAPARD funding of infrastructure, hotels and resorts, especially the Baltic

Sea resorts thus unemployment in the rural areas in Bulgaria is one of the lowest in the EU, and

most of those employed are women. This is in part due to the diversification of small family

farms.185

Table 2: Bulgaria’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal € 41,689,168 € 133,405,336 € 166,756,670

Preservation of € 0 -€ 0 -€ 0
Rural Heritage
Business Creation -€ 54 540 715 € 101 809 335 € 127 261 669
and Development
Encouragement of € 7 679 583 € 24 574 667 € 30 718 334
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 € 81 930 955 € 102 413 694
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 314.

183
Ionel, 4.
184
European Network for Rural Development, 15.
185
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Study On Employment in Rural Areas”, European
Commission (2008): 116.

69
 As seen above, Bulgaria funded more than the EAFRD in areas such as village renewal,

business creation, encouragement of tourism and training of young farmers. The private sector

did not fund training and vocation, as these are responsibilities of the government regarding

employment.

The Czech Republic’s rural development drastically improved its rural landscape. In its

rural areas, agricultural lands and crops contribute to the mosaic pattern of landscape, especially

in areas dominated by arable crops. The influence on landscapes will depend on whether the

aesthetic requirement is associated with conditions relative to the location and vegetation of the

plot.186 It has also implemented bans on conversion of grasslands into farms to improve its

tourism value.187 Mountains were then beautified, tourist routes were paved, cultural monuments

were preserved and golf courses were made and this doubled the number of tourists from Britain.

Present trends in the Czech Republic also show that there is a big increase in the demand for

well-preserved nature.188 It became dependent on countries right outside its borders for tourists

and in 2008, it recorded a 19% increase in tourist arrivals since 2002.189 The Czech Republic

claimed that tourism arrivals did not only increase because of accession, but the rise in tourist

arrivals has been evident even during pre-accession period because of the SAPARD.190 Since

Prague is established as a top destination for stag parties and unruly bachelors, it invested heavily

in rural landscapes to promote a new view of Czech tourism. It heavily promoted its Southeast

region, which is known for its lush sceneries and beautiful vineyards.191 The region disposed

relatively large offer of summer tourism at the water areas with the possibility of practicing

186
Marianne Lefebvre, Maria Espinosa, and Sergio Paloma, “The Influence of the Common Agricultural Policy On
Agricultural Landscapes”, JRS Scientific and Policy Reports (2012): 27.
187
Ibid.
188
Hughes and Allen, 192
189
Ibid, 194
190
Ibid.
191
Pavlickova and Kysilkova, 325.

70
water sports or fishing as well. It offered a great environment for winter sports and cycling

tourism has been observed in the region in the past 6 years.192

Table 3: The Czech Republic’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal € 19,382,687 € 35,749,892 € 47,666,523

Preservation of € 2 542 215 € 42 899 870 € 57 199 827

Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 76 312 818 -€ 71 499 784 € 95 333 045
and Development
Encouragement of € 65 320 790 € 59 583 153 € 79 444 204
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 € 43 244 882 € 57 659 843
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 315.

It can be seen above that the Czech private sector did not fund the training of young

farmers. This instead was shouldered by the EAFRD and the public sector, but support for rural

infrastructure was substantial from all three sectors of the Czech Republic.

One of Estonia’s investments is on rural tourism for disabled tourists. EAFRD support in

Estonia has helped build the country’s first disabled fishing platform, targeting a valuable niche

tourism market and helping diversify economic activity in the Baltic countryside. 193 Angling is a

popular rural past-time for Europeans and the Oxforell resort has been purpose-built to cater to

both domestic and international fishing tourists, as well as their families. Established in 2002, the

centre recently received around €79 000 from the EAFRD and €19 000 in public sector funding

192
Pavlickova and Kysilkova, 328.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “The European Agricultural Fund for Rural
193

Development Examples of Projects Brochure”, European Commission (2010): 6.

71
as part of a development package, which included €129 000 of private funding.194 In Estonia,

rural entrepreneurs are heavily involved in the national rural networks and the ENRD to find and

invest in niche tourism markets and all-access tourism facilities in the rural areas. The Oxforell

resort was a result of this involvement. The landscape pastures in Estonia also nearly doubled in

the rural areas in post-accession. The beach resorts in Estonia have been popular with both

Russian and British tourists, and in the past two years, have been popular as well with

Scandinavians.195 Estonia has experienced a yearly increase of 16% in tourist arrivals since 2002,

and this is well above the European average. These changes have started in pre-accession when

Estonia was given access to EU programmes.196

Table 4: Estonia’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal € 41,918,614 € 35,675,770 € 47,567,693

Preservation of € 0 €0 €0
Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 6 133 012 € 3 066 506 € 8 113 459
and Development
Encouragement of € 6 133 012 € 3 066 506 € 8 113 459
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 € 8 894 181 € 11 858 908
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 318.

It can be noticed that funding for business creation and development was also for

encouragement of tourism activities. Following the trend, the public sector still funds more than

the other two sectors in infrastructure-building.

194
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), 7.
195
Hughes and Allen, 191.
196
Ibid, 193.

72
 In Hungary, businessmen diversified their farms into vineyards and organic wineries to

improve the mosaic value of landscape. EAFRD funding was used to protect the natural

biodiversity and red-footed falcons in the rural areas under the LIFE project.197 Hungary, by

2005, was ranked as part of the top 20 destinations in the world. It is the second most visited

state in the CEEC after Poland. It was very dependent on neighbouring countries for tourists.

New direct flights to provinces emerged following a boost in tourist arrival.198 Tourists are also

taking advantage of health spas in the rural areas as they are cheaper alternatives than those in

Britain, Austria, and France. Most of the tourists are young adventurous couples who just

recently found Hungary as an exciting new destination.199 Hungary invested in infrastructure and

facilities around the Lake Balaton area so they may be alternative holiday destinations. Bicycle

paths have also been paved along the Danube River. Hungary also experienced a decline in

tourist visits during the 1990s but became better by 2002. The National Rural Development Plan

aimed to improve efficiency of production through assisting a transition towards optimal

utilisation of land (agro-environment, less favoured areas and afforestation).200 Issues such as

agro-tourism were given importance, and most of the funding for this issue area came from

EAFRD. Hungary supports farm and production restructuring and investments in primary and

secondary production, infrastructure and for age restructuring, infrastructure-building, training

and information activities including the use of advisory services. 201

197
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “The European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development Examples of Project Linkages with Other EU Funds”, European Commission (2012): 7.
198
Hughes and Allen, 199.
199
Ibid.
200
Ibid, 2.
201
Forgacs, 12.

73
 Table 5: Hungary’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal € 12,968,736 € 52,743,661 € 73,489,501

Preservation of € 15 126 129 € 25 330 837 € 35 294 300

Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 382 918 981 € 224 854 557 € 313 297 349
and Development
Encouragement of € 15 298 801 € 43 920 004 € 61 195 206
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 € 23 607 171 € 32 892 658
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 328.

Hungary invested heavily on infrastructure and training. The private sector is the largest

funder in business creation and development and this is understandable because these are

business investments such as resorts and spas.

Latvia uses EAFRD funding for water recreation activities in the rural areas. Latvia’s

water tourism in the Baltic lakes is a growing sector of the rural economy. Latvian RD funds the

Water Joy program, which is carved out in coordination with Lithuanian RD. The aim of Water

Joy is to establish bordering regions as a joint tourism destination and ensure sustainable use of

water resources by developing water-based tourism infrastructure.202 Lake and river networks in

the Baltics provide a perfect setting for canoe tours through unspoilt scenery and tranquil

forested backwaters.203 Local businessmen who received funding were able to purchase canoes

which they could rent out for tourists. This is in accordance with Latvia’s goal of improving

basic services and supporting micro-enterprises and diversification into non-agricultural

202
Csaba Forgacs, 13.
203
Ibid.

74
activities. Because of the affordable prices and activities in these resorts, Latvia is able to attract

tourists from all over Europe.204 The number of visitors from France and Germany has also risen.

This is partly because flights to Latvia have also been made more frequent by leading airlines

such as British Airways. In Latvia, tourists were no longer focusing solely on Riga, but were

exploring further. The rural cultural heritage plays its part because Latvia has medieval churches

and castles hence the public sector spent substantially on the preservation of rural heritage.205

Table 6: Latvia’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal €0 €0 €0

Preservation of € 4 326 397 € 9 734 394 € 12 979 192

Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 191 060 069 € 95 530 034 € 127 373 379
and Development
Encouragement of € 38 937 654 € 19 468 827 € 25 958 436
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 6 489 609 € 19 468 827 € 25 958 436
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 325.

Lithuania coordinates with Latvia regarding their Water Joy program which is a joint

border region project.206 Lithuania’s RDP also underlines the potential of water sports tourism as

a generator of alternative income sources for businesses which can make use of the country’s

large network of natural lakes and rivers.207 Canoeing and kayaking are some of the sports they

aim to promote in rural areas especially around lakes. Lithuania RD intends to support early

204
Forgacs,.9.
205
Hughes and Allen, 194.
206
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2012), 16.
207
Ibid.

75
retirement, setting-up of young farmers, to restructure semi-subsistence farms and to improve

forest and agriculture related infrastructure.208 It also funded landscapes, biodiversity

conservation and forestry heavily. After accession, tourist numbers rose drastically. Most of their

tourists come to Lithuania from Great Britain for their cultural tourism. Small family farms

proliferated in Lithuania post-accession but many of them are no longer solely employed in

agriculture, but in other rural industries as well. Most of those employed in arts and crafts

industries in the rural areas are women.

Table 7: Lithuania’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal € 5,000,000 € 15,000,000 € 20,000,000

Preservation of € 0 €0 €0
Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 97 696 507 € 73 272 380 € 99 786 430
and Development
Encouragement of € 82 285 758 € 61 714 319 €88 595 826
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 € 46 680 000 € 62 240 000
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 328.

