introductory the mplementation a of the urban...

INTERIM REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION 1.1A

INTRODUCTORY INFORMATIVE DOCUMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION 1.1A OF THE URBAN‐RURAL ISSUES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE TERRITORIAL AGENDA

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

ʺINTERIM REPORTʺ

English Version as of May 2009 Abbreviated version

Prepared by: MINISTRY FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Analysis and assessment of issues of urban‐rural relations based

on the implementation of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union

Introductory Informative Document on the Implementation of Action 1.1a of the Urban‐rural Issues within the Context of the EUʹs Territorial Agenda

2

Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Method used by the implementation of Action 1.1a ................................................................................ 5

2. Contextual background of the proposed framework to solving urban‐rural issues ......................... 9

2.1 Development of strategic coordination of urban‐rural problems at the EU level ............................ 9

2.2 Conclusions of the Slovenian Presidency regarding the draft framework of solution of urban‐rural issues (2008) .......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.3 General view of the starting points of the urban‐rural topic: a synthetic summary of comments from the joint meeting of representatives of EU Member States held in Prague on 13 October 200816

3. Answers to strategic questions of the project .......................................................................................... 19 3.1 Strategic question no. 1 ........................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Strategic question no. 2 ........................................................................................................................... 20




4. Proposals for solution of issues concerning urban‐rural relations...................................................... 31

4.1 EU level..................................................................................................................................................... 31

4.2 The level of EU Member States.............................................................................................................. 34

4.3 The regional / local level......................................................................................................................... 38

5. Solution of urban‐rural relations on the example of the Czech Republic.......................................... 42

Annex No. 7 – Summary of results of multicriterial analysis of the relevant documents ................... 50




3

Introduction This document entitled “Interim Report” has been prepared as a first main output of the implementation of action 1.1a of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union (Urban‐Rural Relations) by the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic.

Context Action 1.1a is a part of the Line of Action 1 of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the EU (AP1). This Line of Action is focused on the implementation of the Territorial Agenda in the areas of competence of the Ministers at both European Union and Member States level, and it directly addresses the territorial priorities specified in Part III of the Territorial Agenda. This action is closely linked to the action 1.1 of the AP1 which is focused on the preparation and promotion of policy options in order to foster the coordination between spatial and urban development in the light of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter, at EU and MS level. The main objective of action 1.1a is to prepare and promote guidelines and policy measures to foster coordination between territorial and urban development in reference to the TA and the LC at EU and MS level. At the same time, the aim is to contribute to strengthening of the polycentric development and innovation through networking of city regions and cities with their surroundings (TA thematic priority 1), to identify obstacles, potentials and strategies for rural – urban cooperation and to search for synergies among thematic topics. This document should also ensure the fulfillment of the activity 1.1a “Urban‐Rural Relations” of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the EU by the Czech Republic, partly during the CZ Presidency and during the Presidency of the other member states (anticipated timeframe 2008‐2010), when the Czech Republic is (will be) responsible for the coordination of the fulfillment of this activity among each member state, and among the EU institutions and other stakeholders which have expressed an interest to participate in this activity.

The report is linked to the promotion of integration of territorial priorities defined in the Territorial Agenda into European, national, regional and local territorial development policies with the aim of achieving better coordination between territorial and urban policies in order to improve European territorial diversity. Partial activities of the report also include an assessment of the extent of reflection of the Territorial Agenda during the implementation of the NSRF and Operational Programmes and also in National Reform Programmes relating to the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy.




4

The Report has also been conducted in principal cooperation with a team of experts from the Faculty of Economics and Public Administration, University of Economics in Prague, Centre for Regional and Administrative Sciences.

When preparing the report, a work of team (Working Group) composed of representatives of the Member States, European Commission (DG Regional Policy) and other stakeholders, was created. The support of the Working Group was critical to the production of the report as were their contributions and provided documents (case studies, etc).

This Report focuses on mapping of existing documents and European studies concerning this issue, and contains framework proposals of further orientation of urban‐rural relations at individual levels. In addition, the Report deals with assessment of case studies concerning this issue, which were provided by representatives of EU Member States, by stakeholders and other partners who expressed their wish to cooperate in the performance of Action 1.1a. In this sense, the Report summarizes key matters stemming from prior analyses of the urban‐rural issue in the context of the EU’s Territorial Agenda and its First Action Programme. Furthermore, it includes synthetic conclusions of individual analysis relating to the potential orientation of the solution of this issue at the EU level, in the Member States and at the EU regional level, and an example of its solution in the Czech Republic.

The Report also sets out the following strategic questions, which are answered in Chapter 3:

1. How is the urban‐rural relations issue solved at both the European and the national levels?

2. What are the key content topics concerning relations between the urban and the rural space and their future prospects?

3. What are the instruments ensuring the optimization of the linkages between the urban and the rural space, and their future prospects?

4. What kind of existing tools are available for the solution of key disproportions between the urban and the rural space and their future prospects?

5. What are the potential obstacles of the solution of this issue and their proposed solutions?




5

1. Method used by the implementation of Action 1.1a When dealing with the urban‐rural relations, the working method used may be summarized as follows:

1. Initial desk research with a multi‐criteria analysis of relevant documents

2. Synthetic analysis of selected case studies

3. Synthesis of results and proposed framework solution

Ad 1) Initial desk‐research with a multi‐criteria analysis of relevant documents

The works performed at the first stage of this Report included the desk research, the basic research and classification of existing documents and European studies of urban‐rural relations on the basis of the implementation of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda. A total of 103 documents were analyzed at the beginning of the implementation of Action 1.1a. The purpose of this stage was to identify essential topics pertaining to the Territorial Agenda in the course of the implementation of the NSRF and Operational Programmes and also of National Reform Programmes which are in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy. With regard to these matters the following assessment structure of each document was used:

1. Description of the document and its focus

2. Relation to the reviewed issue

3. Possibilities of using the document in the implementation of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda

The context of the above mentioned assessment structure was specified by means of the following criteria, a summary of which is set out in tables in Annex No. 7 to this document. A detailed analysis of the urban‐rural issue is included in the annex to the Interim Report

Relevance: • Relevance assessment has been carried out by determining the weight of relevance in

relation to the resolved issue, which was rated at the range of 0 – 5 (the highest weight is 5);

• 0 – irrelevant; 1 – very low relevance; 2 – low relevance; 3 – medium relevance; 4 – relevant; 5 – the document fully covers the issue.

Focus: • urban – the document is focused solely on urban issues • urban / rural – the document is focused on both urban and rural areas;




6

• rural – the document is focused only on aspects of rural areas. Document type:

• strateg. – a strategy or a document of a strategic nature relating to the reviewed issue; • implem. – an implementing document dealing with the application of aspects of the

reviewed issue; • legisl. – a legislation or any other document having legal or regulatory significance for

the reviewed issue; • method. – methodology or guideline relating to the reviewed issue.

Extent of coverage of the issue (only one of the choices below applies): • EU – a general document referring to all EU countries (or only to EU‐10, EU‐15, EU‐

25, EU‐27); • case study – a case study of an EU Member State or an EU Member State Region; • CR – national level – the document covers the issue at the national level in the Czech

Republic (e.g. a ministerial document, national strategy, etc.); • CR – reg. level – the document covers the issue at the regional level in the Czech

Republic (particularly NUTS II a NUTS III). Document nature:

• declar. – a declaratory nature of the reviewed issue (i.e. the document only refers to the issue);

• defin. – definitions, i.e. the document sets definitions and frameworks for resolution; • outlook – the document refers to potential future solutions, provides a future outlook; • tools – the document provides tools for solution, their description and applications; • recomm. – the document contains recommendations for solution of the problem.

When mapping and exploring the urban‐rural relations at the European and national level in the first stage of this report, the following basic and other documents were used, i.e.:

1. Basic documents

• Territorial Agenda of the European Union

• First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda

• Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities

A detailed analysis of these documents is provided in Chapter 3 – Contextual starting points of the analysed issue.

2. Relevant European strategic documents:

• a list of these documents is included in the following chapter




7

3. Relevant national and regional strategic documents of the Czech Republic:

• a list of these documents is included in the following chapter

4. Specialized studies and documents relating to the rural and urban areas and urban‐rural relations

Ad 2) Synthetic analysis of selected case studies The method using case studies has a crucial importance for the analysis of urban‐rural issues, because it allows demonstrating various approaches to the solution of this topic, depending on specific conditions of the relevant EU Member State or partial regions. Since the Leipzig Charter promotes the solution of urban issues in individual Member States rather than at the EU level, it is also necessary to discuss, with regard to the subsidiarity principle, the setup of rural development policies. Synergic effects of these policies may occur only in case of a synchronized approach to their setup.

Before the analysis of case studies, a thematic discussion seminar of the working group of representatives of participating EU Member States, representatives of the EC and other stakeholders on urban‐rural topics took place. The aim of this seminar was to contribute to the elaboration of a methodological framework and to set up economic policy measures for the years 2008 to 2010 which will be appropriate for coordination between urban and territorial development. Activities of this working group are based, in particular, on strategic documents of the ESDP, the EU’s Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. At the same time, this group has further developed the results of the Portuguese and the Slovenian Presidency in the EU Council

Conclusions of the above‐mentioned seminar were transformed into a synthetic summary of this topic, viewed from the perspective of the previous Slovenian Presidency in the EU Council. This summary was used as a general source material for the assessment of case studies dealing with urban‐rural relations that were provided by the representatives of Member States, stakeholders and other partners who expressed their wish to cooperate in the implementation of Action 1.1a. These cases studies originated from Finland, Cyprus and Norway. With regard to the existing research projects implemented by some members of the participating expert team, analyses of cases studies also include the UK example and its “Northern Way” concept, for which the expert team had relevant source materials.

