EDORA:European Development OpportunitiesEuropean Development Opportunities

for Rural Areas

ESPON 2013 Programme: First ResultsDG Regio Open Day Brussels, 7th October 2009 DG Regio Open Day Brussels, 7th October 2009

Andrew CopusCentre for Remoteand Rural Studiesand Rural Studies

andrew.copus@uhi.ac.uk

h O C iThe EDORA Consortium

• UHI Millennium Institute Inverness• UHI Millennium Institute, Inverness• NORDREGIO, Stockholm• University of Newcastle• University of Valencia• University of Patras• TEAGASC, Dublin• University of Gloucester

U i it f Lj blj• University of Ljubljana• Von Thunen Institute, Braunschweig• BABF, Vienna• Dortmund UniversityDortmund University• Polish Academy of Sciences• Hungarian Academy of Sciences• Higher Institute of Agronomy, Lisbon• Scottish Agricultural College• International Organization for Migration, Warsaw

Th EDORA P j t Obj tiThe EDORA Project Objectives(According to the Specification)

…to describe the main processes of change which to desc be t e a p ocesses o c a ge care resulting in the increasing differentiation of rural areas.

…to identify development opportunities and constraints for different kinds of rural areas…

…to consider how such knowledge can be translated into guiding principles to support the g g p p ppdevelopment of appropriate cohesion policy.

O li f iOutline of Presentation:

1 General approach and structure of EDORA1.General approach and structure of EDORA

2.Highlights from the Conceptual Phase –Understanding/characterising the process of rural change.

3.Highlight from the Empirical Phase – the EDORA Typology

4.Some policy issues emerging from the work so far…

The EDORA Approach

• A very wide-ranging task…e y de a g g tas• Rural data availability is strongly influenced by the

agrarian rural development tradition.• Being driven by the data availability risks “slipping

into well-trodden paths…” • A hybrid “deductive/inductive” approach – first • A hybrid deductive/inductive approach – first

establish territorial concepts and theory, then empirical analysis and assessing policy i li tiimplications.

• Work so far has been mainly conceptual and empirical… have not yet considered policy empirical… have not yet considered policy implications in any detail.

EDORA P j t St tEDORA Project Structure

Grand NarrativesReview of literature:Policy Narratives Cohesion Policy Implications

and Potential for TerritorialCo-operation

Grand Narratives of Rural Change

Review of literature:-Rural demography-Rural employment-Rural business development-R-U relationships-Cultural heritage

Future PerspectivesExemplar Regions

-Cultural heritage-Access to services-Institutional capacity-Climate change-Farm structural change

TypologyAvailable Indicators

Database and Country Profiles

Th C t l PhThe Conceptual Phase:Understanding Rural Change

Economic processes:• Declining relative importance of agriculture,

• Refocusing of agriculture (multifunctionality, ecological modernisation, post-productivism etc).p p )

• Opportunities presented by the “Consumption Countryside”.

• Semi-subsistence micro-farms as a social buffer (esp. in NMS12)

L b k t t ti h it l i

Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

• Labour market segmentation – human capital issues.

• Rise of diversified New Rural Economy (NRE), especially in accessible areas.

Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

PROCESSES OF E i

• Importance of extra-local networks in growth and innovation.

PROCESSES OF RURAL CHANGE Economic PoliticalSocial Environ-

mental

Th C t l PhThe Conceptual Phase:Understanding Rural Change

Social Processes:

• R-U Migration, counter-urbanisation, ageing.

• “New Rurality” in accessible rural areas, prosperous, urban characteristics…

• Service provision issues in remote and sparsely populated areas.

• Contrasting “live-work” models of NRE and NMS.

Decline of t aditional instit tions and ise of indi id alism

Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

• Decline of traditional institutions and rise of individualism.

Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

PROCESSES OF E iPROCESSES OF RURAL CHANGE Economic PoliticalSocial Environ-

mental

Th C t l PhThe Conceptual Phase:Understanding Rural Change

Environmental Processes:

• Maintenance and commodification of the rural environment…

•Effects of climate change.