Lithuania’s public and private sectors pumped massive funding into business

diversification in pre and post-accession. Because of this, Lithuania appears to be the foremost

CEEC that adopted the value of business diversification. Training was largely funded by the

public sector for the rural areas.

208
Forgacs, 13.

76
 Poland is one of the biggest recipients of EAFRD funding. Poland invests a large chunk

of its EAFRD funding in human capital and vocational training and skills training in hospitality

and high-tech farming.209 In southern Poland, freshwater fisheries are being developed with the

cooperation of the EAFRD and the European Fisheries Fund. By receiving funding from both

sources, farmers diversified into fishing and improved the biodiversity by breeding fish. These

fisheries are also open to tourist fishing. 45.0% of public expenditure was planned to support

processing and marketing while 20.9% went to investments on farms.210 Poland realised that the

country could improve its competitiveness by stabilising farms and producing more value added

food products backed by good marketing practice.211 Poland also invested heavily on

biodiversity, diversification and environmental and soil protection. Diversification is important

because the level of diversification ultimately determines rural tourism development.212 Poland’s

geographical location provides a wide range of possibilities for nature-related tourism with

diverse landscapes-forests, lakes, national protected areas, cultural sites, the Baltic Sea shore and

mountains hence the need for Poland to invest heavily on biodiversity conservation. Poland

reported a growth of agro-tourism farms, bed spaces and facilities from 2000-2006. Poland also

invested in family farms realizing that the business choices of rural entrepreneurs are important

drivers of tourism in an area. Polish entrants into rural/agro-tourism enterprises, attempt to

compensate for depressed agricultural incomes with seasonal tourism-oriented businesses in

order to sustain their rural lifestyle and succeed in rural and economically disadvantaged

regions.213

209
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), 8.
210
Ibid, 9.
211
Csaba Forgacs, 7.
212
Hegarty and Przezborska, 2.
213
Ibid, 75.

77
 Table 8: Poland’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal €0 € 442,185,000 € 589,580,000

Preservation of € 0 €0 €0
Rural Heritage

Business Creation € 1 023 583 600 € 767 687 700 € 1 023 583 600
and Development
Encouragement of € 0 €0 €0
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 € 315 000 000 € 420 000 000
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 332.

Poland invested heavily in diversification, infrastructure and training. The investment of

the public sector and EAFRD reflects the growth in infrastructure, bed spaces and agro-tourism.

Through the different agro-tourism payment schemes, Romania was able to fund its

biodiversity and landscapes in the rural areas and maximize its multi-functionality as tourist

destinations.214 In the northern Brasov County, the grasslands in this part of Romania are

considered to be some of the most biodiversity rich in Europe. The lands here were privatized

and funded by the EAFRD. The grasslands here are multi-functional as they are also for grazing

by sheep. An agro-environment payment of €124 per hectare is provided from the Romanian

RDP if a farmland is considered to be of High Nature Value.215 It maintained and enhanced the

environmental benefits generated by traditional extensive farming systems in High Nature Value

ecosystems such as the Carpathian Mountains and Transylvania.216 Romania’s National Strategy

214
Marianne Lefebvre, Maria Espinosa, and Sergio Paloma, 83.
215
Ibid, 97.
216
Forgacs, 14.

78
Plan included funding for job creation. The diversification of the rural economy and job creation

will be encouraged through support for micro-enterprises and tourist facilities and attractions. 217

Village renewal and development was also a priority. Rural to urban migration is one of the most

intense in Romania in the CEECs employment in tourism will lessen this and improve the quality

of life in the rural areas. Tourism in Romania has necessarily to be a part of the sustainable

regional development, together with the other components of the local economy. This situation is

mainly explained by the fact that tourism is a clean industry, which does not affect environment

and needs little investments. 218 The expenditure becomes even less if a sustainable development

project is very well integrated in the frame of a rural development program.219 Romania was not

able to exploit its forests and seaside areas. Funding did not significantly affect rural tourism

because it did not develop and exploit its rural economies and infrastructure during pre-
220
accession. It is necessary to exploit the existing potential in those areas favourable to certain

types of tourism.

217
Forgacs, 15.
218
Adrian Scutariu, “Measuring the Regional Tourism Activity in Romania: An EU Pre- and Post-Accession
Comparative Analysis”, Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges 1, no. 18 (2012): 3.
219
Adrian Scutariu, 2
220
Scutariu, 87.

79
 Table 9: Romania’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal € 33,130,445 € 1,236,869,940 € 1,546,087,425

Preservation of € 0 €0 €0
Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 206 462 136 € 306 743 745 € 383 429 681
and Development
Encouragement of € 293 043 032 € 435 378 219 € 544 222 774
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 € 269 777 187 € 337 221 484
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 332.

In spite of massive funding for village renewal and encouragement of tourism activities,

Romanian rural tourism did not significantly improve because the comparative advantages of the

rural areas were not exploited.

Slovakian rural areas are dominated by large enterprises with farms of about 700 hectares

each. Services in the rural areas are the most important sources of income. However,

differentiation of services also is pre-conditioned upon the availability and quality of

transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and information infrastructure, and all these are

requisites to tourism.221 Slovakia is the only CEEC to have funded the Pillar II more than Pillar I

because it saw rural development as a better way to improve the rural economies than

agricultural production. The current diversification of operations of agricultural enterprises

mainly focuses on complementary sources of income on activities related to agriculture while

Ministry for Agriculture of Slovakia, “Rural Development Programme of the Sr 2007 –

221

2013”, EUROSTAT (2013): 4-8.

80
little only on promotion of non-farming activities.222 Rural tourism ranked very lowly as a source

of income, however, Slovakia is funding it. Slovakia is best suited for spa tourism, winter

tourism and winter sports, cultural tourism and rural tourism.223 Slovakia has massive sightseeing

and tourism potential hence it funded infrastructure such as ski resorts comparable to Austria’s

and bed spaces. It preserves its rural heritage well by funding the preservation of castles, cultural

and historical sites and landscapes.

Table 10: Slovakia’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal €0 € 93,709.012 € 126,194,803

Preservation of € 0 €0 € 21 000 000

Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 0 €0 €0
and Development
Encouragement of € 38 483 334 € 26 285 000 € 35 397 133
Tourism Activities
Training of Young € 0 €0 €0
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 336.

Slovakia’s funding has been lacking in many key areas such as the preservation of the

rural heritage and the training of young farmers. It is noticeable how in the preservation of rural

heritage, only the public sector funded it. Slovakia’s RD did not fund infrastructure heavily, but

it funded the preservation of landscapes and forestry, something which is distantly related to

tourism. The niche markets in Slovakia’s tourism industry are its castles and landscapes,

something it funded well.

222
Ministry of Agriculture of Slovakia, 4-8.
223
Ibid, 9.

81
 Slovenia introduced innovation into its rural tourism industry. Virtual picture postcards

and multi-media information for mobile phones are two of the technological applications

featured on new interactive tourist information panels that, using EAFRD assistance, are being

installed in the countryside around Slovenia’s coastal region.224 Slovenia’s coastal region around

Koper has a lot to offer in terms of Mediterranean holiday options. Architectural and natural

monuments, gastronomy and health spas, religious and other cultural heritage attractions are all

part of the tourism package of Koper.225 Slovenian farmers participating in the scheme

"Maintaining extensive Karst pastures" are required to carry out a wide range of actions such as

training, limiting livestock density, pruning and thinning landscapes. This shows how focused

Slovenia is on improving its landscape value. Slovenia wants to improve qualifications and to

strengthen the human potential in agriculture and forestry and will introduce measures to

restructure the physical capital in agriculture and forestry as well as enhancing innovation.226

Slovenia encourages business diversification and entrepreneurship in the countryside in spas,

recreational facilities, thermal springs and beach resorts especially around its 47 km long

coastline along the Mediterranean. An increase in the number of US and UK visitors to Slovenia

in the years before 2004 has been attributed in part to the security and stability signalled by

accession.227 Slovenia has also been attracting young people because of its adventure tourism

market which consist of bungee jumping and skydiving. Slovenia had 500 farms of which are

190 excursion farms that offer bed and breakfast lodging. This is a testament to the investment of

Slovenia in diversification.

224
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), 9.
225
Ibid.
226
Forgacs, 13.
227
Ibid., 13.

82
 Table 11: Slovenia’s funding of different sectors related to rural tourism

Sector Private EAFRD Public

Village Renewal € 30,259,000 € 22,694,250 € 30,259,000

Preservation of €14 709 000 € 11 031 750 € 19 900 000

Rural Heritage
Business Creation € 31 551 000 € 23 663 250 € 38 290 874
and Development
Encouragement of €0 €0 €0
Tourism Activities
Training of Young €0 €26 439 926 €35 253 235
Farmers
Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development Policy
from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009): 335.

Slovenia’s approach to rural tourism was holistic. It invested in the required

infrastructure, training and conservation of the rural heritage rather than investing directly in

tourism. If these other factors have already been accounted for, then tourism expenditure would

be cheaper because tourism depends ultimately on infrastructure and sites to visit.

Europeanization occurred here two-way because states can manage their funds more

through modulation and they had to fund more because of the low payments CAP gives at first.

CAP funding is so much more significant than SAPARD, but states have more freedom to

disburse it. Because they are already member states, they are now in a position to instigate CAP

reform especially if it is related to the “CAP beyond 2020.” Because of the ENRD, funds are

absorbed top-down, but are disbursed horizontally across many sectors in rural development thus

horizontally Europeanizing the other actors as well. Funding, as an incentive, also becomes

Europeanization’s biggest driver. Other possible drivers of Europeanization would be European

values that the CEECs adopted.