Ad 3) Synthesis of results and proposed framework solution This document represents a comprehensive synthesis of results of existing analyses, expert discussions and proposals to resolve urban‐rural issues within the context of implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda. These results are adjusted to the results of the Portuguese and the Slovenian Presidency in the EU Council, which played an important role in the start‐up of the implementation of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the




8

EU’s Territorial Agenda. This represents the basis for further summaries and initial proposals relating to the urban‐rural issue, which are divided as follows:

1. the EU level

2. the level of EU Member States

3. the level of EU regions

4. a case study from the Czech Republic




9

2. Contextual background of the proposed framework to solving urban‐rural issues 2.1 Development of strategic coordination of urban‐rural problems at the EU level

Genesis of urban‐rural problems in EU policies

Urban‐rural relations have to be viewed in the context of their development, particularly within the EU as a whole and at the national level. The European Union began paying attention to these issues only in the last 15 years. These problems began to appear to a greater extent in development strategies which were gradually formulated in a broader context, mostly in connection with the EUʹs ability to compete with the rest of the world (particularly with the USA). At the same time, greater emphasis began to be put on a more accurate focus of strategic visions and documents, particularly with regard to their realism and possibility of their implementation. As an example, we can refer to the genesis of the Lisbon Strategy, which was initially very ambitious (even with unrealistic expectations). With the passage of time, the Lisbon Strategy has become more realistic, both in connection with new challenges and with regard to further EU enlargement.

The revision process of the Lisbon Strategy led to its increased specification and narrowing of its scope to two basic objectives – promotion of economic growth and employment. Implementing tools of the Lisbon strategy which were accentuated in this respect included the use of urban potential and later on of urban‐rural relations. These aspects were manifested at the EU level in the period of preparation for the next programming period 2007 – 2013, where these topics were first accentuated in the Community Strategic Guidelines (Guidelines for the EU Cohesion Policy) and later on also in draft Council regulations concerning the economic and social cohesion policy. A conceptual contribution to this topic was provided by the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2007)1, which dealt with empiric research of the dynamic of regional disparities and territorial cohesion challenges. EU Member States responded to this by incorporating urban‐rural relations into their programming documents and by viewing them as equal with the other objectives.

Strategic framework for solution of urban‐rural issues at the EU level The Territorial Agenda of the European Union, which was approved on the occasion of the informal ministerial meeting on urban development and territorial cohesion in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007, is based, in its essential postulates, on prior documents dealing with the same topic. In particular, it is built on the European Commission document of 1999, focused on the European Spatial Development Perspective. The European Spatial Development

1 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2007) Regional disparities and Cohesion: What strategies for the future, Study, European Parliament – DG for Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department Structural and Cohesion policies, May 2007, IP/B/REGI/IC/2006_201, 14.5. 2007, Brussels




10

Perspective (ESDP2) became a kind of a political framework for sectoral policies of EU Member States which have a territorial impact, and also serves as a conceptual basis for regional and local self‐government elaborated by the EU, aiming to achieve balanced and sustainable development of the European territory. Despite the foregoing, the EU’s Territorial Agenda adds to ESDPʹs concept some elements of the Lisbon Strategy and other actual topics, particularly new major territorial challenges, which include:3

• regionally diverse impacts of climate change on the EU territory and its neighbours, particularly with regard to sustainable development,

• rising energy prices, energy inefficiency and different territorial opportunities for new forms of energy supply,

• accelerating integration of our regions, including crossborder areas, in global economic competition, and at the same time increasing dependencies of states and regions in the world,

• impacts of EU enlargement on economic, social and territorial cohesion, particularly with regard to the transport and energy infrastructure related integration of Eastern Europe and the new EU Member States as well as their regions,

• overexploitation of the ecological and cultural resources and loss of biodiversity, particularly through increasing development sprawl whilst remote areas are facing depopulation,

• territorial effects of demographic change (especially ageing) as well as in and out migration and internal migration on labour markets. on the supply of public services of general interest as well as the housing market, the development of the settlement structure and how people live together in our cities and regions.

Hence, contextual starting points of the EU’s Territorial Agenda are composed of the following concepts and issues:

EU’s Territorial Agenda= ESDP + Lisbon Strategy + new major territorial challenges

In the territorial cohesion policy context, the Territorial Agenda defines the following territorial development priorities in the EU:4

• strengthening polycentric development and innovation through networking of city regions and cities;

• creation of new forms of territorial governance and partnership between rural and urban areas;

• promotion of regional clusters enhancing economic competition and innovation in Europe;

2 ESDP – European Spatial Development Perspective 3 Territorial Agenda of the European Union, agreed on the occasion of the informal ministerial meeting on urban development and territorial cohesion in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007; part II., par. (7), p. 2 4 Territorial Agenda of the European Union, agreed on the occasion of the informal ministerial meeting on urban development and territorial cohesion in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007; part III., par. (13 - 27), p. 3 - 5




11

• support of the strengthening and extension of trans‐European networks; • promotion of trans‐European risk management, including the impacts of climate

change • strengthening of ecological structures and cultural resources as the added value

for development. Based on the above territorial development priorities, EU approved later on the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union5, with the aim of initiating activities directed towards increased coordination between the territorial cohesion and urban development issues within the scope of Action 1.1.6 This first action programme has been set for the 2007 – 2011 period. The Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities7 further develops and supplements the EU’s Territorial Agenda through a more detailed focus on integrated urban development, considered as a task with a European dimension. In comparison with the Territorial Agenda, this document is focused primarily on the problems of cities and urban areas and strongly recommends:8

1. Making greater use of integrated urban development policy approaches

• creating and ensuring high‐quality public spaces

• modernizing infrastructure networks and improving energy efficiency

• proactive innovation and educational policies

2. Paying special attention to deprived neighbourhoods within the context of the city as a whole

• pursuing strategies for upgrading the physical environment

• strengthening the local economy and local labour market policy

• proactive educational policies for children and young people

• promotion of efficient and affordable urban transport

Both these documents, i.e. the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter, represent the first official and joint step taken by EU Member States in the direction of increased coordination in the promotion of territorial cohesion and urban development policy. By this method, it is possible to provide long‐term support and to increase effective implementation of the territorial and urban development policy, to apply polycentric development principles and

5 This document was approved in the course of the Portuguese Presidency in the EU Council on 23 and 24 November 2007. 6 Act 1.1 – “Prepare and promote policy options to foster coordination between spatial and urban development in the light of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter, at EU and MS level.” 7 Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, agreed on the occasion of the informal ministerial meeting on urban development and territorial cohesion in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007 8 Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, agreed on the occasion of the informal ministerial meeting on urban development and territorial cohesion in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007




12

to resolve the new major territorial challenges. A specific part of these activities consists also in their ties to the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. While the EU’s Territorial Agenda is linked to the Lisbon Strategy by means of its role in the promotion of “sustainable economic development and creation of new job opportunities”, the Leipzig Charter accentuates the key role played by urban areas in the achievement Lisbon strategy objectives, respecting at the same time the balance of individual sustainable development aspects, i.e. its economic, social and environmental dimensions.

The Leipzig Charter stresses, inter alia, that the urban policy must be implemented at the national level and that incentives for innovative solutions should also stem from the national level (as well as from all other levels). With regard to the very diverse institutional, legislative and administrative culture of Member States, individual recommendations set out in the relevant documents are considered as an “open” set and a framework for implementing primary postulates of the EU’s Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter.

2.2 Conclusions of the Slovenian Presidency regarding the draft framework of solution of urban‐rural issues (2008)

This sub‐chapter is based on the interim report (May 2008) and the final report (November 2008) drafted by the Slovenian Ministry for the Environment and Spatial Planning (Spatial Planning Directorate) named: “Coordination between Territorial and Urban Development“, final report on the implementation of Action 1.1 of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union”. Specific proposed solutions of these issues are outlined in chapter 4, p. 18 – 20 (final report).

The elaboration of proposals for the improvement of the territorial‐urban coordination was based on the analysis of case studies prepared for various EU Member States. This basic platform is considered by the authors from the above‐mentioned Slovenian ministry as the basis for strengthening of territorial‐urban coordination among strategic documents at the EU level (i.e. the EU’s Territorial Agenda, First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda, Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities) and at the level of individual EU Member States. In the introduction to the proposed solution framework, the authors further accentuate that the proposed recommendations do not represent a closed set which cannot be further supplemented. This is also the basic concept of the current research project, which is freely linked to prior findings that are confronted with current development of this issue and which further develops and specifies potential trends of further development.

The Slovenian concept/outline of proposals for strengthening coordination between the territorial and the urban development is composed of a total of nine parts:

1. Partnerships and platforms




13

Proposal fur further activity at the EU level: establish a platform for examples of territorial‐urban coordination

New governance tools can further the implementation of integrated planning approaches across levels and beyond the established institutional frameworks. New forms of partnerships with clearly defined organisational structures can be set up that also link the planning and implementation phases.

This recommendation is viewed in a very comprehensive way, within the meaning of need to develop new forms of partnership can also help in avoiding conflicts as well as administrative burdens, and in developing a basis of joint interest of diverse groups. Therefore, this recommendation accentuates drawing from experience, especially where a common understanding of the subject has not yet been established. Such approach allows for documenting specific examples of the advantages as well as bottlenecks of cooperation at regional and sub‐regional levels, as well as inter‐city cooperation.

2. Common visions

Proposal fur further activity at the EU level: devise guidelines for setting up collaborative development strategies

It is necessary to elaborate common and shared visions about key objectives and priorities for development between all relevant stakeholders, which are an essential tool for successful coordination. These visions can create conditions for common understanding of key development priorities and projects. According to the interim document, strategic, flexible planning approaches can be applied for tackling the dynamics of spatial phenomena at all levels, complementing more rigid land‐use planning approaches. Planning processes could be used for the creation of a common understanding about the key challenges and development priorities at different levels.

