Transcript Titel - Nordregio

EDORA:
European Development Opportunities
for Rural Areas
ESPON 2013 Programme: First Results
DG Regio Open Day Brussels, 7th October 2009
Andrew Copus
Centre for Remote
and Rural Studies
[email protected]
The EDORA Consortium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
UHI Millennium Institute, Inverness
NORDREGIO, Stockholm
University of Newcastle
University of Valencia
University of Patras
TEAGASC, Dublin
University of Gloucester
University of Ljubljana
Von Thunen Institute, Braunschweig
BABF, Vienna
Dortmund University
Polish Academy of Sciences
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Higher Institute of Agronomy, Lisbon
Scottish Agricultural College
International Organization for Migration, Warsaw
The EDORA Project Objectives
(According to the Specification)
…to describe the main processes of change which
are 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
development of appropriate cohesion policy.
Outline of Presentation:
1. 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…
• 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
establish territorial concepts and theory, then
empirical analysis and assessing policy
implications.
• Work so far has been mainly conceptual and
empirical… have not yet considered policy
implications in any detail.
EDORA Project Structure
Review of literature:
-Rural demography
-Rural employment
-Rural business
development
-R-U relationships
-Cultural heritage
-Access to services
-Institutional capacity
-Climate change
-Farm structural change
Grand Narratives
of Rural Change
Available
Indicators
Database and
Country Profiles
Policy Narratives
Exemplar
Regions
Typology
Cohesion Policy Implications
and Potential for Territorial
Co-operation
Future Perspectives
The Conceptual Phase:
Understanding Rural Change
Economic processes:
• Declining relative importance of agriculture,
• Refocusing of agriculture (multifunctionality, ecological modernisation,
post-productivism etc).
• Opportunities presented by the “Consumption Countryside”.
• Semi-subsistence micro-farms as a social buffer (esp. in NMS12)
• Labour market segmentation – human capital issues.
• Rise of diversified New Rural Economy (NRE), especially in accessible
areas.
Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints
• Importance of extra-local networks in growth and innovation.
PROCESSES OF
RURAL CHANGE
Economic
Social
Environmental
Political
The 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 traditional institutions and rise of individualism.
Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints
PROCESSES OF
RURAL CHANGE
Economic
Social
Environmental
Political
The 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
Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints
PROCESSES OF
RURAL CHANGE
Economic
Social
Environmental
Political
The 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,
(rather than compensation or support for weakness).
• Localism v central control (neo-endogenous) and managerial
approaches.
Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints
PROCESSES OF
RURAL CHANGE
Economic
Social
Environmental
Political
The Conceptual Phase:
Understanding Rural Change
CONNEXITY
META NARRATIVES
AgriCentric
UrbanRural
Economic
Competit.,
Global Capital
Overarching theme of increasing “CONNEXITY” (Mulgan) – “network
society”, “relational space”, “multi-level governance”. Freedom v
Drivers - Opportunities - Constraints
interdependence.
1.
Agri-centric narrative (post-productivism, duality, mutifunctionality
etc.
2.
PROCESSES
OF
Urban-rural
(core-periphery)
narrative.
Economic
Social
RURAL CHANGE
3.
Economic competitiveness and global capital penetration…
Environmental
Political
The Conceptual Phase:
Understanding Rural Change
CONNEXITY
META NARRATIVES
UrbanRural
AgriCentric
Economic
Competit.,
Global Capital
Two Key Issues Determining Local Path of Rural Change:
Assets
KEY ISSUES DETERMINING
• Nature of Interaction
(R - U orInteraction:
Local - Global?)
(Rural-Urban,
(Agglomeration or
LOCAL "PATH OF CHANGE"
• Available regional assets  agglomeration or “place shaping”
Local-Global)
Place Shaping?)
The Empirical Phase:
The EDORA Typology
• Wished to review explanatory potential of the DijkstraPoelman 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
interactions.
(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.
The Empirical Phase:
The EDORA Typology
• Typology should help us to understand the process
of regional differentiation.