83
 The diversification of accommodation units and other rural activities coincided with the

evolution of rural areas upon accession.228 No matter how this form of tourism is regarded,

it cannot be completely separated from the community because tourists that choose vacations

in the rural areas have the need to interact in order to live at the countryside. 229 In Romania,

businesses in the rural areas exploited the tourism market in the Apuseni Mountains while in

Hungary, spa facilities known for their hot springs are proliferating. In the Czech Republic, the

GDP share of agriculture has been declining due to transformation processes and accession.230

The creation of new jobs is central to the National Development Plan of the Czech Republic as

rural unemployment is 12% higher than in urban areas, and employment growth is much slower,

thus it focused on development and creation of jobs in agriculture, arts and crafts, rural services,

recreational activities and rural tourism.231 Thus, the value of business diversification is a

requisite to priming rural areas for tourism. The level of diversification is relevant to a rural

area’s tourism value.

The Western European value of the preservation of the rural heritage was adopted and

promoted over Soviet era heritage. Most CEECs, especially the Baltic states’ rural heritage talk

about the struggle for freedom and independence under Soviet rule.232 Tour guides promote the

rural heritage by showing disdain for Soviet-era backwardness in technology, economics and

culture while showing the signs of improvement since 1991. Present CEEC rural heritage also

228
Iuliana Pop and Marinela Gheres, “Tourist Satisfaction in Rural Areas- a Comparative Study On Rural Areas
from Romania and Hungary”, Marketing from Information to Decisions 13 (2013): 7.
229
Ibid.
230
Junior Davis and Douglas Pearce, “The Rural Non-Farm Economy in Central and Eastern Europe” (paper
presented at the National Resources Institute, Kent, UK, July 2000), 31.
231
Ibid, 32.
232
Karen Nichols, “Tourism as a Nation-Building Tool in the Baltic Republics”, Middle States Geographer 34
(2001): 6.

84
enforces the message that the Russians in society are not as westernized as Baltic natives. 233 The

differences between the Baltic natives and ethnic Russians are conveyed to tourists. The Baltic

natives are inherently more European than Soviet and this is indicative of their receptiveness to

EU norms and values. By identifying themselves as more European than Soviet however, Baltic

natives have been committing stereotyping and discrimination against the ethnic Russians.234

This may be an adverse effect of Europeanization and acceptance of the value of preserving their

rural heritage.

The multi-functionality of agriculture is a relatively new concept in the new EU Member

States of Central and Eastern Europe.235 Since the accession process to the EU, ideas of multi-

functionality of agriculture and rural areas are well incorporated into the relevant institutions, but

before accession, the notion of multi-functionality was not widely used. The level of multi-

functionality differs from country to country, but the main similarity among the CEECs is their

dual farm structure.236 This means that farms are either large-scale units or small family-owned

farms. Because of this, the CEECs appear to have a dual agricultural policy: one that is focused

on large scale crop production and the other focused on development strategies for small-scale

family farms for supporting multi-functional agriculture and organic farming.237 A large number

of small-scale family farms are involved in organic farming and agro-tourism but this number

differs from country to country.238

233
Karen Nichols, 7.
234
Ibid.
235
Maarit Heinonen, “Multifunctionality of Activities, Plurality of Identities and New Institutional Arrangements”
Multagri Project (2005): 5.
236
Ibid.
237
Ibid.
238
Ibid.

85
Conclusion for Rural Tourism

In pre-accession, rural tourism was an industry that was primed by funding from the EU

and the governments. Rural development as whole appears to be a value in itself that was

downloaded by the CEECs because prior to SAPARD implementation, no clear rural

development or agricultural policy was present. The EU, through the SAPARD, forced the

CEECs to institutionalize rural development policy and download the values of multi-

functionality, business diversification, preservation of rural heritage and community support. At

this point, they could not influence EU policy yet. The CEECs appear to have downloaded these

values from pre and post-accession while uploading the value of rural networks to the EU. These

values guided SAPARD and CAP implementation in the CEECs. After accession, values and

norms were shared between the EU and the CEECs as new member states and through the

European Network for Rural Development which by generating and sharing knowledge, as well

as through facilitating information exchange and cooperation across rural Europe, proved to be

the avenue through which the CEECs brought their issues to the EU.

Tourism is most dependent on the geography of the area and what potential activities can

be done there. Of the 2.5 million bed spaces in the new member states, 14% are in urban areas,

56% in intermediate areas, and 30% are in rural areas. From 2002-2013, the total number of bed

spaces in the rural areas of the new member states has risen by only 5%. This is despite the

massive funding by the public sector and EAFRD, while the private sector share of funding is

very small. This is because the implementation of rural development and the mobilization of

funds is well-beyond planned expenditure.239 Tourism within Europe generally experienced an

increased growth rate in 2008 after several years of relative stagnation (4.2 per cent compared

239
Forgacs, 8.

86
with 0.4 per cent in 2003), an increase that was also experienced by at least six of the eight

accession countries.240 Employment in rural tourism is seasonal, but the additional funding aims

to regularize employment opportunities especially because the risk of poverty is highest in thinly

populated areas among young people. Employment in tourism will prevent the depopulation of

rural areas and farmers’ interest in protection of the environment offers real opportunities for

growth in other sectors. Rural tourism does not just involve one area in rural development. It

involves very many areas working together, complementing each other to improve the rural areas

thereby improving its tourism value. Because of the very many sectors and actors involved, it

would not be surprising that CEECs funded the end beneficiaries through different institutions.

SAPARD funding should have primed the CEEC rural areas for tourism and SAPARD success

will determine whether CAP implementation would also be successful given the influx of

tourists upon accession. In both pre-accession and post-accession, the CEEC tourism industries

will have been Europeanized and funded to cope with tourist demands especially upon accession.

240
Forgacs, 14.

87
CHAPTER 3: EUROPEANIZATION, THE CAP, AND FORESTRY

Europeanization of the CEEC’s forestry sector within the CAP’s parameters took place

differently in the two periods which it underwent: pre-accession and post-accession. However,

the pre-accession and the post-accession periods share a similar trend in the relationship between

the EU-15 actors and the CEECs. The decision-making leverage belongs to the EU-15 in both

periods, especially during pre-accession. Increased coordination and participation of CEECs as

EU member states through networks and institutions strengthened was a result of accession, thus

slightly making the CEECs more significant in decision-making after 2007.

The chapter is divided into three parts. The first part illustrates Europeanization alongside the

changes that happened in the CEEC’s forestry sector during pre-accession. Policy

transformation, structural reforms, and adoption of EU norms and values on forestry were all

brought into the CEECs. Post-accession, on the other hand, shows the maturity of the framework

that was put into place for the pre-accession phase. Lastly, a conclusion of the chapter would

highlight the points presented in this chapter.

A. Europeanization, the CAP, and Forestry in the Pre-Accession Stage

With little control over the EU policies, the CEECs were left to implement the changes

which would make them at par with or at least relative to the EU-15 as they barge into the EU.

The measures were handed down into the CEECs and the responsibility of enforcing these

measures were theirs. It was the only way the CEECs played their part in the whole process as

the EU controlled much of the arrangement. It was borderline coercive, in such a manner that it

left the CEECs without a choice—but the capability of the CEECs to fund and enforce measures

according to their needs and interests.

88
 Forestry policy in the CEECs underwent further changes as the countries gradually

inched closer to becoming EU member-states. From 2000-2006, the CEECs were under pre-

accession programs such as ISPA, PHARE, and SAPARD. SAPARD introduced 15 measures

and one of those is directly linked to the forestry sector while other measures somehow influence

the sector due to its environmental and economic aspects. Projects would have to fit the values

introduced by the EU which are the multi-functionality of forests, preservation of the

environment, sustainable forest management and the enhancement of forests’ value in the

market, for it to be implemented. The accreditation process required states’ projects to undergo

strict evaluation and monitoring of EU actors. In adopting and implementing SAPARD measures

derived from the EU-15’s policies into their national rural development programmes, aided by

appropriate funding and inclusion to the countries’ legislative or executive frameworks, results in

the promotion of EU values brought by the EU via the SAPARD within the sector.

The accession of the CEECs into the EU was set to bring remarkable reforms in the

forestry sector. It was estimated to swell the size of the EU’s private forest holdings by almost

50%, with the addition of 3-4 million private forest assets.241 In addition, the total land area

covered by forestry has seen a remarkable rise from 136 million hectares to 170 million

hectares—nearly 20% of the forest area in the EU-15 while also causing a 30 million hectare

increase in area of forests which are deemed to be conducive for commercial use.242

One of the most striking features of the CEECs’ forests is the weakened private

ownership of forests. On average, nearly three-quarters of the CEEC-10’s forests belong to the

241
Ritva Toivonen and Paivi Maki, Eds, “European Union's Co-Finance for Forestry and Prospective Changes by
the Eastern Enlargement,” in Financial Instruments of Forest Policy, ed. Andreas Ottitsch, Ilpo Tikkanen, and Pere
Riera (Warsaw: EFI Proceedings, 2002), 42.
242
Confederation of European Paper Industries, Implementation Report On the Strategy for the Sustainable Use of
Forest Resources in Europe and Beyond (Brussels: European Confederation of Woodworking Industries, 2010), 14.

89
state. In fact, Bulgaria did not even have any forests that belonged to the private sector.243

Moreover, only Slovenia among the 10 CEECs had a bigger portion of forests under the private

sector, while the rest at least had 10% more public forests than private ones.244 This was a result

of the nationalization of forests in the CEECs during socialist rule around more or less than three

decades ago.245

TABLE 12: Forest and wooded land areas in the EU-15 and the CEEC-10, 2000
Non-percentage fixtures indicate area in 1000 hectares (ha)

Country Total Forests2 Wood No Wood Wooded Public3 Private3

Area1 Supply Supply Land
EU-15 136,204 113,567 95,525 18,042 22,637 35.14% 64.86%
Bulgaria 3,903 3,590 3,124 466 314 100% 0%
Czech 2,630 2,630 2,559 71 0 84.01% 15.09%
Republic
Estonia 2,162 2,016 1,932 84 146 91.5% 8.5%
Hungary 1,811 1,811 1,702 109 0 64.5% 35.5%
Latvia 2,955 2,884 2,413 471 111 56% 44%
Lithuania 2,050 1,978 1,686 292 72 82.1% 17.9 %
Poland 8,942 8,942 8,300 642 0 83.3% 16.7 %
Romania 6,680 6,301 5,617 684 379 94.6% 5.4 %
Slovakia 2,031 2,016 1,706 310 15 55.8% 44.2 %
Slovenia 1,166 1,099 1,035 64 67 29.8% 70.2 %
CEEC-10 34,330 33,267 30,074 3,193 1,104 74.16% 25.84 %
Subtotal 170,534 146,834 125,599 21,235 23,674 50.75% 49.25%
1
Total Area column consists of Forests and Wooded Land;
2
Forests column consists of both Wood and No Wood Supply (Areas);
3
Public and Private Forests percentage: EU-15, CEEC-10, and Subtotal contain averages.