Common regional and sub‐regional development strategies are the key tool supporting the linkages between cities as well as between urban and rural areas and inter‐city governance and cooperation. Urban policies should therefore focus on the development of linkages between cities, e.g. by defining common planning strategies, determining the economic role of each node and developing common service provision facilities. Development of guidelines on how to address common regional development strategies could help implement the objectives of territorial‐urban development coordination through regional policies.

3. Participative approach

A fully participative approach is needed at the earliest stages for creating common visions and efficient partnerships, securing public acceptance of such created concepts. The different roles of different stakeholders in the development should be recognized. Cooperation between relevant actors and different planning levels should be based on compatible interests, taking into account the potentially divergent interests of different actors. Planning coordination becomes easier when the territorial authorities concerned,




14

at both regional and local levels, are able to work in close partnership on the basis of common spatial interests. With regard to the effectiveness of governance models, it is very important to take into account opinions and interests of various stakeholders at different public administration levels in decision‐making processes.

4. Leadership

Strong leadership throughout all phases of planning and implementation is important for successful implementation of common visions, plans, and development projects. It is also important for assuring strong partnerships.

5. Competences and skills

Governance and generic skills are needed to facilitate coordination. Competencies and skills are of particular importance for building high‐quality consensual strategic visions and for managing successful partnerships. Capacity building, including generic skills for sustainable communities, is needed for successful functioning of new forms of partnership. Strong leadership is a key ingredient of successful coordination across levels.

The city‐region approach, for instance, has demonstrated the need for analytical abilities and skills, including an understanding of the interconnections between component districts and a mixture of political and inter‐organisational skills to secure buy‐in from relevant partners and to build a consensual vision and set of priorities.

6. Framework conditions

Creation of suitable framework conditions, such as legislative framework, is necessary for enabling coordination between different administrative levels. The national level most often has a crucial role in stimulating the formation of platforms and partnerships for facilitating coordination between levels. This recommendation concerns closer cooperation between individual levels of public administration or planning levels. In this sense, the report pointed to the need for frequent consultations between all parties involved from the earliest stages of the planning process. This is considered as an underlying condition for successful achievement of results which can benefits all public administration levels.

7. Resources

When developing policies, plans and strategies at different levels, it should be taken into account costs of coordination, particularly time and money. Enough financial funds should therefore be reserved for it early on in the planning process. Participative, bottom‐up approaches in general have better chances for producing successful strategies and plans, as they can secure wide ownership of results and better public acceptance. However, top‐down initiatives are crucial for stimulating coordination and setting up appropriate framework conditions.

8. Political support




15

Political support and policy continuity at all levels in the actions assuring coordination is crucial for the success of coordination. Wide ownership of common visions has to be applied to ensure continuation.

9. Power balance

Power imbalances between different administrative and policy‐making levels can be a serious obstacle for effective vertical coordination. It is therefore necessary to avoid such imbalances as much as possible through establishment of clear rules of communication and cooperation between different levels.

In addition to the foregoing, the interim report of the Slovenian Presidency (May 2007) presented the following three recommendations, which can be considered as the basis for drafting a comprehensive proposal of framework for solution of urban‐rural issues:

1. Innovative cross‐scale concepts can be very valuable in fostering coordination between levels when applied as planning tools.

Proposal fur further activity at the EU level: devise a new common development concept

The circumstances of both territorial and urban development have changed a great deal in the last decade. ESPON and Urban Audit, for instance, have already developed their own supra‐urban concepts, such as Larger Urban Zones or Functional Urban Areas, but other new concepts are already emerging in scientific circles and discussions. A new common policy concept should offer the possibility to merge existing concepts and embrace new ones, as well as enable data collection on a common basis.

2. Regular updating on the progress of common objectives by utilising a commonly agreed system of indicators should help in maintaining the partnerships.

Proposal fur further activity at the EU level: increase activities toward developing a common data platform in the future

In connection with prior recommendations relating to the new common development concept is also necessary to establish a common data platform. The current efforts of ESPON and Urban Audit could gradually also result in a common data which could assist in the creation of a database would allow for EU‐wide analysis across levels. Relevant data can in this sense provide a good basis for shifting the reference framework from regional and national levels to transnational and European levels. 3. Documents at the EU level should include territorial‐urban coordination issues

Proposal fur further activity at the EU level: interlinking between the objectives of the EU’s Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter




16

The existence of common objectives in both documents is evident, and yet further interlinking between objectives in the implementation is needed. Due to very different institutional arrangements regarding, in particular, the distribution of responsibilities in territorial and urban policies, the point of view of the EU Member States on the implementation of this issue will be considered as an important indicator in the next period.

Whilst the above‐mentioned recommendations resulting from the Slovenian Presidency may appear very general and unspecified at first sight, they may be still considered as a good basis for drafting and further extension of the framework for resolution of urban‐rural relations in the EU. The key and universal conclusion resulting from these recommendations is represented by the need to improve coordination or urban‐rural relations, which requires clear‐cut strategies. It is currently important to create a symbiosis of individual approaches and to establish a balanced implementing environment.

An example of these efforts is the “re‐programming” which occurred in the Czech Republic in 1998 ‐ 2000 (see Blažek, 20019). The set‐up of programming in the Czech Republic in the years 2007 – 2013, which may seem complicated, stems from some re‐programming of public spending, particularly in relation to programmes financed from EU funds. With the passage of time, experience has been obtained also from the implementing phase, where the relevant central, regional and other administrative bodies and institutions have “learned” not only to implement but also to achieve the pre‐determined objectives and priorities. The Slovenian Presidency documents also indicate the need to strengthen mutual links between programming documents, particularly in relation to the urban‐rural issues.

2.3 General view of the starting points of the urban‐rural topic: a synthetic summary of comments from the joint meeting of representatives of EU Member States held in Prague on 13 October 2008

The main objective of this meeting of the work group consisting of representatives of EU Member States involved on the urban‐rural topic was to contribute to the elaboration of a methodological framework and to include steps towards coordination between urban and territorial development in the relevant economic policies for the years 2008 to 2010.

With regard to major differences between EU Member States and their regions, it is generally very complicated to achieve consensus on specific cross‐sectional tools, which would provide a comprehensive solution for urban‐rural relations across all Member States. On the other hand, however, it is necessary to keep always in mind the importance of overall EU competitiveness in the global environment, where major fragmentation of approaches in individual Member States is not entirely appropriate. In this sense, this analysis as well as

9 Blažek, J. (2001); Jakou regionální politiku potřebujeme v předvstupním období?(What regional policy do we need in the pre-accession period?), Obec a finance no. 1/2001, p. 21 - 23




17

other negotiations and discussions in the relevant working group should lead to the elaboration of specialized documents to support decision‐making in urban‐rural issues. Furthermore, it is very important to accentuate that, with regard to the significance of this issue, it is not necessary to elaborate any new strategies or policies but rather to analyze the current situation and existing approaches, whose substance could be used as effectively as possible in the existing policy context. Presented outputs of previous stages of this project have resulted in the following partial questions and general comments on the urban‐rural topic:

1. Do the urban‐rural relations objectively represent a really new topic? What does this topic cover? Although it is easier to define urban than rural areas, the expert seminar has recommended that any typology of urban areas should not be static. Priscilla De Roo (France) deems it important to emphasise, on the basis of this finding, also the availability and political impacts of transformation in these areas. Moreover, Andrzej Halasiewicz (Poland) reminded that, whilst it is possible to establish a single clear classification of these areas, each such definition should retain a certain extent of flexibility. For instance, Portugal currently lacks any definition of the city (José Festas, Portugal). Nevertheless, principal attention should be focused on the functioning of urban‐rural relations, which requires monitoring of these issues from the perspective of functional regions and their polycentric development potential.

2. Outstanding theoretical and methodological issues – what topics have to be further pursued or more specifically analyzed? According to Johan Magnusson (European Commission, DG REGIO), it is essential to set up in future an integrated approach to the urban‐rural issue across all EU Member States. Johan Magnusson believes that there is currently a number of projects and plenty of knowledge and experience relating to this topic in individual EU Member States; therefore, this issue should be focused in future on the implementation of these links and experience across the EU. In this sense, this document is focused on the analysis of experience in other countries which have provided their source materials relating to their experience with the urban‐rural topic.

3. What role may be played by individual/sectoral policies? From the general perspective, it has be noted from the outset that, as regards urban‐rural relations, it is impossible to examine or to put the key emphasis only on the EU structural policy. This comment was presented by Marie José Festas (Portugal), who also referred to the significant role of national policies, which finance a major part of activities relating to this issue in the EU countries that are not covered by the Convergence objective. In this sense, the working group dealing with the urban‐rural topic should not attempt to influence midterm evaluations of EU structural funds.

However, the expertʹs team (University of Economics) believes that the issue of urban‐rural relations is much broader and stems from the diversity of conditions in individual EU Member States and also from their economic levels. Therefore, it is possible to




18

identify now two geographical parts of the EU which implement to a different extent different public spending programmes at the European and the national level. One of these areas covers the new EU Member States, which acceded in 2004 and 2007, and partly also some regions in the southern and the northern part of the EU. These states and regions are characterized as structurally affected and receive major financial and special aid to enhance their future development prerequisites. Moreover, their capacities of financing specific problems from national resources are limited by the co‐financing principle, which uses most of their state budget capacities for the implementation of projects supported by EU structural funds. On the other side, there are the developed EU Member States with limited possibilities to use structural policy funds, which resolve specific problems through their policies funded from national resources. Hence, these aspects require a much broader view also with regard to the possibility to actually influence existing conditions and urban‐rural relations. It is therefore evident that any midterm revision of the ESC policy in the 2007 – 2013 period will have an essential impact namely on countries and regions covered by the Convergence objective. All other regions must put much greater emphasis on effective implementation of national policies (e.g. on the “match funding” in the UK, which has a much broader significance than mere complementing of EU funds by the private sector).




