1 Rural services: European policies and experiences Dr Sarah Skerratt Senior Researcher & Team Leader: Rural Society Research

2 Outline of presentation Rural services in Europe : –Typical challenges –Why focus on rural services? Policy and other responses –Diversity of “solutions” –Solutions dependent on cultural and political histories –Examples: Finland and Scotland So…? Next steps?

3 Rural services in Europe: typical challenges Low population density Low critical mass Ageing population High cost per head SR = Substantially Rural; PR = Predominantly rural (OECD) Source: Copus et al, 2007, p.13

4 Why focus on rural services? [1/3] EC White Paper (2004) on Services of General Interest: –“The access of all citizens and enterprises to affordable high-quality services of general interest throughout the territory of the Member States is essential for the promotion of social and territorial cohesion in the European Union, including the reduction of handicaps caused by the lack of accessibility of the outermost regions…” (Section 3.3., p. 8)

5 Why focus on rural services?[2/3] “ The demographic structure of rural regions is often not appropriate to support provision of local public services. Because these regions have difficulty in establishing the necessary critical mass of facilities, producer services and infrastructure… the economy does not generate employment opportunities and there are strong incentives for young people to move away. This kind of vicious circle, in which unemployment and lack of services lead to rural exodus has been a common pattern in rural regions ever since the agricultural sector began to shed unemployment… ( OECD (2006) New Rural Paradigm, pp )

6 Why focus on rural services? [3/3] “Local public services are a precondition for development, and are not only related to the well- being of the population, but also to the potential to attract and retain economically active population, enterprises and, thus, growth and sustainability of population settlements” (OECD, 2008).

If not… Cycle of decline

8 So, given that there is agreement… How are rural services addressed through rural policies in Europe?

9 First, some history of EU policy… “Innovative approaches to service delivery and place-based tools are providing some solutions, but the overwhelming financial focus of EU rural development policy remains sectoral policy and agriculture subsidy oriented…” (OECD, 2008, p.2) Some argue that rural development would have even less funds if it weren’t for the agricultural lobby, e.g.: –“In Europe, rural development interests benefit from being part of a coalition via the CAP that includes agriculture.” (Shortall, 2008, p.36)

10 What does this mean? In EU, spending for rural development (that is, beyond the land-based sector) therefore remains tiny… It remains fragmented, both between and within Member States It is compartmentalised, e.g. –LEADER (main bottom-up rural development tool): = one-third of one percent of the EU budget for agriculture and structural operations Also, there is “subsidiarity”… two examples =>

11 Subsidiarity - an example: Universal service is a key concept the Community has developed in order to ensure effective accessibility of essential services. It establishes the right of everyone to access certain services considered as essential and imposes obligations on service providers to offer defined services according to specified conditions… The concept allows common principles to be defined at Community level and the implementation of these principles to be left to Member States, thus making it possible to take account of specific situations in each country, in line with the principle of subsidiarity” (Section 3.3., page 8)

12 Another example: Rural Development Regulation Rural Development Regulation: overall design at EU level (4 Axes and a range of Measures), with MS discretion. This means that: Member States are implementing their Rural Development Programmes => 94 national & regional rural devt progs operating Different MS balances between Axes, and “new challenges” Different levels and amounts of MS co-funding

13 What does this mean for rural services in Europe? Where strong national (Member State) interventions exist, rural services can be addressed in a relatively coherent way Otherwise, rural services continue to be: –Compartmentalised into sectoral budgets, rather than place-based/territory-based –Subject to short-term “pilots” or interventions… –Subject to political priorities and changes –Incoherent => “hot spots” and “not spots” This is one consequence of subsidiarity

14 Two examples of how Member States are addressing rural services

15 Finland and Scotland: policies Both similar population size = approx 5M Although density: Finland = 17/km2; Scotland = 65/km2) Finland (INTEGRATED rural devt policies): Leading example of best practice in EU since 1988 “Concept of integrated rural policy may be more fully applied in Finland than in any other EU country” (Halhead, 2004) Scotland (National Performance Framework): National Framework underpinning “respectful partnership” between central and local government National Service Outcomes EU Regional Priorities & LEADER