SOURCE: European Commission. “Sustainable Forestry and the European Union: Initiatives of the
European Commission.” Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (2003), 20.

Table 12 illustrates the portion of private forests throughout the CEECs. The relationship

between the share of private forests and the increased number of private forest assets brought by

restitution and privatization of forests that would be generated by adopting the EU measures on

243
Sustainable Forestry, 11.
244
Ibid.
245
Bouriaud and Schmithuesen, 297.

90
the privatization of forests reflects the fragmentation of privately-owned forests are in the CEEC-

10 (excluding Malta and Cyprus as both Mediterranean island states are not recipients of EU

funding). This poses a problem for investment in private-owned forests, one of the forestry

measures included in SAPARD. Only around 8 and a half million hectares of forests belonged to

the private sector. On that note, the applicability of forestry measures listed in SAPARD has

been diminished to say the least. On the contrary, initial investment in the scarce number of

private forests could jumpstart private forestry in the whole of the CEECs. As investments are in

place alongside sustainable forest management practices, the CEECs could increase the amount

of land belonging to the private sector.

The EU reshaped its Common Agricultural Policy in 1999 by launching the Agenda 2000

as it prepared for the 2004 and 2007 enlargement. Rural Development Regulation was included

among the reforms introduced in Agenda 2000.246 SAPARD’s role as a financial instrument was

also determined in the Agenda 2000 reforms for it was geared to provide assistance to the

candidate countries which were looking forward to meeting the acquis communautaire of the EU

in relation with agriculture and rural development.247

As one of the principles of the EU Forestry Strategy in place, subsidiarity would enable

the most appropriate unit, in this case the member states, to set the direction of their rural

development policies.248 The EU, through its policies, can provide assistance through its policies

and ensure that the objectives are met; in this picture, shared responsibility is in place. However,

the CEECs in the pre-accession stage are yet to become members of the EU; thus coordination

would take place through pre-accession instruments such as the SAPARD. At this stage, the

246
Gorton, Hubbard, Hubbard “The Folly of European Union PolicyTransfer,” 1308.
247
Ibid.
248
Ibid, 16.

91
SAPARD, as a financing instrument, acts as a preparatory tool for the candidate countries from

the CEECs towards their accession into the EU.

Apart from the triumvirate of the Council, Commission and the Parliament—all of which

were highly-involved in the negotiations towards the EU Forestry Strategy initiated by the

Parliament’s Thomas Report of 1995, two other institutional groups played their part towards its

realization. As a consultative body that represents the views of the professionals and practitioners

of their fields of expertise, the European Economic and Social Committee were supportive of the

formation of a unified EU forestry mechanism.249 Their stance on forestry definitely reflects the

economic importance of forests to the economy of EU member-states. This is manifested by

prioritizing the need to upgrade the commercial value of forests.250 The EU Committee of the

Regions, meanwhile, sought to shed light on the environmental aspect of the EU Forestry

Strategy.251 While it also pushed for economic matters, it viewed the EU Forestry Strategy of

1998 as an environmental concern as it already was a staunch advocate of environmental reforms

as shown by its opinions on ecological union and renewable energy.252

It has to be recognized that there was no CEEC participation within these groups. The

EU-15 implicitly agreed to characterize a top-bottom approach for the CEECs would have to

meet the requirements handed down from the institutional level. This can entirely be seen

through the adoption of SAPARD measures into the CEECs.

249
Stijn Smismans, “The European Economic and Social Committee: Towards Deliberative Democracy via A
Functional Assembly,” European Integration Online Papers 4, no. 12 (2000): 2.
250
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 24 April 1997 on "The Situation and Problems
of Forestry in the European Union and potential for developing forestry policies," 3.
251
Yves Defoort, “The Place and Role of the Committee of Regions in the European Decision-Making Process”
(master's thesis, Lund University, 2002), 1, accessed March 31, 2014,
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1554571&fileOId=1563371.
252
Ibid, 40.

92
 Forestry measures were included among the 15 categorized measures offered by the EU-

15 through the SAPARD. In the process, the CEECs maintained the capability of choosing

measures they thought were suited for their corresponding national agricultural and rural

development programmes. Six out of the ten new member states from the CEECs implemented

forestry measures under the SAPARD framework, those being Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,

Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia.253 Eventually, Estonia and Lithuania did not implement the

forestry measures that they incorporated into their national agricultural and rural development

programmes (NARDPs).254 Lithuania initially wanted to implement afforestation of agricultural

land into its programme. Unfortunately, two of the applications were not eligible for EU funding

while a breach between project implementation and budget allocation resulted in the termination

of the project.255 Estonia eventually dropped forestry measures out of their NARDP as a result of

modifying its NARDP after consideration of implementation circumstances.256

The National Authorizing Officer, SAPARD agency and National Fund links the CEECs’

drafted programmes to the Commission whose approval—or otherwise—would be crucial

towards the concretization of their Rural Development Programme’s objectives. The National

Authorizing Officer—who heads the National Fund—functions to approve a SAPARD agency

that would be in charge of project implementation which includes deliberation in choosing,

managing and funding the qualified projects.257 The competence of the SAPARD Agency would

mean that the CEECs’ planned projects are tentative. In this sense, the only share of power that

253
Commission of the European Communities, Annex to the Communication on the Implementation of the EU
Forestry Strategy (Brussels: European Commission, 2005). 37
254
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), 27.
255
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Agriculture, Final Implementation Report Special Accession Programme for
Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD) 2000–2006 (Vilnius: Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Agriculture,
2007). 67
256
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), 26-27.
257
Ibid., 8.

93
lies within the hands of the CEECs is the choice of incorporating forestry and/or forestry-related

measures into their national rural and rural development programmes. Approving the CEECs’

projects that would be funded by the EU through SAPARD, on the other hand, was clearly under

the EU’s control.

The EU’s role at this juncture became more significant as it would be in charge of

verifying the accreditation of the SAPARD agency. 258 Without its verification, funds could not

flow from the EU to the CEECs.259 If that is the case, states would not avail subsidies from the

EU and would have to shoulder expenditure by themselves—which is deemed to be insufficient.

Six countries which initially planned to include forestry measures towards acquiring

financial support have allocated good portions of their funds to forestry. The largest among the

CEECs’ allocations on forestry belongs to Romania whose 108.3 million euros amounted for

only 10% of its total funding throughout the six years. At first glance, 10% of total planned

budget looks small. However, given that there are 15 categorized measures available through

SAPARD; the share of forestry seems to be more favourable than the rest of the measures.

In another view, the 10% share recorded in Romania’s allocation, was forestry’s biggest

portion among the CEECs’ SAPARD Programmes; hence, forestry’s above-average funding

does not provide an accurate illustration of how much the sector has been receiving from

SAPARD. A better number that can tell the picture better has to be the average of CEECs’

allocated funds for forestry. 167 million euros in six years or just a little less than 28 million

Euros per year divided unevenly among the member states show how little forestry has received

through the SAPARD. The tally amounts for only 5% of the fund. Comparatively, out of the 15

258
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), 8.
259
Ibid.

94
available categories, forestry ranked in the middle third of SAPARD allocation. From this, it can

be interpreted that the forestry sector is not of utmost importance in pre-accession. After all, the

main pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy was focused on agriculture and forestry does not

play a major role in this pillar.

The CEECs’ rural population is an important actor in achieving objectives in the forestry

sector. It was feared that the portion of people living in rural areas would into a more favourable

economic climate in the urban areas. As illustrated in Table 14, all CEECs already had less than

half of the total population living in rural areas prior to the implementation of SAPARD-funded

programmes.260 During the socialist period, the CEECs had more people living in rural areas than

in cities. Industrialization mostly took place in the CEECs’ rural areas, contrary to the trends in

the West where industrialization led to high density of urban populations.261 Furthermore, only

Slovenia, Lithuania and Hungary had rural populations which are relatively young among

CEECs.262 The rest of the CEECs’ rural population aged 65 and over, meanwhile, was at 15%

and more.263 Then again, Table 14 shows no significant relationship between the time when the

CEECs implemented the SAPARD and the portion of people living in the CEECs’ rural areas.

Changes were very minimal and could just be caused by the difference between the rural and

urban populations’ growth rate. Although there were no sharp changes manifested from 1999-

2005, pre-accession funding seemed to have neutralized the negative growth in rural population.

260
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2010), 8.
261
Paweł Kaczmarczyk and Marek Okólski, International Migration in Central and Eastern Europe – Current and
Future Trends (Warsaw: Centre of Migration Research and Faculty of Economic Sciences, 2005), 11.
262
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Poverty and Social Exclusion in
Rural (Brussels: European Communities, 2008), 8
263
Ibid.