19

3. Answers to strategic questions of the project

3.1 Strategic question no. 1

1. How is urban‐rural relations issue solved at the European and at the national levels?

With regard to institutional, legislative and administrative differences between Member States, the approaches to the solution of polycentric territorial development and urban‐rural relations that are set up at the European level comprise mostly systemic and conceptual approaches. Based on defined territorial development priorities in the EU, the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda, which has been approved, focuses on the initiation of activities fostering increased coordination of the territorial cohesion issue and the urban development policy. Hence, long‐term solutions of this issue have been set at the European level; however, due to major imbalances between various states and regions, it is relatively complicated to apply instruments which fulfil the stipulated objectives and priorities of the EU’s Territorial Agenda and of other documents. From the perspective of urban‐rural relations, it could be seen that some states and regions pursue mostly their own interests without taking into account the relevant aspects of the European policy and trans‐European structures, processes and dependencies. Each level (European – national – regional – local) must resolve primarily such areas that are adequate and relevant for it and which generate a certain long‐term potential. Any way, in case of implementation of the Territorial Agenda (as well as any other issues), it would not be appropriate to resolve at this top European level specific recommendations for groups of states or for individual Member States. This must be the task of national interests and priorities. The issue of urban‐rural relations is resolved at the national level through regional policies of EU Member States and other sectoral policies having a territorial impact. However, a large number of intermingling policies and regulations may also reduce the effectiveness of coordination. It is possible to find a number of national and regional territorial development strategies, as well as a large number of different instruments achieving the same goal (see the previous chapters). Furthermore, it may be concluded that intrinsic territorial development policies of individual states have been successfully linked to the national strategic reference frameworks of the Cohesion Policy; however, as indicated by the example of the Czech Republic, it is impossible to find in most operational programmes a more meaningful support of the integration of urban‐rural relations. This is also reflected in implemented projects. This fact is likely to exist in case of other states and regions, particularly in relation to support provided by the Convergence and the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives.




20

From the long‐term perspective, the national and regional territorial development policies, which resolve urban‐rural relations, will have to be focused to a greater extent on the use of regional potential and territorial capital and the characteristics of the settlement‐network. This is given by the high variability and diversity of regions in Europe. It is appropriate to focus on truly structural activities and on the potential of cities and rural areas in the relevant regions, thereby fostering their real competitiveness. Such profiling will promote territorial cohesion and links between cities and their surroundings.


2. What are the key contentual topics concerning ties between the urban and the rural space and their future prospects?

Rural areas are currently in an unequal position vis‐à‐vis cities. The former “division” of roles between the city and the rural areas has lost to a significant extent its importance, e.g. in the sense of demographic reproduction and agricultural function. Moreover, suburban areas have been strengthened significantly in a number of countries. In the EU, however, this process differs between one region and another. There are cities that represent economic power, prosperity and a high economic level of development while other cities face increased problems related to exclusion and poverty. Some rural areas are fighting to cope with the effects of marginalization while others are among the most dynamic regions in the European Union.

The following key content topics of ties between the urban and the rural space arise generally from the analyzed documents:

• It is impossible to refer to any contentual topics concerning ties between the urban and the rural space in the analyzed documents at the European level. The topics resolved in them correspond to their high level. Increased emphasis on the problem of urban‐rural relations may be observed in cohesion reports and progress analyses. While the first cohesion report did not accentuate this relation at all, the most recent reports pay more attention to the issue of urban‐rural relations. In general, the key emphasis is focused on monitoring differences at the national and the regional level. While the disparities at the national level (between EU Member States) are being reduced, increased economic and social development imbalances are often mentioned at the regional level. Another topic which is monitored at the European level relates to the economic development in the context of gradual EU enlargement. The aspect which received particular attention in this respect is the statistical effect, which is caused by the entry of less developed states and by the impact on average values of basic macroeconomic indicators. As to sectoral topics which are often resolved at the European level, we can refer to the problems and concepts of building trans‐European transport networks. Since this represents the backbone European network, this issue is resolved at the top level.




21

• Key topics concerning ties between the urban and the rural space existing in the Czech conditions, which are referred to in the analyzed documents, are as follows: elaboration of conceptual and development documents linking the city with its surroundings, the transport and technical infrastructure (communication networks, but also waste water treatment, waste management), the transport service (coordination and organizational measures – establishment and development of integrated transport systems), tourism – coordination and organization of activities, marketing and promotion of the territory, information and booking networks. Other areas include social and cultural activities in the territory with the aim of promoting partnerships between cities and municipalities with their narrower and broader surroundings. The territorial administration structure has a decelerating effect on closer ties between the cities and rural areas, which means that municipal and rural administrative authorities are interested mainly in the development of their own administrative territory. This results in insufficient reflection of mutual ties in some spheres of life in cities and municipalities.

• A group of specialized studies dealing with the rural and the urban space, including urban‐rural ties, indicates that the promotion of polycentric development seems to have good prospects as regards potential territorial development of EU countries, although this type has also its own limitation, particularly in some regions and countries with low population and settlement density. Despite the foregoing, it will be evidently possible to strengthen mutual ties between rural and urban areas in the context of “partnerships” between cities and rural areas with the aim of increasing synergies of mutual ties. The content topics which appear as important for further development of rural areas include networking promotion of innovations, use of natural and cultural resources and added value of local products, use of new technologies and know‐how to improve life quality in rural areas, promotion of the development of appropriate productive and non‐productive services in urban and rural areas, etc.

The most relevant approaches for the Czech Republic, with regard to its higher population density, are those leading to polycentric development. Despite the existence of very good prerequisites for polycentric development between urban and rural areas in the Czech Republic (compared, for instance, with Finland, which faces major difficulties in most of its regions due to its low population density), it has to be noted that the Czech Republic is not a homogenous region with identical conditions for the development of settlements and the territorial development in all its regions. Another relatively important aspect of the polycentric development is the necessary development of the partnership and cooperation concept at the local and the regional level. Although there is now a number of examples of the development of mutual cooperation (particularly at the microregional level), these project have included mostly hard (infrastructure) projects, rather than strategic and development projects. Nevertheless, the situation is beginning to improve also with regard to increasing possibilities of funding of joint projects (not only in the context of the EU




22

structural policy, but also through the Common Agricultural Policy and its Pillar II – namely local application of the LEADER method).

Reflection of contentual topics according to the results of a discussion held at the seminar in October 2008

Several topics relating to urban‐rural issues resulted from a meeting of representatives of EU Member States who participated in the discussion about this issue held at the Ministry for Regional Development in Prague on 13 October 2008. The discussion indicated that the key contentual topics of urban‐rural issues include:

‐ Partnership and cooperation – the participating approach; ‐ Application of a long‐term strategic approach to the solution of development

problems facing urban and rural areas; ‐ Governance – possible approach to solution by means of decision‐making

mechanisms at the relevant level and enhancement of the culture of cooperation; ‐ Development and innovations – construction and economic activities; ‐ Balanced development of urban and rural areas, networking of small and medium‐

sized towns to establish conditions for polycentric development; ‐ Transfer of knowledge and existing experience between and within regions.

Accentuation of challenges relating to territorial development (urban sprawl), transport policy (high transport demand) and quality of life may become a potential further output of Action 1.1a.


3. What are the instruments for optimization of ties between the urban and the rural space and their future prospects?

Results arising from the completed analysis of documents and studies elaborated in the EU and in the Czech Republic for the purpose of implementation of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda and of the performance of its Action 1.1a Urban‐Rural Relations have established a certain framework for resolution of the problems of urban‐rural relations. The fact that this is a relatively “new” issue has been reflected in a relatively weak reflection of these topics in applied structural policy and rural development instruments and also in the fact that the research team was presented only with a limited number of case studies for its analysis of urban‐rural relations in the EU Member States. Despite, the foregoing, it is possible to specify a certain number of tools used for promotion of optimum urban‐rural relations, some of which are very effective and promote synergic effects.




23

Given the institutional, legislative and administrative difference among EU Member States, mostly systemic and conceptual approach to the resolution of polycentric territorial development and urban‐rural relations may be used at the European level. Each level (European – national – regional – local) must resolve primarily such issues that are adequate and relevant for it. Therefore, it is inappropriate and even impossible to present at the EU level recommendations for groups of states or for individual Member States.

The following tools are currently used at the EU level:

1) Strategic projects with a European impact

An important part of cooperation between and within regions is represented by interconnected infrastructure networks..

2) Coordination of territorial cohesion issues and urban development policy with the aim of achieving higher effectiveness

Continuing discussion about finding a balance between the EU cohesion policy and competitiveness policy should be focused on creating mechanisms for use of the potential of small and medium‐sized towns

3) European projects: ESPON and Urban Audit

The continuation of these projects and use of their results should serve as the basis for the definition of EU recommendations regarding strategic and territorial planning in individual Member States (to be reviewed at the national levels). New concepts reflecting innovative approaches to urban‐rural problems may be helpful for effective implementation. Such unified spatial planning framework may contribute to the promotion of polycentric territorial development.

Proposal of a new procedure to be applied at the EU level:

Reflection of problems in urban‐rural relations in programming documents – it would be helpful to verify, as a part of mid‐term evaluations which will take place in the Member States in the coming years, the reflection of urban‐rural issues in programming documents and, if applicable, to present proposals for partial amendments to the OPs. This concept could be then applied in the form of principles for elaboration of operational programmes during the elaboration of new programming documents prepared for future programming period 2014 – 2020. This requires, however, making certain changes in the understanding of the rural development policy and its funding at the EU level.

Several recommendations and tools used in the solution of urban‐rural relations may be derived from the analysis of case studies provided by the Member States. At the same time, however, it is necessary to take into account existing differences between regions at the national and at the European level. There are actually more types of rural areas and it is impossible to define universal instruments for optimization of urban‐rural relations, because each type may require specific instruments and approaches.