Finland’s rural areas: 3 types: –Urban-adjacent –Rural heartland –Sparsely populated rural areas: 89% of territory = 5 th highest in OECD countries; 53% of total population = 2 nd highest in OECD countries

17 Finland national RURAL policy “Broad”: Includes all policies and actions of government which can impact on rural areas – national & regional; all sectors. “Narrow”: Focuses on measures and tools specifically targeted at rural development, both EU and national. Regionally-specific, cross-sectoral co-operation, extensive partnership and participation Developed by Rural Policy Committee (most Departments, MPs, national rural organisations) established Evolved through national administrations Coherent policy fabric, incorporating EU Progs New Rural Programme every 4 or 5 years Underpinned by Local Action Groups, Village Action Groups, Municipalities etc

18 How are rural services delivered? Municipalities produce about 2/3 of basic services –essential and frequently needed services such as education, social and health care, culture, environment and technical infrastructure. The rest is produced by the national government, private sector and non- governmental organisations.

19 Rural services priorities in Finland 1.Policies oriented to restructure the service delivery mechanisms and foster co-operation between local authorities. 2.Innovative ways of service delivery such as multi- functional and multi-purpose points of delivery, mobile services, telematic and electronic services 3.Involving the private and the third sectors in the delivery of public services –Triple & Quadruple Helix Models in Northern Periphery

20 Integration of people into process Integration of “hot spots”, ideas, actions & individuals into national framework and strategy

21 Paijanne 5-Villages network around lake: an individual with vision Key features: Seasonal Events & Issues Intranet Network-building, offline & online

22 Café with internet facilities and support, targeting all ages: Another individual with vision…

23 Finland: a conclusion… “The mainstream Local Action Group method will supersede the EU’s agriculture- based approach to rural economic development, which is conceptually obsolete” (Eero Uusitalo, Secretary General, Rural Policy Committee, Finland)

24 Rural Scotland 75% = predominantly rural = top 10 of OECD countries 17% population living in rural regions (OECD share = 23%) and it is rising, especially in accessible regions

25 Scotland: classification of rural areas

26 Until 2007 Several reviews of rural services (since 1999 when Scottish Parliament began) No specific “rural services” policy; still sectoral (transport, health, education): –Rural Service Priority Areas (RSPAs) were identified but… a new Government came in, with a new framework… RSPAs disappeared… Individual agitation and action => service delivery in rural Scotland, where: –private companies would not step in and –Government did not want to “distort” market…

27 Pulteneytown Peoples Project One of 15% most deprived areas in Scotland Sustained since 2002 –Resident survey of local needs –Housed in local community Breakfast & after-school club Independent living for year olds Skills training –Numerous awards

28

29

30 Scotland: policy landscape

31

32 We live in well-designed, sustainable places where we are able to access the amenities & services we need We have strong, resilient & supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions & how they affect others Our public services are high quality, continually improving, efficient & responsive to local people’s needs

33 Single Outcome Agreement

34

35 Regional Priorities: Thriving Communities

36 EU: LEADER 20 LAGS covering 95% rural Scotland Budget = 5% of SRDP = £38M Bottom-up method of delivering support for rural development through implementing a local rural development strategy. Capacity-building Multi-partner (3 sectors)

37 So… rural services in Scotland… We still have “hot spots” and “not spots” –Within Regional Priorities & LEADER: We see projects, but still within project lifecycle, competing for funds… 3 different administrative areas at same level –With National Performance Framework: beginning to see more emphasis on local, place- based fitting into strategic plans and outcomes Outcomes across Government Directorates

38 From these examples: What are next steps for rural services policies? –Meaningful, workable partnerships, through devolution within national framework –Diversity - integration – harness people’s energy –Move from “spending” to “investment” (lengthen the timeframe, be strategic, focus on outcomes rather than outputs) Align investment with strategic outcomes Stability over time (as in Finnish policy)

39 OECD: Next steps? 1.Supply of services should be designed to match characteristics and assets of different rural regions 2.Government should move from a logic of spending to a logic of investment 3.Effective and inclusive governance is key to rural service delivery –Recognise change in role for top-level government –Facilitate knowledge-pooling and simplify decision-making processes –Engage local communities and integrate local expectations –Mainstream rural proofing of sectoral policy (OECD, 2008)

40