95
 Table 13: Percentage of Rural Population in relation with the CEECs’ Overall

Population during the implementation of SAPARD

Countries 1999 2002 2005 +/- Countries 1999 2002 2005 +/-
Bulgaria 31 31 30 -1 Lithuania 33 33 33 0
Czech Republic 26 26 26 0 Poland 38 38 39 1
Estonia 30 31 31 1 Romania 47 47 47 0
Hungary 35 35 34 -1 Slovakia 44 44 44 0
Latvia 32 32 32 0 Slovenia 49 49 50 0
SOURCE: World Bank, “Forest Area (% of Total Area),” Data, December 26, 2013, accessed December
26, 2013, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS/countries

The role of non-governmental organizations in the CEECs’ forestry sector during pre-

accession appears to be noticeable. Their representation of the people’s views at the national and

the institutional level could not be underestimated.264 NGOs were also consulted by governments

during policy-making. The Czech Republic’s National Forest Programme, for example, was not

drafted without consulting the NGOs working in the sector. Meanwhile, in Latvia, NGOs were

mainly composed of forest owners which established the importance of these groups in reaching

decisions regarding the sector.265 These reflect the NGOs’ ability to influence policy-making

through constant discussions on environmental and socio-economic aspects of the forestry sector

with the government.266 However, the efforts done by the NGOs to mature into significant actors

on CEEC forestry would likely be diminished once the candidate countries became more

powerful. They may have various ways of penetrating policy-making given the elements of

national and institutional decision-making.

Apart from the rural population and NGOs, seminars involving forest owners (both

public and private), government leaders, and scientists among others often contributed to the

264
Ilavsky, 25.
265
Weiss, Guduric, Wolfslehner, 12.
266
Ilavsky, 26.

96
discussion of issues surrounding policy fields, and forestry was of no exception.267 In this

framework, participating actors gather and discuss persisting issues and figuring out ways of

addressing these issues. One notable seminar but not the only one was held in 1999 at Banská

Štiavnica, Slovakia. It provided a forum for the exchange of information and experience in

forestry among actors involved in the sector. Apart from making recommendations on the

overhaul of certain aspects such as policies, legislation and administration of the forestry sector,

the seminar also highlighted the importance of often-overlooked aspects.268

The first thing discussed in the seminar was, of course, forestry policy and legislation. It

has been determined that CEECs’ forestry policies and the national laws behind them were

inclined to promote state ownership of forests; thus making it difficult to accommodate reforms

towards private forestry.269 As a result, the seminar encouraged private forest administrators to

participate in policy-making at the national level. This would inevitably result in the growth of

private forestry across the region.270 Forestry administration was another issue that they tackled

in the seminar. Ideally, the participants identified at least barely half (around 40%) of the total

area of forests do not belong to the government.271

Through this seminar, the people involved in forestry at the CEECs’ rural areas were able

to coordinate their strategies in the search for solutions to each other’s problems. This activity

would go on to progress into an institutionalized forum called the European Network for Rural

Development. Not explicitly stated as a much-improved successor of this process, ENRD

employs a similar strategy in which the seminar has had a few years ago.

267
Ilavsky, 26..
268
Ibid.
269
Ibid, 27
270
Ibid.
271
Ibid.

97
 Overall, pre-accession can be characterized as paltry with regards to the transfer of values

in the forestry sector. Six of the ten CEECs namely the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,

Lithuania, Poland, and Slovenia ended up with no forestry measures properly implemented

through the SAPARD. Forestry’s role in these areas was not of enough significance to be

allocated of EU funding at this stage. There may have been progress made in these countries’

forestry policies, but as far as the EU was concerned, the developments were not directly caused

by pre-accession financial assistance. At best, the structural reforms made in their forestry

policies could be the product of the impending transition from candidate countries to EU member

states. Focus on agriculture was not diminished, therefore undermining the growth of forestry.

Efforts towards it, however, are not consciously made in relation with SAPARD but rather with

the pre-accession measures that went alongside it for at this time, the CEECs also drafted their

national forestry programmes; these would prepare them for the EU-wide 2007-2013 Rural

Development Policy. In essence, downloading of values still took place, but rather indirectly, in

the CEECs’ forestry sector.

Improving forestry products, process-making, and vocational training for people involved

in the forestry sector were among the forestry-related measures which Bulgaria indicated in its

National Agriculture and Rural Development Plan.272 Initially, state funding on forestry was

focused on afforestation, as it aimed to boost the 3.4 million hectares it already afforested.273

Privatization of forests, however, was seen as a part of a bigger goal as it would enhance the

market competitiveness of the forestry sector. This realization resulted in the Bulgarian

Agriculture Ministry’s eagerness to implement privatization of forests.

272
Republic of Bulgaria. 58.
273
Ibid, 82.

98
 The Latvian National Agriculture and Rural Development Plan also focused on the

afforestation of agricultural land.274 Investment in this measure was beneficial for it targeted two

aspects—economic and environmental. Timber production and employment in the rural areas

were the economic factors that drove forest investment in Latvia.275 Forestry composes 40% of

the country’s total exports, making it the most productive export sector, signifying its importance

on its economy.276 The forests’ role in ecological preservation through diversification of

biodiversity and creation of new habitat for animals contributed to its environmental

significance.277 In this regard, Latvia’s RDP instigated the multifunctional role of forests as seen

through the economic and environmental consideration of forest use.

Romania, the biggest recipient of funding in forestry among the CEECs, incorporated the

sector into its rural economy development.278 Rural economy development in Romania viewed

forestry to have the capacity of generating employment for the rural population 279. Afforestation

of agricultural land was also taken in relation with its impact on the environment.280 In this

respect, Romania concentrated its RDP on the multifunctional purpose of its forests, but mainly

putting premium on the economic side of forests as all measures receiving more than 100,000

euros are in line with the economic goals of forestry.281

The Slovakian National Agricultural and Rural Development Plan focused on Measure 5,

which is the diversification of rural economies. 21 Forest Projects were approved, mostly in line

274
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2000), 2.
275
Ibid.
276
Ibid.
277
Ibid.
278
Sârb Gheorghe, “Results of Implementing the SAPARD Programme in Romania”, Analele Universitatii Din
Oradea (2007):2.
279
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, SAPARD Rural Development Plan for Romania Ex-
Ante Appraisal (Brussels: European Commission, 2002). 472.
280
Ibid, 367.
281
Ibid, 375.

99
with this measure, throughout the country. Forestry-related activities were among of the most

implemented throughout Slovakia. The wide range of projects it funded, ranging from

biodiversity conservation, afforestation and reforestation, and economic competitiveness among

others deteriorated the optimal result of the programme.282 Nonetheless, since most projects were

implemented, it served as a good foundation for the future programmes. It wanted to cover most

of the EU values but its limited funds led to the success of one value as it touched the market

competitiveness the best, while leaving others behind yet still in place.

Pre-accession activities accelerated facilitated transition from the socialist past into the

market-spurred and democratic present of the CEECs. Europeanization at this time resembled

that of the Europeanization “Eastern Style” referred to by Othon Anastaskis for its effect on the

CEECs. Anastasakis claimed that the changes from the EU to the CEECs reshaped the political

and economic frameworks within the CEECs.283 Actions which support Anastasakis’ depiction

of Europeanization are the promotion of the market competitiveness of forestry and the

privatization and restitution of forests. It served as a mechanism that transformed CEECs from

its socialist recent past to the capitalist near future—their destination upon accession.

Although the CEECs have only focused on and maximized funding for a few measures

such as agricultural competitiveness and left out other measures that the EU-15 already had in

place in their areas, their actions mirrored that the process itself served as a requirement for EU

accession. Subsidiarity was also in action as the EU did not fully mandate each CEEC to fund

every measure it provided. Rather, it encouraged the maximization of the allotted funding into

the measures stipulated in the SAPARD. The different ways that the CEECs have allocated the

282
Roman Stivok, “Subsidies for Non-State Slovak Forestry and Forestry Close to Nature”, Close to Nature
Forestry (2003): 5.
283
Anastasakis, 4.

100
funds fitted Anastasakis’ description in his version of Europeanization for all their actions

responded to address the issues in their agriculture and rural development.284

B. Europeanization, the CAP, and Forestry in the Post-Accession Period

Europeanization in this period changed upon the entry of the CEECs into the EU. It no

longer was a top-bottom approach for it involved the CEECs through institutional coordination

mainly within the ENRD framework. Their membership in the EU was not much of a factor in

power relations as the RDP of 2007-2013 were already finalized prior to their accession.

However, horizontal Europeanization is thought to have taken place as the CEECs obtained the

capacity to foster collective growth through seminars, conferences, and other institutional

venues.

The CEECs may appear to have gained ground on policy formulation once they were

conferred membership to the EU. However, the Rural Development Regulation installed into

their national plans was already finalized even before all of them became EU member-states. At

this point, the CEECs are already full-fledged members of the European Union. Hence, they are

involved in the decision-making process of the EU and can recommend solutions to main

problems or lobby programs that are more suitable to their situations. However, they were

limited to subordination in policy-making with power only manifested through institutional-level

for a such as the European Network for Rural Development

The European Network for Rural Development established in 2008 is a forum for

exchange of ideas amongst key actors from the EU member states regarding rural development.

Through each member states’ National Rural Networks, it helps the involved parties to figure out

284
Anastasakis, 4.

101
amongst themselves the optimal way of implementing the measures which the CEECs have

incorporated into their rural development programmes.285 The National Rural Networks involve

government officials, farmers and foresters, agriculture and rural development scholars and non-

governmental organizations.286

The EU Forestry Strategy’s principles of subsidiarity and shared responsibility became

applicable to the scenario faced by the new member states as they are now under the EU

framework. Introduced in 2005 and implemented from 2007 to 2013, the community-wide Rural

Development Regulation serves as the instrument of the EU Forestry Strategy through the

implementation of the RDP-related measures from the EU to the member states.287 Rural

Development Regulation consists of rural development measures, including forestry, to which

the EU member states can adopt into their national rural development programmes. It acts

similarly to the pre-accession measures imposed under SAPARD. In the same manner, the values

of sustainable forest management, enhancement of market competitiveness, preservation of the

environment, and the conservation of biodiversity including the habitat of animals and the status

of endangered species are promoted through the measures stipulated in the RDP. The financial

instrument responsible for it is the EAFRD.