24

1) Cooperation between centres – an accent on cooperation, particularly between the core centre and its surroundings. Informal cooperation between urban and rural areas through state aid to projects with a territorial dimension has been mentioned in this respect. Beside the necessary cooperation between the centre and its surroundings, it is also important to promote metropolitan cooperation between key centres (metropolises) and medium‐sized cities. This represents a higher level of cooperation than the cooperation between the centre and its surroundings, which leads to the polycentric development issues. Promotion of cooperation is referred to in a number of other case studies, but usually in a general form without specification of tools.

2) Consolidation of medium‐sized cities and strengthening of the relation between urban and rural areas by means of projects focusing on infrastructure, education and health care, which are very important for enhancement of attractiveness of regions.

3) Promotion of transport service and availability makes it possible to establish spatial and functional relations between centres and namely between the city and its rural surroundings. Increasing mobility requirements and higher commuting rate to cities is a characteristic feature not only in the Czech Republic but also in other states.

4) Promotion of partnership and networking not only within regions (the territorial perspective), but namely networking with partners in totally different and remote regions (supra‐regional, horizontal perspective).

5) The working group for urban‐rural interaction in Finland – it is a cross‐sectional group resolving urban‐rural issues from an interdisciplinary perspective. The group was established at the central level and is managed by the Finnish Ministry of Employment and Economy; however, its membership includes representatives from research and academic spheres, administrative authorities, private companies, etc. Similar or alternative working groups may probably exist in other EU Member States; in general, this represents useful establishment of specific networks and partnerships between relevant subjects and institutions.

The analysis of documents originating from the Czech Republic has pointed to some instruments which are currently implemented or proposed for implementation for the purpose of promotion of urban‐rural relations. Such tools have to be used and further developed not only at the general level; their actual practical application has to be also accentuated. Based on the foregoing, these approaches and tools may be defined as follows:

1) Comprehensive approach to the territory

One of the fundamental prerequisites is the systematic promotion of a comprehensive approach to the territory during creation of conceptual and development documents both at the central and at lower levels. In the context of such approach, it is necessary




25

to ensure that that elaborated sectoral strategies and programmes include territorial dimension and take into account the urban‐rural relations.

2) Coherence of implemented policies and programmes and regular assessment of their synergic effects

Synergic effects of implemented programmes and policies represent a very important territorial development factor; therefore, it is necessary to ensure mutual coherence of these documents and to assess regularly their territorial impact.

3) Coordination and organizational measures

The analysis of documents has pointed out the important role played by coordination and organizational measures in the promotion of the urban‐rural relation. As regards public transport (supply of transport service in the territory), integrated transport systems linked to big cities help connect the city with its surroundings, enabling people to travel in search of work, education and services. The establishment of a functioning integrated system is a long‐term process; therefore, organizational and coordination measures relating to transport services may be considered also in future as an important instrument for deepening of urban‐rural links.

The urban‐rural link is also reflected in the building of technical infrastructure, nowadays particularly in waste management (waste collection, operation of waste dumps or waste recycling) and waste water treatment activities.

Links between cities and their surroundings are also reflected in civic amenities, social services, health care and education (mostly higher‐level stages).

4) Tourism as a common economic activity promoting urban‐rural relations

Coordination and organizational measures in tourism make it possible to create networks and associations of entities involved in tourism not only at the regional level, but also thematically focused networks and entities.

Joint marketing and promotional activities have been initiated by tourism centres and their surroundings; an important role in this respect is played by various measures allowing to establish connections between individual areas with important potential for development of tourism.

Other factors contributing to the deepening of mutual links between the centre and its surroundings are information and booking systems. Given the role than may be played by tourism as an economic sector in the development of regions, the development of all these measures represents an important future tool for the deepening of urban‐rural links.

5) Promotion of diversification of economic activities in rural areas

The purpose of diversification of economic activities in rural areas is to increase the attractiveness of these areas and the motivation for keeping young people there by means of creation of new all‐year‐round jobs existing outside the main agricultural




26

season, so that people working in agriculture and in other sectors could have further financial source to maintain the quality of their life, which is important for sustainable stabilization of the rural population. All in all, the diversification can contribute to restrain such negative processes as outmigration, degradation of living environment, etc.

Further opportunities appear in public services, such as social services and social care linked to the city as the centre of social services – local field workers in rural settlements (provision of specific social services) or educational services.

Another factor for agriculture is the diversification of agricultural activities in the direction of non‐agricultural activities to ensure higher stability of income and to reduce potential negative effects caused by fluctuation in agricultural management (due e.g. to climatic changes, fluctuation of prices of agricultural commodities, gradual liberalization of agricultural policy). Diversification means the development of such activities as productive and non‐productive services – traditional crafts, agrotourism, ecoagrotourism, repairs, cooperation the maintenance and construction of roads and biking paths, care for the appearance of the municipality, etc. The implementation of the diversification process requires organization of adequate educational training courses, including business skills training.

Another important tool is the promotion of new technologies and innovations for economic subjects operating in rural areas, which requires promotion of links between research and development, which is usually carried out in cities, with the application and implementing sphere in rural areas.

6) Promotion of partnerships and cooperation within the territory

Another tool which appears to have a significant future potential is the promotion of partnerships and cooperation between local self‐government authorities in urban and rural areas, as well as in social, cultural and sports activities, i.e. in the non‐profit sphere. Such soft activities have a positive impact on the bonds of the inhabitants to the territory where they live and hence also on their willingness to become engaged in the community live, and contribute to the deepening of relations between the city and its closer and broader surroundings.

7) Carrying out a long‐term survey of links between cities and rural areas and their actual functioning in the conditions of the Czech Republic

This proposed tool is based on the fact that the optimization of urban‐rural relations in the Czech Republic is a long‐term process, which will be further deepened in connection with the development of activities promotion the implementation of the Territorial Agenda. However, the current situation requires the initiation and development of activities leading to deeper understanding of these links and their impact on the life of the population.




27

In this sense, it is necessary to examine actual links existing in the territory and catchment areas of centres resulting from their socio‐economic significance in the territory. Since such large‐scale research is very difficult to implement, territorial districts of municipalities with extended competencies or with a delegated municipal authority may be used in the first phase of examination of these relations. Such territorial districts usually have one city that plays the role of the key centre for such territory (nodal microregions). However, due to the different significance of those municipalities with extended competencies (or with a delegated municipal authority) in the relevant territory, it is still impossible to use a unified approach to them. Therefore, the examination and assessment of urban‐rural relations has to also take into account the existence of higher‐level centres in the territory and to pay attention to their links to the surroundings during the examination and assessment of mutual relations between cities and rural areas.

Wirth regard to the specific situation in the Czech Republic, it is necessary to take into account the settlement hierarchy, which creates, in European circumstances, unique conditions for promotion of polycentric development as one of the territorial development objectives and a potential solution of urban‐rural relations. Urban‐rural relations in the Czech Republic gain importance due to continuing concentration of job opportunities in centres with a more important place in the hierarchy (particularly municipalities with extended competencies, or municipalities with delegated municipal authority) and this situation is likely to be further deepened.


4. What are the existing tools for the solution of key disproportions between the urban and the rural space and their future prospects?

Based on the analysis of case studies, it may be said that most of them have presented socio‐economic and geographical specifics of their states and partly also the related instruments for resolution of main disproportions between urban and rural areas. Many cases, however, only indicated general approaches, rather than the tools themselves.

1) Development of various partnership forms (a follow‐up to proposals no. 1, 3 and 8 of the Slovenian presidency) – a very frequently mentioned solution instrument for urban‐rural relations. Cooperation of a large stakeholder variety to achieve successful development and promotion of cooperation between cities and rural areas is definitely an effective and necessary tool. On the other hand, it requires a long‐term approach and it is also possible to refer in this respect to varying experience in individual states. More experience with and good practical use of partnership are among the reasons why case studies from Western Europe refer very often to this tool (e.g. the UKʹs “Northern Way” case study).




28

The application of the partnership principle is closely connected with planning of strategic territorial and development documents. The involvement of all necessary and key local development partners provides an important prerequisite for successful future implementation and performance of predetermined objectives. It is, however, necessary that the elaborated programming document represents a connecting link among stakeholders from various spheres and sectors.

The development of various partnership forms may be considered in future as an appropriate tool for promotion urban‐rural relations.

2) Ensuring accessibility (not based directly on the proposals raised by the Slovenian Presidency) is mentioned in a number of cases studies as a factor affecting relations between cities and their surroundings, or between cities. The latter case often refers to the development of trans‐European transport networks, which connect individual cities (particularly those with large population). According to the current transport policies, this is one of the European priorities and a higher density of these high‐capacity transport networks may be expected in future. At the same time, it is necessary to point to the cumulative effect of these tools. For instance, some forms of partnerships and of joint territorial administration between urban and rural areas are established during the construction of TEN‐T networks in order to decide on places where the network will lead etc. Furthermore, high quality of infrastructure may become in certain cases a condition for promotion of diversification of economic activities in the given territory.

Ensuring accessibility may be also considered as one of key tools for future solution of urban‐rural relations.

3) Networking (a direct follow‐up of proposals no. 1, 2 and an indirect follow up of proposals no. 3, 6, and 5 of the Slovenian Presidency) is an important tool for resolution of imbalances between urban and rural areas. These activities may be manifested in various forms, e.g. by exchange of information and know‐how among territorial development stakeholders both in the urban and the rural areas and attempts at polycentric territorial development (e.g. in the form of various seminars or conferences, involvement of schools and universities in the process of cooperation and exchange of experience, consultation of potential approaches to territorial development application and others). Furthermore, they are reflected in partnerships within and between projects (transnational, cross‐border, regional, local), establishing links between businesses and investments and connecting infrastructure.