•Effects of anticipation of C C and mitigation efforts•Effects of anticipation of C. C. and mitigation efforts

Drivers - Opportunities - ConstraintsDrivers - Opportunities - Constraints

PROCESSES OF E iPROCESSES OF RURAL CHANGE Economic PoliticalSocial Environ-

mental

Th C t l PhThe Conceptual Phase:Understanding Rural Change

Political Processes:

• From Government to Governance, and the “Project State”.

• Changing welfare state systems, privatisation, fiscal pressures…

• Innovation strategies emphasis on potential and competitiveness• Innovation strategies, emphasis on potential and competitiveness, (rather than compensation or support for weakness).

• Localism v central control (neo-endogenous) and managerial approaches.

Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

pp

Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

PROCESSES OF E iPROCESSES OF RURAL CHANGE Economic PoliticalSocial Environ-

mental

Th C t l PhThe Conceptual Phase:Understanding Rural Change

CONNEXITY

b

Agri-CentricUrban-

Rural

Centric

Economic Competit., Global Capital

META -NARRATIVES

Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

Overarching theme of increasing “CONNEXITY” (Mulgan) – “network society”, “relational space”, “multi-level governance”. Freedom v interdependence Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints

PROCESSES OF E i

interdependence.

1. Agri-centric narrative (post-productivism, duality, mutifunctionality etc.

2 Urban rural (core periphery) narrativePROCESSES OF RURAL CHANGE Economic PoliticalSocial Environ-

mental2. Urban-rural (core-periphery) narrative.

3. Economic competitiveness and global capital penetration…

Th C t l PhThe Conceptual Phase:Understanding Rural Change

CONNEXITY

Urban-Rural

Agri-Centric

Economic

META -NARRATIVES

Economic Competit., Global Capital

Two Key Issues Determining Local Path of Rural Change:Interaction:(Rural-Urban,Local-Global)

Assets(Agglomeration or Place Shaping?)

KEY ISSUES DETERMININGLOCAL "PATH OF CHANGE"

Two Key Issues Determining Local Path of Rural Change:

• Nature of Interaction (R - U or Local - Global?)

• Available regional assets agglomeration or “place shaping”

Th E i i l PhThe Empirical Phase:The EDORA Typology

• Wished to review explanatory potential of the Dijkstra-jPoelman version of the OECD typology.

• Explore potential to elaborate it; add structure and performance aspects to U-R dimension.

• Elaborated typology might then serve as a framework for analysis of recent trends, consideration of future perspectives, and policy implications.

N.B. It cannot be a typology of Rural Areas – two reasons:(a)Rural areas do not function separately from adjacent

urban areas – they are connected by a dense web of u ba a eas t ey a e co ected by a de se eb ointeractions.

(b)Smallest practicable data units are NUTS 3(2), most of these contain sizable towns/cities./

It is a typology of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural Regions.

Th E i i l PhThe Empirical Phase:The EDORA Typology

• Typology should help us to understand the process yp gy p pof regional differentiation.

• Methodology and structure of the typology should not be driven by data availability or agrarian RD not be driven by data availability or agrarian RD traditions.

• Nevertheless, need to work within the limits set by d t il bilitdata availability.

• “Meta-Narratives” identified by EDORA highlighted various dimensions of change, only some of them can be “mapped” with existing data, e.g.:– commodification – “consumption countryside”– economic diversification – “restructuring”– economic diversification – restructuring

Th E i i l PhThe Empirical Phase:The EDORA Typology

…more of a three-dimensional framework for analysis, rather than a one-dimensional classification.

D-P Typology:IA IR PRA PRR

The three dimensions are:• Urban-Rural

(remote/accessible)Types of Intermediate and

Predominantly Rural Areas:-------------------------------------------------------

A i

IA, IR, PRA, PRR

Accumulation - Depletion

(remote/accessible)• Accumulation – Depletion

(performance).• Economic structure Agrarian

…………………………………………..Consumption Countryside

…………………………………………..Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector)

Economic structure (diversification).