Meanwhile, the same concern from pre-accession times was still present in the rural

population. Migration was not limited to rural-urban because borderless travel brought by

accession could result in the CEECs’ rural population exodus. Mobility in the 27 member states

has been made easy for each EU citizen, therefore increasing the chance of migration. Martin

285
European Network for Rural Development, ENRD Forestry Thematic Initiative: Evolution of the National Rural
Network Joint Activities (Brussels: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, 2013), 1.
286
Ibid.
287
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Report on Implementation of Forestry Measures
under the Rural Development Regulation 1698/2005 for the Period 2007-2013 (Brussels: European Commission,
2009). 2

102
Kahanec, Anzelika Zaiceva and Klaus F. Zimmermann indicated this possibility in their study

but also stated that freedom to travel within the EU makes coming back to their hometowns

easier also.288 This implies that leaving is not considered to be a major problem for most because

CEECs’ migration rate to the EU-15 is relatively low. Table 15 appears to suggest that the loss

reported in the rural population of the CEECs has increased from 1% to 3% during this time. But

changes in those figures reflect little of the rationale behind the decline in rural population.

Horizontal Europeanization is manifested here by the general behaviour of the rural population.

Free travel within the customs union encourages them to work abroad but after a short span of

time, they would return to their villages. In their repatriation, the rural population segment is

suggested to have acquired skills from the Western part of the Union289 People who chose to

migrate briefly to the West sharpened their abilities which would be useful in performing rural

activities, forestry-related ones included, perhaps except the said portion of the people who

would have also traversed the rural-urban migration following their migration from the CEECs

to the EU-15 states. Although not a lot of people are needed, the rural population is important to

the forestry sector because most of them are the owners of forests that underwent restitution.

Without their participation, gridlock in forestry would happen.

288
Martin Kahanec, Anzelika Zaiceva, and Klaus F. Zimmermann, Lessons from Migration After EU Enlargement
(Bonn: IZA, 2009), 20.
289
Ibid, 33.

103
 Table 14: Percentage of Rural Population in relation with the CEECs’ Overall

Population during the implementation of RDR

Countries 2005 2008 2011 Increment Countries 2005 2008 2011 Increment
Bulgaria 30 28 27 -3 Lithuania 33 33 33 0
Czech Republic 26 26 27 1 Poland 39 39 39 0
Estonia 31 31 30 -1 Romania 47 47 47 0
Hungary 34 32 31 -3 Slovakia 44 45 45 1
Latvia 32 32 32 0 Slovenia 50 50 50 0
Source: World Bank, “Forest Area (% of Total Area),” Data, December 26, 2013, accessed
December 26, 2013, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS/countries

The NGOs also play an important part towards a sustainable forestry strategy. Since

policy instruments are starting to go beyond the sole control of states, governments tag the NGOs

and together they draft a more suitable national forestry programme. 290 It can be seen that this

time around, national governments initiate coordination between them and the NGOs. The

credibility of the NGOs to influence policy-making has been established and cannot be

undervalued particularly in areas of policy transition.

Before going through each of the CEECs’ Rural Development Programmes, it is

important to identify which RDP measures directly impact forestry’s economic and

environmental aspects. Three measures were categorized as economic measures: improvement of

the economic value of forests, adding value to agricultural and forestry products and

infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry. All these are

geared towards the enhancement of market competitiveness of forests. Six measures consisted of

the environmental measures which are first afforestation of agricultural land, first establishment

of agroforestry systems, first afforestation of non-agricultural land, restoring forestry potential

290
Max Krott, “Forest Government and Forest Governance within a Europe in Change,” in The Nrn Forestry
Thematic Initiative, ed. Luca Cesaro and Paola Gatto, trans. Davide Penetella (Saarijarvi, Finland: EFI Proceedings,
2008), 15.

104
and introducing prevention actions, Natura 2000 payments, and forest-environment payments.

The first three are in line with sustainable forest management while the latter three adhere to the

environmental and biodiversity preservation of forests. There are some measures that would

certainly affect the forestry sector but these aforementioned measures are classified to have a

direct impact on the forests.

Bulgaria’s Rural Development Programme only funded projects under three measures.

As in all cases, Bulgaria’s RDP funding mostly came from the public sector. Privatization of

forests was seen as one of the main objectives of Bulgarian forestry policy. 291 It was funded

under the first measure—improvement of the economic value of forests. The second measure, in

fact, has received the most funding for nine CEECs, receiving the second largest amount of

funds, only behind the Czech Republic. Increasing the value of agricultural and forestry products

surely covers a lot of areas ranging from food and non-food materials. Infrastructure towards

improving forestry was also given attention as it would help in accomplishing the first two

measures. However, there was no funding in environment-related forestry measures. This implies

that Bulgaria is not in need of implementing projects catered for these measures since its

priorities in the forestry sector leaned towards the economic aspect of forests.

Czech Republic’s RDP stood out among the rest of the CEECs as it opted to invest in

infrastructure more than on the value of agricultural and forestry products. Forest roads,

buildings and other structures that supported or served the forestry sector is primed in the

country.292 Unlike Bulgaria, the Czech Republic aimed to use the EAFRD towards afforestation

Stoyanov and Stoyanova, “Bulgaria Forest Development Project,” 6.

291
292
Ministerstvo Zemědělství Ceske Republiky, Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for 2007 -
2013 (Prague: Ministerstvo Zemědělství Ceske Republiky, 2007), 70.

105
of a good portion of its arable land.293 The remaining funds were allocated to environment-

related measures of the forestry sector as indicated in Table 17.

Estonia’s rural development programme also funded the economic aspect more. Most of

the measures it has supported were under Axis 1 which aims to increase competitiveness of

agriculture and forestry. The private sector only funded projects that fall under the Axis 1

measures while EAFRD funding was instrumental in Axis 2 measures.

Hungary funded more measures related to forestry than most of the CEECs. Its

distribution of funding only left out Natura 2000 payments which deal with the conservation of

protected areas. Just like in Estonia, the private sector was more visible in funding measures in

Axis 1 while Axis 2, which contains measures related to the environment, was usually funded by

the EAFRD and the Hungarian government.

The RDPs of Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all reflect the same trend

as they have invested more in funding measures related to the economic aspect of forests.

Lithuania, like Hungary, has opted to relatively minimize the gap on its allocation of funds

between economic and environment-related measures. In the following tables, it is illustrated

how the funds they received from the EAFRD were distributed. In interpreting the amount of

funding allotted by states to their RDPs, it can be concluded that all of the states prioritized

economic-related measures.

293
Ministerstvo Zemědělství Ceske Republiky, 123.

106
 Tables 15 and 16: CEEC Funding Distribution on Forestry Projects under the Rural Development
Plan, 2007-2013
(distribution per country, in values and percentage)

Countries Environmental Economic Countries Environmental Economic Measures

Measures Measures Measures
Bulgaria €0 (0%) €112,916,292 Lithuania €316,952,400 €609,395,030
(100%) (34.22%) (65.68%)
Czech €220,047,646 €867,563,156 Poland €1,428,302,736 €6,345,000,000
Republic (20.23%) (79.67%) (18.37%) (81.63%)
Estonia €64,296,658 €240,629,886 Romania €451,670,630 €5,061,047,286
(21.09%) (78.91%) (8.19%) (91.81%)
Hungary €747,646,646 €1,391,596,221 Slovakia €266,662,011 €862,270,934
(34.95%) (65.05%) (23.62%) (76.38%)
Latvia €98,321,362 €493,740,630 Slovenia €0 (0%) €441,927,992 (100%)
(16.61%) (83.39%)
TOTAL: Environmental Measures : €3,593,900,089 (17.95%); Economic Measures: €16,426,087,430 (82.05%)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Economic
30%
20%
Environmental
10%
0%

SOURCE: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, “Implementation of Rural Development
Policy from 2007-2013”, European Commission (2009).

107
Conclusion for Forestry

In this sector, Europeanization happened differently in pre and post accession

periods. While both periods saw the EU in control of much of the proceedings, the CEECs’ role

grew once they entered the EU, as expected. The presence of the CEECs in decision-making

consultation platforms demonstrated the shift from top-bottom to horizontal kind of

Europeanization. Although there was minimal to no participation of the CEECs in drafting the

SAPARD and RDP measures, their power of distributing the funds remained in compliance with

the principle of subsidiarity.

During pre-accession, forestry was not among the top priorities of SAPARD funding.

It was evident in the way states have chosen and implemented measures that are related to

forestry. Not all states had allocated funds for forestry during pre-accession with only four states

ending up with SAPARD-funded forestry-related projects. In relation with the values promoted

by the EU, the way the CEECs implemented their projects under SAPARD financing reflected

the penetration of EU values into the CEECs. There were not many projects funded by the

SAPARD in relation with the forestry sector. Nonetheless, it was seen as an improvement

compared to the pre-SAPARD period of the CEECs.

Meanwhile, in post-accession, forestry became more important as the Rural

Development Regulation introduced more measures for the sector. Still with the choice of

funding measures, all states have now funded projects for forestry. Although it was seen that the

economic aspect of forestry dominates funding, the environmental aspect of forestry is not

insignificant at all. Perhaps, the reason behind the gap between the economic and environmental

aspects of forestry is due to the adjustments that the CEECs needed to make towards joining the

108
EU. Nonetheless, both aspects promote values that characterize the objectives set by the EU

Forestry Strategy of 1998.

109
CHAPTER 4: GENERAL CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the rewards with compliance and punishment with non-

compliance are the main drivers of Europeanization both in pre-accession and post-accession.

