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

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-12EU-15 Population 40,8%19,2% GDP per head (PPS) index - relative to EU-27 4191 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 2007CZEU-25 Larger farms (also SK, East DE) ha7115,8 Lower share of services in GVA % 59100 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 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 attention Kamila Matoušková, PhD. matkam@mmr.cz Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic www.mmr.cz