Networking may be considered as a tool for the nearest future. Later on, however, it will be necessary to ensure support for the operation of such networks.

4) Good governance (a direct follow‐up of proposal no. 5 and an indirect follow up of proposals no. 8 and 9 of the Slovenian Presidency) – some case studies referred generally to the benefits of political stability and to a certain extent of political cooperation, because a stable political support is a necessary prerequisite for effective




29

and successful coordination of the territorial development. Good governance is an adequate method of ensuring administration, rules, processes and monitoring of policies focused on the relevant issue in order to achieve long‐ and medium‐term objectives and strategies. This involves, to some extent, the promotion and perfecting by means of “smart public administration”. Good governance is one of the principles which have to be promoted continuously in relation to the development of the relevant territory.

5) Diversification of economic activities (a direct follow‐up of proposals no. 1, 2 and an indirect follow up of proposal no. 6 of the Slovenian Presidency),e.g. by means of business incubators, revitalization of industrial and agricultural brownfields and promotion of cooperation networks and cluster initiatives. Case studies defined promotion of diversification of economic activities as an important approach to the enhancement of competitiveness even outside key metropolitan regions and in rural areas.

Promotion of the diversification of economic activities has to stem from specific circumstances in individual regions. In this sense, this approach cannot be considered universal.


5. What are the potential obstacles of the solution of this issue and their proposed solutions?

1. The pitfall existing at the EU level is the interim “non‐mandatory” nature of implementation of urban‐rural issues, which results in inconsistent application of this topic across EU Member States. Proposed solution:

• To initiate a discussion at the top political level (the European Commission, European Parliament, EU Council) defining thematic categories where it will be mandatory to seek long‐term solutions of urban‐rural relations and to monitor the implementation of such solutions.

2. The necessity to recognize the significance of the “comprehensive nature” of urban‐rural issues and their reflection in various sectoral policies (the multidisciplinary approach). Proposed solution:

• To use the existing structures and platforms for accentuation of urban‐rural issues at the EU level and in individual Member States and to foster a multidisciplinary approach to these issues.




30

3. Another pitfall is the broad focus of the urban‐rural issue (definitions, geographical delineation, absence of unified typology). Proposed solution:

• To initiate an expert discussion in the EU and in the Member States with the aim of formulating more pregnant definitions of basic terms (terminology), to unify typology of cities and rural areas and to set up the basic set of data and indicators for monitoring urban‐rural issues.

4. The coherence between urban and rural development issues is weakened by separate approaches to the development of urban and rural territories. Proposed solution:

• To put greater emphasis on a comprehensive approach to territorial development and to better coordinate the funding streams for urban and rural development, . Furthermore, necessary large strategic projects should be prepared in order to promote activities contributing to the development of the territory as a whole and to the deepening of synergies in links between the city and rural areas.

5. Another pitfall of the urban‐rural issue is the current perception of rural development in the Common EU Agricultural Policy, which puts great emphasis on its agricultural dimension. Proposed solution:

• One of the solutions is to consider optimum incorporation of the rural development policy into the system of EU policies in a manner enabling better application of a more comprehensive approach to territory. We have to realize in this respect the current decline of the significance of agriculture in rural economy, which leads to an increase of non‐agricultural activities in rural areas. This is also related to the change of function of rural settlements.

6. The urban‐rural issue is currently viewed to a greater extent through normative rather than positive economic postulates, which is due to an insufficient regional and local database. Proposed solution:

• To apply approaches resulting from positive economics, i.e. to create the relevant database with indicators, to implement research projects mapping the current situation in the territory (including more extensive field research). Moreover, this approach will allow obtaining information not only about the economic context but also about the social environment of cities and rural areas.




31

4. Proposals for solution of issues concerning urban‐rural relations

4.1 EU level

The EU level requires only such solution for those areas and issues that are adequate and relevant with respect to this supra‐national and top hierarchic level. This also means that mostly basic conceptual directions of individual policies and areas, in this case with regard to urban‐rural relations, may be set up at the European level. An exception is represented by strategic projects with pan‐European implications, such as the concept of trans‐European transport axes and networks. To date, mostly concepts and strategic frameworks of a more general nature have been established at the EU level. In case of urban‐rural relations, this included documents characterized earlier, such as the European Territorial Development Perspective and others. Given the progressive integration and enlargement, it is impossible to anticipate any future changes in the content of solutions of these issues; however, it is possible to propose certain procedural and coordination measures, which would assist in more effective implementation of the Territorial Agenda at national levels. From this perspective, it is possible to build on the conclusions of general recommendations issued under the Slovenian Presidency, which relate specifically to the EU level. The following summary outlines relevant proposals for solution of problems pertaining to urban‐rural relations at the EU level. These proposals may be generally divided into several categories, i.e. areas relating to:

• programming documents for the EU level;

• projects with pan‐European implications;

• adjustments and revisions of European policies.

(1) More systematic reflection of urban‐rural issues in programming documents The diverse institutional, legislative and administrative culture of individual Member States allows defining only general and “open” recommendations for the implementation of postulates of the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter at the EU level. Nevertheless, it would be appropriate to monitor the reflection of urban‐rural relations in operational programmes in the Member States and to elaborate “general strategic principles”, which would introduce methodological recommendations to accentuate this issue in individual OPs. In the current programming period, this pertains mostly to the Convergence and Regional Competitiveness objective, which are often focused excessively on sectors and lack the territorial dimension in their measures. The current objective “European Territorial Cooperation”, focused on cross‐




32

border, interregional and transnational cooperation among regions reflects much more, by definition, the territorial cohesion issue. Recommendations:

• To check and to introduce, if appropriate, proposals for partial modifications of the OPs by incorporating a more extensive territorial dimension in mid‐term evaluations, which will take place in Member States in the coming years.

• To apply the concept requiring more systematic reflection of urban‐rural issues in new programming documents elaborated in the course of preparations for the future programming period of 2014 – 2020.

(2) Practical application of new concepts This proposal partly develops one of the recommendations resulting from proposals which arose during the Slovenian Presidency. New concepts which have been developed in ESPON projects present an integral view of the urban‐rural issue, or only of urban areas. However, these and other concepts elaborated in an academic environment are not usually further developed or implemented in practice. Recommendations:

• To continue to implement European projects of the ESPON type, which help create a data and knowledge base and opportunities to make broader analyses, as well as new concepts for the solution of polycentric development issues, mutual urban‐rural relations and in other areas.

• To elaborate EU guidelines which will regulate strategic and territorial planning in individual Member States and would reflect new concepts in the approach to urban‐rural issues (a unified spatial planning framework may contribute to the promotion of polycentric territorial development).

• To define at the EU level relevant indicators for assessment of urban‐rural relations to enable comparison and evaluation of the development of this issue in each EU Member State.

(3) Modifications of European policies

The European level requires seeking long‐term consensus for revisions of common policies which are to be made in connection with the continuing integration process or with the “new EU challenges” (climatic and demographic changes, energy requirements, etc.). In the context of urban‐rural issues, it is necessary to recommend and to try to promote increased integration of the territorial dimension mainly into the EU cohesion policy, EU research and innovation policy and during revisions of the Common Agricultural Policy.




33

As regards the cohesion policy, a number of factors of its future setup as well as some potential development scenarios are being currently discussed. The issues mentioned in this respect include, apart from the “new challenges” and re‐nationalization, also urban dimensions of the cohesion policy or issues relating to the future role and position of cities. While the urban dimension of the cohesion policy has been discussed relatively often in the original EU‐15 states, such matter is not frequently resolved in almost all states which acceded in 2004 and later.

A different approach, accentuating proactive promotion of integration of the territorial dimension in cohesion policy programmes and instruments and fostering an integrated approach to the development of cities and to the enhancement of their functions in the development of suburban areas and the development of urban‐rural partnerships, may be expected in the next programming period 2014 ‐ 2020. Such approach can be definitely promoted within the entire EU. In fact, a major part of current programming and strategic documents does not sufficiently promote the territorial dimension, or an integrated approach to the selection of and investing into projects. As to the territorial dimension, the role and significance of big cities and metropolitan areas as driving forces of growth should not be underestimated. In the context of a realistic cohesion policy, this can also mean an adequately increased concentration of interventions into several competitive areas (metropolitan regions) within a comprehensive concept of urban‐rural issues in the sense of spread‐effects.

It is possible to expect re‐opening of the discussion about inclusion of the rural policy into the Common Agricultural Policy system, because the current rural development concept in the CAP EU has a distinctly “agricultural nature”. This requires enhancement of a multidisciplinary concept of the rural development policy, because rural areas have a definitely multifunctional character.

The EU transport policy will require in the next years more focus on pending infrastructure projects, which strengthen the trans‐European transport network. Interconnected infrastructure networks represents an important part of cooperation between and within regions.

Recommendations: • To use expert results and political discussion about instruments to promote

urban‐rural relations. Particularly the preparation for the programming period of 2014 – 2020 requires to use necessary promotional tools for urban‐rural relations, which have to become fully functional since 2014.

• To establish an appropriate legislative framework for resolution of urban‐rural issues, mainly with regard to the newly created tools. This is necessary for the coordination between various administrative levels. In connection with the preparation for the programming period of 2014 – 2020, the following time schedule should be recommended:




34

‐ 2009 – 2011: an expert discussion on the urban‐rural issue, including its integration into the relevant regulations;

‐ 2012: preparation of new regulations; ‐ 2013: approval of new regulations.

• To provide long‐term support to the urban dimension in the cohesion policy by supporting cities and metropolitan areas. Ties to cities, particularly to small and medium‐sized towns, are important for rural areas. At the same time, these ties are important for cities and the existence of synergic effects is conditional upon socio‐economic links and their deepening.

• To strengthen the multidisciplinary concept of the rural development policy, which will respect the multifunctional nature of rural areas.