The EU’s role in pre-accession was a source of funding of norms, values and funding that the

CEECs could not influence; they could only do so in post-accession. The CEECs must have

complied with the SAPARD in order to accede and with the CAP because of the possible

rewards and punishment of the EU.294 Some areas in the CEECs did not experience growth while

other areas did. Variation in growth depended on how well they funded their rural industries

based on their geography and comparative advantage. Tourism and forestry are the two major

sources of employment in the rural areas aside from traditional agriculture. Although traditional

agriculture still takes the bulk of funding from both the EAGF and EAFRD, the trend gives more

support for diversification into non-agricultural activities. To effectuate holistic rural

development, there has to be greater complementarity and cooperation between the different EU

policies that concern rural areas such as the Regional and Cohesion Policies. This may

institutionalize greater support for rural development than the EAFRD already does. This may be

enshrined in the upcoming 2014 and 2020 CAP Reforms. This goes to show that rural areas are

receiving more support from the EU and because of the CAP, the new member states also have

to support their own rural areas by providing more funding than the EU does. Priority is given to

help the local community maximize their skills and utilize this for the holistic development of

the rural areas. It was shown in this study how Europeanization occurred simultaneously with

integration, but it was also shown how the two are different from each other. While integration

theories try to explain the dynamics of integration, Europeanization tries to explain the domestic

294
Schimmelfenig, 5.

110
effects. Different kinds of Europeanization occurred at different stages of accession. Top-down

Europeanization occurred during SAPARD implementation because CEECs merely downloaded

EU rural development norms, institutions and values. Two-way Europeanization occurred during

CAP implementation because while they were downloading EU norms, CEECs were able to

affect EU rural development policy through the ENRD and as new member states.

In pre-accession, their rural infrastructure, villages, biodiversity and lands were groomed and

primed for eventual tourist influx. Resorts, especially in the Baltic Sea were funded and training

was provided by the EU for the local rural communities. However at this time, most tourism was

still intra-CEEC. SAPARD funding prepared the rural tourism industry and improved the

infrastructure; however, development was not across the board as applicant states had free reign

over how they would manage SAPARD funding. Some chose to fund other sectors, but

eventually improved the tourism industry anyway because tourism involves many different

sectors. Europeanization occurred much earlier than accession because in pre-accession, their

rural sectors were already receiving funding from the EU through the SAPARD. Europeanization

flowed in the same way funding flowed. It came from the EU and trickled down onto the end

beneficiaries. It was top-down because applicant states could not influence SAPARD provisions

and funding from public sector was minimal. Upon accession, CEECs are now able to influence

EU policy agenda as new member states, fund their rural development programmes more than

the CAP does and have more freedom to manage CAP funds. The infrastructure set in-place in

pre-accession was utilized well in post-accession with the influx of tourists especially from Great

Britain and Germany. National Rural Networks were vital in promoting complementarity among

the different RD sectors. While funding from the EU still flowed from top to bottom, the CEECs

had to fund the CAP more, managed funds more freely and as part of the EU, they can now

111
influence CAP agenda especially the “CAP towards 2020.” Europeanization therefore occurred

here two-way, with horizontal dynamics because of the European Network for Rural

Development.

The CEECs’ forest lands were mainly owned by the government prior to EU accession.

Also, the market devices at that time were slowly shifting from the socialist approach towards a

more market-oriented, democratic capitalist approach. The EU accession also guided forestry

strategies of the CEECs to accommodate changes that would enhance the competitiveness of the

sector in the market. The forestry measures in SAPARD were derived from those of the EU

member states at that time. More importantly, these measures promoted the values presented by

the EU to the CEECs, namely enhancement of market competitiveness, sustainable forestry

management, preservation of biodiversity and conservation of the environment. Through the

introduction of these values, Europeanization happened from top to bottom at this phase but the

power of selecting the measures indicated in SAPARD remained with the CEECs for their

selections would have to cater the needs and interests of these states while being in line with the

EU’s standards and values. After the CEECs became member states of the EU, they acquired the

capability of transforming EU policies in such manner that would address their issues and

concerns better than during pre-accession. The measures appeared to be more suitable to them at

this phase as compared to pre-accession. Horizontal Europeanization features here because of the

inability of the CEECs to impact the Rural Development Policy’s negotiations prior to its

implementation in 2007. Nonetheless, the EU member states from the CEECs’ ability to

participate in fora and dialogues about rural development at the institutional level demonstrate

the horizontal level of Europeanization for it opens opportunities for them to be involved in

drafting any amendments and making any assessments about the current measures included in

112
the RDP. Lastly, forestry measures in the Rural Development proliferated and all member states

from the CEECs funded more projects on forestry than during the SAPARD period.

The literature on the different CAP reforms over the years is massive. Much literature can

be expected to be written about “The CAP after 2014” and “The CAP towards 2020.” However

since none of the CAP reform literature seem to focus specifically on the biggest industries in the

rural areas which are tourism and forestry, it would be interesting to see how the tourism and

forestry sectors would change with future CAP reform. This study proves that EU accession

provides massive opportunities for the amelioration of rural areas. With the funding, proper

institutions and proper implementation in coordination with the rural networks, rural areas would

experience the European values of multi-functional agriculture, preservation of rural heritage,

business diversification, community support, preservation of biodiversity, market

competitiveness and sustainable forestry. These adopted values have proven to be effective in

providing alternative employment opportunities in the rural areas thus contributing to its holistic

development by improving two major industries which are tourism and forestry. This study

showed that through close cooperation between rural networks, CEEC governments and the EU,

the adoption of the CEECs of the EU rural development policy would be successful in

effectuating holistic rural development through multifunctional agriculture. With the increasing

number of supranational institutions all over the world ever since the European experience, the

success of the CEECs in implementing EU rural development policy may be emulated provided

the same institutions are in place and the same values are downloaded. With Turkey, Macedonia

and Ukraine considering accession, it would also be interesting to see how these countries’

tourism and forestry sectors would fare with SAPARD and EAFRD funding. Also, further

enlargement may cause future CAP reform as in the case of the Agenda 2000. Those reforms and

113
enlargements would affect those countries’ rural development policies, and what these effects

would be would be an entirely different matter.

114
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Albu, R.G., and L.C. Nicolau. “Sustainable Development of the Romanian Rural Areas Within
the Present European Context.” Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov 4, no.
53 (2011): 3-7.
Anastasakis, Othon. “The Europeanization of the Balkans.” Brown Journal of World Affairs 12,
no. 1 (2005): 1-4.
Bahrin, Dorel. “Common Agricultural Policy: Romanian Perspective.” Hyperion International
Journal of Econophysics and New Economy 4, no. 1 (2010).
Beblavy, Miroslav. “Europeanization and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the New Member States: A
Case Study of the Agricultural Paying Agency in Slovakia.” Public Administration 87,
no. 4 (2009).

Borzel, Tanja. “When European Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change.” European
Integration Online Papers 4, no. 15 (2000): page nr. Accessed November 9,
2013. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-015a.htm.

Bouriaud, Laura, and Franz Schmithuesen. “Allocation of Property Rights On Forests through
Ownership Reform and Forest Policies in Central and Eastern European Countries.”
Schweiz, Z. Forstwes. 156, no. 8 (2005): 297-305.

Briedenhann, Jenny, and Eugenia Wickens. “Tourism Routes as a Tool for the Economic
Development of Rural Areas—vibrant Hope or Impossible Dream?” Tourism
Management 25 (2004).

Buller, Jim, and Andrew Gamble. “Conceptualising Europeanisation.” Public Policy and
Administration Summer 17, no. 1 (2002).

Cerami, Alfio. “Europeanization and Social Policy in Central and Eastern Europe.”
In Européanisation d'ouest En Est, edited by François Bafoil and Timm Beichelt, 4.
Paris: L'Harmattan, 2008.

Clark, J.R.A., and A.R. Jones. “Europeanisation and Its Discontents.” Space and Polity 13, no. 3
(2009).

Commission of the European Communities. Annex to the Communication on the Implementation

of the EU Forestry Strategy. Brussels: European Commission, 2005.

Confederation of European Paper Industries. Implementation Report on the Strategy for the
Sustainable Use of Forest Resources in Europe and Beyond. Brussels: European
Confederation of Woodworking Industries, 2010.

Cocean, Pompei, and Oana Ilovan. “SAPARD Programme and Its Implementation in Tourism
Development in Bistria-Nassaud County, Romania.” Journal for Geography 4, no. 1
(2009).

115
Council of Ministers. “Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999.” Official
Journal of the European Communities (1998).
Council of Ministers. “Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 On
Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD).” Official Journal of the European Union (2005).
Defoort, Yves. “The Place and Role of the Committee of Regions in the European Deci
Making Process.” Master's thesis, Lund University, 2002. Accessed March 31, 2014.
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1554571&fileOId=15
63371.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “CAP Reform: Rural
Development.” European Commission (2007.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “EU Rural Development: The
Implementation Structure.” European Commission (2005).
Directorate-General of Agriculture and Rural Development. “Synthesis of Sapard Ex Post
Evaluations: Evaluation Report.” KPMG Advisory Ltd (2010).
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “Implementation of Rural
Development Policy from 2007-2013.” European Commission (2009).

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Report On Implementation of

Forestry Measures under the Rural Development Regulation 1698/2005 for the Period
2007-2013. Brussels: European Commission, 2009.

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. SAPARD Rural Development Plan
for Romania Ex-Ante Appraisal. Brussels: European Commission, 2002.

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “SAPARD: Special Pre-Accession

Assistance For Agriculture And Rural Development.” European Commission. (2000).
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. SAPARD: Special Pre-Accession
Assistance for Agriculture and Rural Development” Information Policy On
Agriculture and Rural Development. Brussels: Information Policy on Agriculture and
Rural Development, 2000.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. SAPARD Programmes 2000-2006:
Latvia. Brussels: European Commission, 2000.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “SAPARD: Questions and
Answers.” European Commission (2005): 7-10.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “Study On Employment in Rural
Areas.”European Commission (2008): 116.

116
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “Synthesis of Mid-Term
Evaluations of Rural Development Programmes 2007-2013.” European
Commission (2012): 6.
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “The European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development Examples of Projects Brochure.” European Commission (2010).
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “The European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development Examples of Project Linkages with Other Eu
Funds.” European Commission (2012).
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “The EU Rural Development
Policy 2007-2013.” European Commission (2006): 6.
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Poverty and Social
Exclusion in Rural. Brussels: European Communities, 2008.
Directorate-General for Enlargement. “The Enlargement Process and the Three Pre-Accession
Instruments: Phare, Ispa, Sapard.” European Commission (2002): 5.
Directorate-General for Internal Policies. “Industrial Heritage and Agri-Rural Tourism in
Europe.”European Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism (2013): 14.
Davis, Junior, and Douglas Pearce. “The Rural Non-Farm Economy in Central and Eastern
Europe.” Paper presented at the National Resources Institute, Kent, UK, July 2000.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen. “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review.” The Academy of
Management Review14, no. 1 (1989).