………………………………………...Diversified (Strong Market Services)

Accumulation - Depletion ScoresNUTS 3U i ht d M f Z S

!Reykjavik

Ré ni on

Canarias

Mart iniq eG adelo pe

Note:

This map shows the unweighted mean of the following indicators:(i) Annual rate of net migration(ii) Per Capita GDP (in PPS)(iii) A l t f h i GDP ( l di i h GDP

Unweighted Mean of Z Scores>-1

-0.99 - -0.50

-0.49 - 0.00

0.01 - 0.50

!

!

!

!

OsloTall inn

Helsinki

Stockholm

Guyane

Réuni onMart iniqueGuadeloupe(iii) Annual rate of change in GDP (excluding regions where GDPper capita is below NUTS 3 average)(iv) Annual percentage change in total employment(v) Average unemployment rate

0.51 - 1.00

>1

PU Regions

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!Riga

Minsk

London Berlin

Dublin Vilnius

Warszawa

København

Amsterdam

Acores

Madeira

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Bern

Wien

Kyiv

Vaduz

ParisPraha

KishinevBudapest

Ljubljana

Bratislava

Luxembourg

Bruxelles/Brussel

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

RomaLisboa

Skopje

Zagreb

Ankara

Madrid

Tirana

Sofiya

Beograd

Pristina

Sarajevo

Podgorica

Ljubljana

Bucuresti

!

!

!

!

!

!

Tounis

Athinai

NicosiaAr Ribat

Valletta

El -Jazair

Agrarian Rural Economy IndicatorsNUTS 3

!Reykjavik

Canarias

Note:

This map shows the number of the following indicators exceedingthe NUTS3 mean:(i) Percentage of Private Sector GVA from Primary Industries

Number of Indicators exceeding the NUTS 3 Mean0

1

2

!

!

!

!

OsloTall inn

Helsinki

Stockholm

Guyane

Réuni onMart iniqueGuadeloupe

(i) Percentage of Private Sector GVA from Primary Industries.(ii) Percentange of Private Sector Employment in Primary Industries.(iii) AWU as a percentage of Total Private Sector Employment.3

PU Regions

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!Riga

Minsk

London Berlin

Dublin Vilnius

Warszawa

København

Amsterdam

Acores

Madeira

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Bern

Wien

Kyiv

Vaduz

ParisPraha

Z b

KishinevBudapest

Ljubljana

Bratislava

Luxembourg

Bruxelles/Brussel

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

RomaLisboa

Skopje

Zagreb

Ankara

Madrid

Tirana

Sofiya

Beograd

Pristina

Sarajevo

Podgorica

Ljubljana

Bucuresti

!

!

!

!

!

!

Tounis

Athinai

NicosiaAr Ribat

Valletta

El -Jazai r

Consumption Countryside IndicatorsNUTS 3

!Reykjavik

Canarias

Note:This map shows the number of the following indicator groups withat least one indicator exceeding the Rural NUTS3 mean:(i) T i it d i t it

NUTS 3Number of Indicators exceeding the NUTS 3 mean

0

1

!

!

!Oslo

Tall inn

Helsinki

Stockholm

Guyane

Réuni onMart iniqueGuadeloupe

(i) Tourism capacity and intensity(ii) Proximity of natural public goods(iii) Peri-productivist agriculture

2

3

PU Regions

!

!

!

!

!

!

Riga

Minsk

Dublin Vilnius

Stockholm

København

A t d

Acores

Madeira

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Bern

Wien

Kyiv

Vaduz

ParisPraha

London Berlin

KishinevBudapest

WarszawaAmsterdam

Bratislava

Luxembourg

Bruxelles/Brussel

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

RomaLisboa

Skopje

Zagreb

Ankara

Madrid

Tirana

Sofiya

Beograd

Pristina

Sarajevo

Podgorica

Ljubljana

Bucuresti

!