• To assess the relation between effective implementation of the CAP EU and of the ESC policy from the perspective of the rural development policy and urban‐rural relation.

4.2 The level of EU Member States

As regards the level of EU Member States, there are traditionally substantial differences not only with respect to approach, but also to actual solution of urban‐rural issues, or their inclusion into national policies. The reflection of these issues is being gradually improved. In this respect, we can refer, for instance, to the existing differences among EU Member States in the ESDP context. We can see than less than one half of the Member States have been influenced by this document; however, it has had no significant influence upon the creation of the relevant national policies. In the rest of the Member States, we can perceive a significant influence of the European territorial perspective. It can be said in general that a significantly stronger influence appears in the original EU‐15 states than in new Member States. This fact reflects, inter alia, the extent of participation of each state in the elaboration of this document. At the same time, the influence of national policies by the European territorial perspective is also related to certain timing. A stronger (albeit indirect) ESDP impact can be seen in countries which carried out in 2000 (when this document was issued) a reform of their national policy with a focus on territorial and spatial planning (e.g. in Hungary or Latvia). The urban‐rural issues have a different nature in each EU Member State. The situation in Scandinavian countries (Finland, Sweden) can be hardly compared with countries like the Netherlands and Belgium. Hence, the solution of the urban‐rural issues will always depend on geographical conditions, specific socio‐economic situation and on the specific political approach at the national level. At the same time, such different conditions of each national state impose substantial demands on the elaboration of common strategic documents, objectives and instruments. Another problem at the




35

national level arises in a situation where the national implementation of EU proposals, which are mostly sectoral, does not take into account the territorial dimension. And it is precisely this situation that the above‐mentioned recommendations pertaining to the EU level may help resolve (see the previous chapter). National regional policies have a relatively strong position in a number of EU Member States, particularly in the “old” ones. Funding of regional policies in new Member States from EU funds usually prevails over national sources of funding, which has a significant impact on the set‐up of instruments used in the resolution of urban‐rural issues. It is the set‐up of the funding system which may have a major influence upon urban‐rural issues in the relevant country. In this respect, it is necessary to accentuate and to promote in regional policies tools integrating cities and their rural surroundings. Such regional policy tools may be direct, e.g. increasing access to public administration services in the territory. Another direct instrument may be the provision of direct support to revitalization of industrial and agricultural brownfields for various development purposes, including assistance to business incubators. Indirect tools may include state aid in case of a change of the business and socio‐economic climate in the rural surroundings, e.g. by means of investments not only into the technical but also more and more frequently into the social, infrastructure, assistance to institutions increasing the technological level of the region (e.g. to firms focused on transfer of technologies, innovation centres in the surroundings of cities and others) and availability of services. In the context of enhancement of urban‐rural relations, it is also necessary to consider daily processes taking place in these areas, while respecting their hierarchy. This relates specifically to mobility or commuting to work, which represents an integrating element between centres and their surroundings. Another typical integrating element is represented by shopping opportunities and services provided by cities to rural areas. In this sense, it is appropriate to promote the establishment of integrated transport system and transport service planning. As regards the general regional policy level, these tools should promote mobility of the population between cities with their concentration of job opportunities, shops or services, and their rural surroundings. In connection with the implementation of EU objectives and programmes (particularly the cohesion policy), it is useful to prepare at the national level key (large‐scale) strategic projects (infrastructure, but also educational and other) which would have a positive impact on the territorial aspect of urban‐rural relations. The principal objective of such approach is to coordinate the preparation and implementation of more sophisticated projects, which will reflect a true preconceived and approved integrated approach to the territory, rather than supporting interesting projects with very few mutual ties. Such approach may ensure more effective use of funds and may achieve at the same time synergic effects in the development of the territory. Such specific tools may be focused on the development of a competitive knowledge economy of the country and selected regions (promotion of ties between R&D institutions and other participants in the regional innovation system and top establishments in Europe,




36

fostering mutual knowledge of and cooperation between participants in the knowledge economy in regions, i.e. in centres and their surroundings, etc.). The national level needs to finds solutions for strategic and conceptual aspects of urban‐rural relations. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, priority should be given in future to delegation of powers from the national to the regional level. On the one hand, this will offer regions a possibility to influence their own urban and rural development policy; on the other hand, it will enable the regions to participate in the formation of future national and European policies. At the same time, however, it is necessary to respect the natural settlement type and regional hierarchy and to finalize on this occasion the establishment of a complementary system for resolution of urban‐rural development issues at various public administration levels so that no level would dominate over the other levels. A trivial but still not fully implemented recommendation is the necessity to reflect the EU territorial perspective in the elaboration of national strategic documents, focused namely on territorial and spatial planning. This activity should be aimed, among others, at the strengthening of the territorial capital and potential of all regions and the promotion of territorial integration. In the Czech Republic, this applies to the Territorial Development Policy of the Czech Republic. The approach to this issue differs relatively significantly in each EU Member State. The central state level should promote and enhance partnerships between cities and rural areas and should ensure sufficient level of public services in order to achieve balanced territorial development. Such partnerships may be promoted, for instance, by educating of key participants in the development or by counselling. Urban and rural areas should be viewed as equal partners, and each of these territories has its own potential which has to be fully developed and used. This synergic effect fosters integrated development of both urban and rural areas. Recommendations:

• To promote tools for integration of cities and their rural surroundings by means of: - the establishment of transport systems supplying/improving transport services in

the city and its surroundings (namely commuting to work and educational facilities, but also to services) both in terms of infrastructure (public roads, railways, etc.) and services; with special focus on sustainability (fixed track and alternative transport types) and intermodality,

- tourism, recreational and leisure time activities, - deepening of ties between cities and municipalities in their rural surroundings

through elaboration of territorial planning documentation covering the entire territory (development and physical planning). The joint planning should cover the zones of o housing o green areas (for both ecological and recreational purposes)




37

o economy (industry and services) o agriculture and transport network that secure the interconnection between these zones. The common planning activity can contribute to restrain the harmful effects of urban sprawl.

- promoting the formation of social services used jointly by urban and rural population.

• To strengthen the territorial approach in strategic planning (both in the conceptual and the strategical, operational phases) through iteration processes and cooperation between sectoral and territorial planning activities.

• To strengthen urban‐rural partnerships, to promote equal position of cities and rural areas in such partnerships by creating - partnerships between public administration authorities in cities and in

municipalities in their rural surroundings, - partnerships between cities and in municipalities in their rural surroundings in

the field of education, - partnerships between the public and the non‐profit sector for the purpose of

supply of social and medical services in the relevant territory, - partnerships between cities and in municipalities in their rural surroundings in

the field of culture (renewal and maintenance of traditions and creating new ones).

• To promote the preparation of key strategic infrastructural, educational and other projects having a positive impact on urban‐rural cohesion:

‐ strategic infrastructural projects (“hard projects”) require an adequate approach to their time schedule (e.g. construction procedures, definition of responsibilities of the relevant institutions, coordination of financial flows) and material implementation,

‐ strategic projects in the field of education and employment (“soft projects”) are usually less demanding as to time and funding and their positive impacts on urban‐rural cohesion can only be seen in a longer period of time.

• To promote common exploitation of renewable sources in the territory. • To strengthen business environment within the hierarchic system by means of:

‐ promoting the establishment and cooperation of professional organizations,

‐ promoting the establishment of business networks in the territory to exchange experience, e.g. in marketing, tax consulting, human resources, communication with public administration, research and innovation.

• Based on European recommendations, to establish a database for the assessment of urban‐rural relations and to promote research of these issues.




38

4.3 The regional local level

The assessment of urban‐rural relations at the local and regional level is complicated by the long‐term tendencies toward socio‐economic divergence. Unlike the tendencies towards convergence which can be seen at the national level of the Member States, the regional level is characterized by the above‐mentioned polarization of economic growth. A number of recommendations and instruments for the solution of urban‐rural issues may be derived from the analyzed case studies; on the other hand, it is necessary to reflect the diversity of conditions in which these relations are developed and which are shown in individual case studies. There are various types of rural areas and various views of the significance of big cities or medium‐sized towns and their role in the regional and local development. In such circumstances, there is only a very limited possibility to set up universal tools for optimization of urban‐rural relations it is always necessary to respect specific conditions in the given territory of the EU Member State.

Completed analyses of specialized studies of urban‐rural relations indicate that it is helpful for further territorial development in the EU to accentuate polycentric development at the regional and local level. This development type depends very much on mutual relations between rural and urban areas; therefore, this issue is linked to activities fostering the “partnership” between cities and rural areas, using instruments compatible with the conditions in the relevant regions.

This context has been the reason why not only the EU as whole, but also governments of individual EU Member States have begun to review in the last two decades the issue of decentralization of decision‐making processes, including adequate transfer of funds. In some cases, however, regions have been unfortunately exposed to “fiscal stress”, i.e. a situation where the transfer of competencies was faster than transfer of available funds. Nevertheless, this did not have a negative effect on comprehensive decentralization processes.

High quality coordination of urban‐rural relations with regard to strategic leadership requires to have sufficient knowledge about activities in regions during the elaboration of the relevant development programmes. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a strong data and knowledge base of comparable socio‐economic indicators at the regional and local level. Such base should contain statistical data and other necessary information and knowledge, such as “definition” or “clarification of terms” used in the reviewed issue, i.e. in urban‐rural relations. Correct understanding of the nature of these regions, their specifics and mutual relations will allow better allocation of the means of policies and programmes oriented on these issues. The main problems in this respect include the absence of coordinated approach to the provision of statistical data on urban‐rural issues, an accurate definition of this topic at the EU level and in the EU Member States and last but not least also the possibility to obtain a comprehensive basis for recommendations to increase effectiveness of economic policy tools, which possess at least partially the required nature and a link to urban‐rural issues.