European Commission. “Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Union.” Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, 1997.
European Commission. “Sustainable Forestry and the European Union: Initiatives of the
European Commission.” Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities. (2003).
European Network for Rural Development. Enrd Forestry Thematic Initiative: Evolution of the
National Rural Network Joint Activities. Brussels: Directorate-General for Agriculture
and Rural Development, 2013.
European Network for Rural Development. “The European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development: Examples of Projects.” European Commission (2010): 2.
Fatkowski, Jan. “Political Accountability and Governance in Rural Areas: Some Evidence from
the Pilot Programme Leader in Poland.” Journal of Rural Studies 70 (2013).

Featherstone, Kevin, and Claudio Radaelli. The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.

117
Forgacs, Csaba. “Focusing Rural Development in Central and Eastern European
Countries.” Studies in Agricultural Economics 5, no. 22 (2010): 12.
Gay, S.H., B. Osterburg, and D. Baldock. “Recent Evolution of the Eu Common Agricultural
Policy (Cap): State of Play and Environmental Potential.” Impact of Environmental
Agreements on the CAP (2005): 38.
Gheorghe, Sârb. “Results of Implementing the Sapard Programme in Romania.” Analele
Universitatii Din Oradea (2007):
Giorgieva, Miroslava. “Sapard Review in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Poland and Romania.” European Institute Foundation (2005): 179
Gorton, Matthew. “The Folly of European Union Policy Transfer: Why the Common
Agricultural Policy (Cap) Does Not Fit Central and Eastern Europe.” Regional
Studies 43, no. 10 (2009): 4
Graziano, Paolo, and Maarten Vink. Europeanization: New Research Agendas. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Haas, Ernst. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces. London: Stevens,
1958.

Hall, Peter, and Rosemary Taylor. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” This
paper was presented by Professor Hall, a member of the MPIFG Scientific Advisory
Board, as a public lecture during the Board’s meeting., Cologne, May 9, 1996.

Hegarty, Cecilia, and Lucyna Przezborska. “Rural and Agri-Tourism as a Tool for Reorganising
Rural Areas in Old and New Member States — a Comparison Study of Ireland and
Poland.”International Journal of Tourism Research 7 (2007): 2. Directorate-General for
Agriculture. “Sapard: Special Pre-Accession Assistance for Agriculture and Rural
Development.” European Commission (2000): 7-10.
Heinonen, Maarit “Multifunctionality of Activities, Plurality of Identities and New Institutional
Arrangements.” Multagri Project (2005): 5.

Herslund, Lise. Rural Diversification in the Baltic Countryside: A Local Perspective.

London. GeoJournal. 2008.

Hill, Christopher, and Reuben Wong. “National and European Foreign Policies: Towards
Europeanization?” Routledge (2011): 2.

Hogl, Karl. “The Austrian Domestic Forest Policy Community in Change? Impacts of the
Globalisation and Europeanisation of Forest Politics.” Forest Policy and Economics 1
(2000): 3-13.

118
Hubbard, Carmen, Matthew Gorton, and Lionel Hubbard. The Introduction of Eu Rural
Development Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Novi Sad: Regional Chamber of
Commerce Novi Sad, 2007.

Hughes, Howard, and Danielle Allen. “Central and Eastern Europe and Eu Accession in 2004:
Views of the Impact On Tourism.” Tourism and Hospitality Research 9, no. 3 (2009): 12.

Ilavsky, Jan. “15 Years of Economies in Transition: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead for
the Forestry Sector.” Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute (2006):

Ionel, Barbu. “The Factors Appearance and the Development of Rural Tourism.” Economics
Science Series (2011): 1.
Kahanec, Martin, Anzelika Zaiceva, and Klaus F. Zimmermann. Lessons from Migration After
EU Enlargement. Bonn: IZA, 2009.
Kaczmarczyk, Paweł, and Marek Okólski. International Migration in Central and Eastern Europe
– Current and Future Trends. Warsaw: Centre of Migration Research and Faculty
ofEconomic Sciences, 2005.
Kopeva, D., M. Kopeva, and S. Madjanova. “Assessing EU Policy Impacts On the
Multifunctional Characters of Rural Areas.” Trakia Journal of Sciences 10, no. 4 (2012):
3-7.
Kosior, Katarzyna. “New Stakeholders in the Common Agricultural Policy: A Real Burden to
Reform Processes in the Enlarged European Union?” European Law Journal 11, no. 5
(2005): 575.
Kovtun, Elena, Kateryna Gnatyshak, and Lyudmyla Chornenka. “The Future Role of Agriculture
in Multi-Functional Rural Development.” Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce
– APSTRACT (2010): 5.

Lefebvre, Marianne, Maria Espinosa, and Sergio Paloma. “The Influence of the Common
Agricultural Policy On Agricultural Landscapes.” JRS Scientific and Policy
Reports (2012).
Ministerstvo Zemědělství Ceske Republiky. Rural Development Programme of the Czech
Republic for 2007 - 2013. Prague: Ministerstvo Zemědělství Ceske Republiky, 2007.
Ministry of Agriculture of Lithuania. “Final Implementation Report Special Accession
Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) 2000–2006.” National
Rural Development Plan of Lithuania (2006): 15.
Ministry for Agriculture of Romania. “Final Report On Sapard Programme Implementation in
Romania.” Ministry for Agriculture (2011): 71.
Ministry for Agriculture of Slovakia. “Rural Development Programme of the Sr 2007-
2013.”EUROSTAT (2013): 4-8.

119
Moga, Teodor Lucian. “The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist
Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process.”Journal of Alternative
Perspectives in the Social Sciences 1, no. 3 (2009)

Nichols, Karen. “Tourism as a Nation-Building Tool in the Baltic Republics.” Middle States
Geographer 34 (2001): 6.

Niemann, Arne, and Peter Schmitter. Neo-functionalism. Edited by Antje Wiener and Thomas
Diez. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Pace, Roderick. Enlarging the European Union: Effects On the New Member States and the Eu.
Edited by Graham Avery and Anne Faber. Translated by Anne Schmidt. Brussels: Trans
European Policy Studies Association, 2009.
Pavlickova, Helena, and Barbara Kysilkova. “The Role of Rural and Agri-Tourism in Regional
Development.” Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry (2010): 325.
Pop, Iuliana, and Marinela Gheres. “Tourist Satisfaction in Rural Areas- a Comparative Study
On Rural Areas from Romania and Hungary.” Marketing from Information to
Decisions 13 (2013): 7.
Prošek, Janja Kokolj. “Sapard Programme 2000 - 2006 in Slovenia: A Story of Learning and
Positive Experiences.” Report presented at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Food,
Montenegro, Septermber 4, 2008.

Radaelli, Claudio. “Europeanisation: Solution or Problem?” European Integration Online

Papers 8, no. 16 (2004): 2-4. Accessed October 28, 2013.
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016a.htm.
Republic of Bulgaria. “National Agriculture and Rural Development Plan Over the 2000 – 2006
Period under the Eu Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development
(Sapard).”National Rural Development Plan of Bulgaria (2004).
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Agriculture. Final Implementation Report Special Accession
Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) 2000–2006. Vilnius:
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Agriculture, 2007.
Schimmelfenig, Frank. “Europeanization Beyond Europe.” Living Reviews in European
Governance 4, no.3 (2009).
Schmidt, Hans. “Rising Employment in Hotels and Restaurants.” EUROSTAT (2003): 4.
Scutariu, Adrian “Measuring the Regional Tourism Activity in Romania: An Eu Pre- and Post
Accession Comparative Analysis.” Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges 1,
no. 18 (2012): 3.
Stankova, Mariya “Diversification of Rural Tourism Trough Partnership Approaches in Eastern
Europe Destination.” Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business 5, no. 2
(2010): 1-4.

120
Stivok, Roman. “Subsidies for Non-State Slovak Forestry and Forestry Close to Nature.” Close
to Nature Forestry (2003):
Stoyanov, Nickola, and Maria Stoyanova. “Bulgaria Forest Development Project.” In Legal
Aspects of European Forest Sustainable Development Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium Poiana Brasov, Romania, edited by Ioan Vasile Abrudan, Franz
Schmithüsen, and Peter Herbst, 6-12. Brasov: Translvania University, 2005.
Toivonen, Ritva, and Paivi Maki, eds. “European Union's Co-Finance for Forestry and
Prospective Changes by the Eastern Enlargement.” In Financial Instruments of Forest
Policy, edited by Andreas Ottitsch, Ilpo Tikkanen, and Pere Riera. Vol. 42, 181-90.
Warsaw: EFI Proceedings, 2002.
Vale, Richard. “Is Europeanization a Useful Concept?” E-International Relations. January 17,
2011. Accessed November 3, 2013. http://www.e
ir.info/2011/01/17/is%E2%80%98europeanization%E2%80%99-a-useful-concept/.
Vančura, Karel, Patrik Pacourek, and Jan Řezáč. “Development of the Czech Forest Related
Policy and Institutions in the Threshold of the 3rd Millennium.” Journal of Forest Science
50, no. 11 (2004): 505-9.
Weiss, Gerhard, Ivana Gudurić, and Bernhard Wolfslehner. “Review of Forest Owners'
Organizations in Selected Eastern European Countries.” Forestry Policy and Institutions
Working Paper (2012).
Winkel, Georg, Timo Kaphengst, Sophie Herbert, Zoe Robaey, Lydia Rosenkranz, and Metodi
Sotirov. Eu Policy Options for the Protection of European Forests Against Harmful
Impacts. Berlin: Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg Institute of Forest and
Environmental Policy & Ecologic Institute, 2009.
World Bank. “Rural Population (% of Total Population).” Data. February 20, 2014. Accessed
February 20, 2014.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS/countries?page=2.

121