• Methodology and structure of the typology should
not be driven by data availability or agrarian RD
traditions.
• Nevertheless, need to work within the limits set by
data 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”
The Empirical Phase:
The EDORA Typology
…more of a three-dimensional
framework for analysis,
rather than a onedimensional classification.
The three dimensions are:
•
•
•
Urban-Rural
D-P Typology:
IA,
IR,
PRA,
PRR
(remote/accessible)
Accumulation – DepletionTypes of Intermediate and
Predominantly Rural Areas:
(performance).
Economic structure ------------------------------------------------------Agrarian
(diversification).
…………………………………………..
Consumption Countryside
…………………………………………..
Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector)
………………………………………...
Diversified (Strong Market Services)
Accumulation - Depletion
Accumulation - Depletion Scores
NUTS 3
Unweighted Mean of Z Scores
>-1
Reykjavik
Note:
!
-0.99 - -0.50
-0.49 - 0.00
0.01 - 0.50
0.51 - 1.00
>1
PU Regions
This map shows the unweighted mean of the following indicators:
(i) Annual rate of net migration
(ii) Per Capita GDP (in PPS)
(iii) Annual rate of change in GDP (excluding regions where GDP
per capita is below NUTS 3 average)
(iv) Annual percentage change in total employment
(v) Average unemployment rate
Canarias
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Réunion
Helsinki
!
Oslo
Guyane
!
Tallinn
!
Stockholm
!
Madeira
Riga
!
København
!
Dublin
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Acores
Amsterdam
Berlin
!
London
Warszawa
!
!
!
Kyiv
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
!
Praha
Luxembourg
!
!
Paris
!
WienBratislava
!
!
Kishinev
Budapest
Bern
!
!
Vaduz
!
!
Ljubljana
!
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
Beograd
!
!
Sarajevo
!
Podgorica
Pristina
!
Madrid
Roma
!
Lisboa
Sofiya
!
!
Skopje
!
!
Ankara
Tirana
!
!
!
Athinai
!
El-Jazair
!
Nicosia
Tounis
Ar Ribat
!
!
!
Valletta
!
Typology of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural Areas
EDORA Project September 2009
NUTS 3
TYPES
Reykjavik
!
PU Regions
Canarias
Agrarian
Consumption Countryside
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Réunion
Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector)
Diversified (Strong Private Services Sector)
No data available
Helsinki
!
Oslo
Guyane
!
Tallinn
!
Stockholm
!
Madeira
Riga
!
København
!
Dublin
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Acores
Amsterdam
Berlin
!
London
Warszawa
!
!
!
Kyiv
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
!
Praha
Luxembourg
!
!
Paris
!
WienBratislava
!
!
Bern
Kishinev
Budapest
!
!
Vaduz
!
!
Ljubljana
!
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
Beograd
!
!
Sarajevo
!
Podgorica
Pristina
!
Madrid
Lisboa
Sofiya
!
!
Skopje
!
Roma
!
!
Ankara
Tirana
!
!
!
Athinai
!
El-Jazair
!
Nicosia
Tounis
Ar Ribat
!
!
!
Valletta
!
The Empirical Phase:
The EDORA Typology
Summary Statistics EDORA Typology (EU27)
Type
% of Regions % of Area % of Population % of GDP
PU
32.4
8.5
44.3
56.0
Agrarian
15.0
23.5
12.4
5.7
Consumption Countryside
12.9
20.6
7.0
6.7
Diversified (Secondary)
15.9
19.3
12.8
10.2
Diversified (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
19% of the population and 12% of the GDP.
By contrast the diversified regions cover almost 50% of
the area, 37% of the population and 32% of GDP.
Looking ahead to the Policy Phase:
Some Key Issues to Consider
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
context?
If development policy focuses on potential what future do rural
regions with very limited potential have…? Can potential be
created?
How can policy design and implementation better accommodate
rural complexity/heterogeneity?
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.
How do we benchmark regions and how do we measure
“success”.
Thank you for your attention….
[email protected]