!

!

!

!

!

Tounis

Athinai

NicosiaAr Ribat

Valletta

El -Jazai r

Secondary to Private Services Ratio (GVA)NUTS 3

!Reykjavik

Réunion

Canarias

M t i iGuadeloupe

NUTS 3Ratio of GVA from NACE CE to GK

0.00 - 0.25

0.26 - 0.50

!

!

!

!

OsloTall inn

Helsinki

Stockholm

Guyane

RéunionMart iniqueGuadeloupe0.51 - 1.00

1.01 - 4.79

No data available

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!Riga

Minsk

London Berlin

Dublin Vilnius

Warszawa

København

Amsterdam

Acores

Madeira

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Bern

Wien

Kyiv

Vaduz

ParisPraha

KishinevBudapest

Lj blj

Bratislava

Luxembourg

Bruxel les/Brussel

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

RomaLisboaSkopje

Zagreb

Ankara

Madrid

Tirana

Sofiya

Beograd

Pristina

Sarajevo

Podgorica

Ljubljana

Bucuresti

!

!

!

!

!

!

Tounis

Athinai

NicosiaAr R ibat

Valletta

El-Jazair

Typology of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural AreasEDORA Project September 2009

NUTS 3

!Reykjavik

Canarias

NUTS 3TYPES

PU Regions

Agrarian

Consumption Countryside

!

!

!

!

OsloTall inn

Helsinki

Stockholm

Guyane

RéunionMart iniqueGuadeloupe

Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector)

Diversified (Strong Private Services Sector)

No data available

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!Riga

Minsk

London Berlin

Dublin Vilnius

Warszawa

København

Amsterdam

Acores

Madeira

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Bern

Wien

Kyiv

Vaduz

ParisPraha

Zagreb

KishinevBudapest

Ljubljana

Bratislava

Luxembourg

Bruxel les/Brussel

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

RomaLisboaSkopje

Zagreb

Ankara

Madrid

Tirana

Sofiya

Beograd

Pristina

Sarajevo

Podgorica

Bucuresti

!

!

!

!

!

!

Tounis

Athinai

NicosiaAr Ribat

Valletta

El -Jaza ir

Th E i i l PhThe Empirical Phase:The EDORA Typology

Summary Statistics EDORA Typology (EU27)Type % of Regions % of Area % of Population % of GDPPU 32.4 8.5 44.3 56.0Agrarian 15.0 23.5 12.4 5.7Consumption Countryside 12.9 20.6 7.0 6.7Diversified (Secondary) 15.9 19.3 12.8 10.2Diversified (Market Services) 23.9 28.1 23.5 21.5

“Agrarian” and “Consumption Countryside” regions cover about 45% of the total area of the EU27 but only

e s ed ( a e Se ces) 3 9 8 3 5 5

cover about 45% of the total area of the EU27, but only 19% of the population and 12% of the GDP. By contrast the diversified regions cover almost 50% of gthe area, 37% of the population and 32% of GDP.

L ki h d t th P li PhLooking ahead to the Policy Phase:Some Key Issues to Consider

• Rural-urban – still a meaningful dichotomy in a policy context?Rural urban still a meaningful dichotomy in a policy context?• How can rural-urban linkages be utilised to drive rural

development?• Are cohesion and competiveness objectives compatible in a rural p j p

context?• If development policy focuses on potential what future do rural

regions with very limited potential have…? Can potential be d?created?

• How can policy design and implementation better accommodate rural complexity/heterogeneity?How can we achieve better synergy between EU policies in a rural • How can we achieve better synergy between EU policies in a rural context?

• Can EU rural policies better take account of national context, policy traditions, etc.policy traditions, etc.

• How do we benchmark regions and how do we measure “success”.

Thank you for your attention….andrew copus@uhi ac ukandrew.copus@uhi.ac.uk