1. 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 andrew.copus@uhi.ac.uk

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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…

5. 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.

6. EDORA Project Structure

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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural Change Overarching theme of increasing “CONNEXITY” (Mulgan) – “network society”, “relational space”, “multi-level governance”. Freedom v interdependence. 1.Agri-centric narrative (post-productivism, duality, mutifunctionality etc. 2.Urban-rural (core-periphery) narrative. 3.Economic competitiveness and global capital penetration…

12. The Conceptual Phase: Understanding Rural 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”

13. The Empirical Phase: The EDORA Typology Wished to review explanatory potential of the Dijkstra- Poelman 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.

14. 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”

15. The Empirical Phase: The EDORA Typology …more of a three-dimensional framework for analysis, rather than a one- dimensional classification. The three dimensions are: Urban-Rural (remote/accessible) Accumulation – Depletion (performance). Economic structure (diversification).

21. The Empirical Phase: The EDORA Typology “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.

22. 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”.

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