1 / 17

Policy Expectation Statement

Policy Expectation Statement. ESPON Workshop Rural regions in Europe: territorial potentials and main challenges 15 December 2010 Kamila Matoušková, PhD. ESPON MC Member. Countryside. Extreme interpretations:

nerina
Download Presentation

Policy Expectation Statement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Policy Expectation Statement ESPON WorkshopRural regions in Europe: territorial potentials and main challenges15 December 2010Kamila Matoušková, PhD.ESPON MC Member

  2. Countryside Extreme interpretations: • Countryside = agriculture and forestry, jobs and services are in the cities, inhabitants can commute • Countryside = areas for recreation and sport – maybe for the inhabitants of the cities, but what about rural inhabitants? x • Rural areas should be a place with comparable quality of life

  3. Rural diversity • EU-12 rural areas dramatically different from EU-15 Predominantly rural areas EU-12 EU-15 • Population 40,8% 19,2% • GDP per head (PPS) index - relative to EU-27 41 91 • Risk of poverty - CZ below average but • above in thinly pop. areas PL, PT, LT, EE, ES, IT, EL, LV, RO, BG • above in densely pop. areas LU, BE, UK, IT 5th Cohesion Report

  4. Rural situation CZ Specific Czech situation 2007 CZ EU-25 • Larger farms (also SK, East DE) ha 71 15,8 • Lower share of services in GVA % 59 100 • Low share of agriculture in GVA, % 3 (2004) low competitiveness, high import, high dependency on subsidies, EU funding+national top-up not reaching EU-15 • Strong secondary industry in GVA % 30 • Low productivity in agriculture, forestry % 35 100 • Low productivity in processing industry % app.40 100

  5. Rural situation CZ • +Poverty risk low thanks to intensive work load, accessibility of cities, high social transfer and high daily commuting (incomes much lower), in other NMS not the case • -High poverty risk in CZ, IT from energy consumption (project ReRISK) • +High number of municipalities 6249, many small and medium towns - growth potential • -Under NUTS 3 level variety of governance forms • -High risk from uneven redistribution of tax incomes per head (many times more in largest cities than in smallest municipalities) • -Relatively low cooperation town-countryside • +Relatively homogenous regions NUTS 3, but existence of sub NUTS 3 inner (NUTS 3 borders – P, JČ, V), border peripheries

  6. Rural situation CZ • -Low provision of services of general interest e.g. only 26% of CZ municipalities (up to 2000 inhabitants) have a sewage system with purification plant (2007) village schools closing problems with accessible healthcare • +Comparable degree of employment as EU average • -Lower terciary education • -Poor structure of economic activities • -Weak rural tourism • +Leader approach well developed • -Rural areas delimitation not equal Europe wide EAFRD=OECD, CZ=municipalities up to 2000 inhabitants – data problems

  7. EU rural policy • EU-12 not enough resources for rural development • Demarcation line EAFRD-ERDF divides the countryside • Development actions reflect the OP priorities, not the needs • EU funds do not have the same objectives, implementation – week co-ordination mainly between structural funds and agricultural funds • EAFRD does not contribute much to territorial cohesion (TIA project)

  8. Policy questions • Rural development performance and dynamic (sub NUTS 3 level)? • Contribution of agriculture to territorial cohesion - farm size, farms HQ location? • Contribution of manufacturing industry to territorial cohesion, entreprises size and location, existence of market organisations? • Territorial links and clusters production-manufacturing-markets • Abandonment of land?

  9. Policy questions • Potentials and challenges of rural development, possible drivers – secondary, private services? • Economic activities – diversity, intensity, SMEs? • Services of general interest, territorial distribution? • Private services, production and market services, territorial distribution? • Productivity in agriculture, forestry, fishing + processing industry? • Productivity in territorial distribution towns-countryside, in 5 types of areas? • Territorial distribution of incomes?

  10. Policy questions • Rural demographic stability, migration, depopulation, age structure? • Diversity of rural culture? • Territorial situation of terciary education, telecomunications? • Leader performance – impact on territorial cohesion? • Urban-rural partnership? Medium and small towns functional urban areas and definition? (future ESPON project) • EU funds territorial distribution in 5 types of areas (ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD, EFF, pillar I)?

  11. Why? • Barca´s report: „place-based“ approach – territorial development strategies, resources for the strategy implementation, distribution on projects by territorial partnership • CZ National and Regional Strategies, Town Strategies • EU Integrated Urban Development Plans – towns • EU Strategic Plans Leader – rural areas 10000-100000 inhab. • Future FUA strategies, EGTC strategies, macro-regional strategies?

  12. Concept • Integrated strategies should be possible to finance from different funds (ERDF, ESF, EAFRD, EFF)/OPs, national, regional resources • Integrated development strategy a base of funds co-ordination on the territory • Additional resources for remote rural or intermediate areas by concentration of EU funds • Additional resources for rural or intermediate areas close to the city in NMS event. possible from towns, FUA centres as growth poles Hypothesis: • Financial/investment help of towns to the surrounding rural areas (infrastructure, services, housing) will as a natural rule in longer term return to their own development. Rich rural areas help growing the towns, but rich towns do not help growing the rural areas. Motivation incentives for the towns would be necessary.

  13. Vision • Integrated Territorial Development Plans, incl. • Strategic Plans Leader (Local Action Groups) – for any rural areas and resources from any (ERDF, ESF, EAFRD, EFF) fund • Future FUA integrated strategies – for predominantly rural and intermediate areas close to the city • Rural areas should have the chance to selfgovern their own development based on territorial development strategies

  14. Concept • Cohesion policy also creates public goods: • Quality of life provision by • Health care • Schools • Social care • Transportation • Infrastructure • Information Services of general interest minimum standard in rural areas should be provided accross Europe

  15. Concept • Cultural diversity • Diverse regional types of rural architecture – inspiration for contemporary forms of housing • Diverse composition of traditional villages – inspiration for new housing groups • Diverse, harmonious setting in the landscape – inspiration for harmonious integration of new settlements in the natural environment

  16. Effective tools • Cooperation between towns and coutryside – not competition • Cooperation between rural and urban regions, successful regions and lagging behind regions – not competition • Cooperation of rural areas accross Europe • Policy orientation: The countryside is a VALUE where it is worth living and working

  17. Thank you for attentionKamila Matoušková, PhD.matkam@mmr.czMinistry for Regional Development of the Czech Republicwww.mmr.cz

More Related