As regards the regional/local level, it is necessary to continue to use the existing (traditional) development instruments and to promote at the same time the use of new instruments and




39

methods. In general, this includes strengthening of cooperation at the regional and the local level and establishment of partnerships between cities and rural areas (complementarity of mutual relations). The key aspects appearing in this respect include networking between urban and rural areas through mutual exchange of information and know‐how among participants in territorial development at the urban and at the rural level, efforts aiming at polycentric development of the territory, further enhancement of partnerships within and between projects (transnational, cross‐border, regional, local) that are to achieve sustainable territorial development (by means of fostering cooperation between subjects involved in such projects), including integration of business and investments between countries, regions and localities (i.e. joint funding of certain regional or local projects from EU and national resources, creation of new jobs/employment policy – interconnecting the European labour market and thus also business opportunities) and integration of infrastructure (i.e. improvement of road, railway, air and (if applicable) marine/river transport, establishment of municipal infrastructure – waste water treatment plants, sewage, waste management, the environment, including the use of renewable sources and other infrastructural projects). Another well‐tested instrument is represented by further promotion of the establishment of local action groups by means of the LEADER method, which may assist in the development of rural areas in symbiosis with urban areas. This method also promotes integration between the use of the territory and tourism as a part of the comprehensive local and microregional development. Cooperation between the local or regional self‐government authorities and the private sector is urgently needed in this aspect. Such activities should be followed by fostering the use of natural and cultural resources, i.e. by the strengthening and supporting environmental structures and cultural resources and background as a value necessary for sustainable development of the territory.

Good governance means in this respect such administrative methods, rules, processes and monitoring of policies focused on this issue that will ensure the achievement of long‐ and medium‐term objectives and strategies. This includes, to a certain extent, the promotion and improvement through “smart public administration”.

The regional/local level also requires increased coordination of available instruments used in territorial development policies with the aim of increasing synergies resulting from urban‐rural relations. In this respect, we can refer, for instance, to the continuing European debate which tries to find a complicated balance between the EU cohesion policy on the one hand (the polycentric development perspective is concentrated in this respect on small and medium‐sized towns, which provides significant help to mutual synergy with rural areas) and the competitiveness policy on the other hand (which is focused primarily on large metropolitan areas and capital cities). However, EU regions are directly or indirectly confronted with this.

Viewing the resolution of urban‐rural issues at all levels (the regional/local, the national and the EU level), we have to realise that the relevant conclusions (which are often binding for public administration) result from a political process, which is often based on a relatively




40

extensive expert discussion, but need not always reflect current special knowledge obtained from such discussion.

Administrative regions in the EU usually have a nodal nature. Therefore, the promotion of harmonized development of regions contributes to polycentric development in the EU. The aim is to combine the two different approaches mentioned above and to submit a positive vision focused on the large potential of small and medium‐sized towns in the EU regions. The discussion about such problems is very important for most countries, given their fragmented settlement structure and non‐homogenous regional structure. From this perspective, the potential of small and medium‐sized towns is crucial for further territorial development. The concentration and coordination of tools used in territorial development policies may be represented, for instance, by a search for and determination of common goals for small and medium‐sized towns, by accentuating their cooperation and creating joint territorial development possibilities. The situation in the Czech Republic is more complicated, which is due, inter alia, to the surviving directive nature of spatial planning and incomplete links to the regional policy.

Recommendations:

• To promote partnerships, cooperation and complementarity of urban‐rural relations by means of

‐ organizing exchange of information and know‐how among participants in territorial development through networking between urban and rural areas,

‐ enhancing partnerships within the implementation of projects and between projects (transnational, cross‐border, regional, local) aiming at sustainable territorial development (in the form of strengthening cooperation between subjects involved in such projects), including integration of business and investments,

‐ integration of infrastructure (i.e. improvement of road, railway, air and (if applicable) marine/river transport, establishment of municipal infrastructure – waste water treatment plants, sewage, waste management, the environment, including the use of renewable sources and other infrastructural projects),

‐ cooperation in social services through joint use of their capacities, ‐ promotion of local action groups by means of the LEADER method, which

help develop rural areas in symbiosis with urban areas. • To contribute, by exploitation of the potential of small and medium‐sized towns,

to the polycentric development in the EU in the context of promotion of harmonized development of regions in the EU by means of - utilization of the educational potential of small and medium‐sized towns

(traditional centres of secondary and tertiary education) for innovations or research,




41

- fostering public services (medical and social services, secondary schools, after‐school activities of children and youth) in small and medium‐sized towns is a prerequisite for stability of the population in their catchment rural areas,

- special public service developments based on specific settlement patterns (e.g. scattered settlement system, areas of microvillages) to secure proper and equal accessibility of services,

- the role of cities in prevention of risks and coordination of their solution (the integrated rescue system and its components),

- tourism as one of the activities which enable the establishment and further development of relations between small and medium‐sized towns (and their rural surroundings) by using attractiveness of the cities (their history, culture, social and sports activities) on the one hand, and the rural nature of the landscape for recreational purposes on the other hand (common marketing of the territory, creation of new or innovation of existing tourism products, etc.); in the framework of:

• joint tourism development and marketing planning and branding to develop a common place product

• strengthening interconnections between already popular, well introduced destination and touristicaly less frequented background areas

- recreational and leisure time activities of local inhabitants (sports, culture).

• To deepen coordination of available instruments of regional/local policies focused on territorial development with the aim of increasing synergy of urban‐rural relations:

‐ with regard to experience with the operation of financial engineering instruments used for coordination of various financial flows and linked to regional and local development, it is appropriate to coordinate at the regional/local level not only financial flows but also activities (projects) to increase synergy of used funds.

• To improve the functioning of public administration by means of “smart public administration” by means of - promoting the establishment of partnerships between public administration

authorities with the aim of transfer of experience in the area of governance and application of quality models in public administration.

• To arrange at the regional/local level for collection of data relating to the cohesion of the relevant territory.

• Diversification of activities in rural areas to prevent outmigration and ageing processes.




42

5. Solution of urban‐rural relations on the example of the Czech Republic

Urban‐rural issues in the Czech Republic are resolved at virtually all levels but with varying intensity. The basic problem appearing here, which is reflected in the solution of these issues, consists in the continuing existence of significant ties of rural areas to agricultural production (like at the EU level, where the rural issues are linked to agricultural by means of funding of development activities from EAFRD). In this respect, we have to keep in mind that a large part of rural settlements has undergone gradual transformation of their functions and only a few municipalities (including small ones) consider the agricultural function as their basic function (see the survey carried out by the Department of Regional Studies, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Economics, as a part of a project commissioned by the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic, May‐September 2008).

Strategic documents relating to coordination of urban‐rural issues in the Czech Republic

The documents of the Czech Republic which have been analysed from the perspective of urban‐rural relations may be divided into documents elaborated at the national and at the regional level.

National strategies and concepts do not usually mention directly urban‐rural relations and the issues of urbanized and rural areas are resolved rather separately in their strategic parts, which is affected to a significant extent by the rigid view of rural areas only in connection with agriculture, and partly by the approach applied in the EU.

Since the principal role in regional development in the Czech Republic in the years 2007‐2013 has been played by financing from structural funds allocated in the context of the EU economic and social cohesion policy, the authors have also paid significant attention to operational programmes elaborated for the purpose of drawing such funds. The instruments used in promotion or strengthening of urban‐rural relations or of relations between cities and their surroundings, if stated at all in the operational programmes, are very similar – mostly various concepts and strategic documents, organizational and coordination measures and establishment of cooperation and information networks, plus also technical and transport infrastructure.

To understand problems connected with the solution of urban‐rural relations, we have to keep in mind certain specifics of the Czech Republic, which are reflected in these problems, such as a very stable settlement system, a relatively homogenous settlement with minimum number of marginal rural territories (compared with other EU Member States). Only a small percentage of the population lives in municipalities which are not within reach of a more or less important economic centre. Marginalized territories are usually located at the borders




43

between regions (kraj), which are due to nodal nature of the regions, or close to the state borders.

A crucial issue for optimization of urban‐rural relations in the Czech Republic is the large number of municipalities, which limits the implementation of some development projects (particularly those focused on the development of technical infrastructure). Another problem lies in the considerable rigidity of spatial planning, which does not distinguish between highly urbanized territories, which require strong regulatory instruments, and less urbanized rural areas.

Instruments appearing in the relevant programmes and strategies in the Czech Republic which should be used in the resolution of urban‐rural issues may be summarized as follows:

- creation of conceptual and development documents, including spatial planning documentation;

- coordination and organizational measures (in transport and tourism);

- transport and communication networks;

- transport services in the territory (integrated transport systems);

- information and booking networks – particularly in tourism;

- marketing and promotion – particularly in tourism;

- development of urban‐rural partnerships (transport service, tourism, social and cultural activities).

Nowadays, we can define several key shortcomings hindering more effective coordination between territorial cohesion issues and the urban development policy:

o the Czech Republic lacks a national vertical structure which would match the actual hierarchy of strategic documents promoting the implementation of Action 1.1;

o while the operational/project level appears relatively coordinated, the national level demonstrates evident absence of a systemic framework for solution of urban‐rural issues based on the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EUʹs Territorial Agenda;

o pending programmes financed from EU funds and the state budget suffer from a relatively extensive fragmentation, particularly due to the preference of the sectoral approach to classification of programmes financed by public funds (a very large number of EU and national programmes is currently implemented and their integration and coordination is a very complicated issue, which ultimately reduces the effectiveness of their implementation).

The chart below, which provides an outline of the current situation and environment where the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda is being implemented, indicates that a much more prudent approach to the set‐up and coordination




44

of existing concepts and strategies (cross‐sectional and sectoral) is required at the national level.




45

Chart No. 1: Simplified chart of the implementation of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda in the Czech Republic for the period of 2007 – 2013




46

(Translation):

2007‐2013 programming period ESDP Leipzig Charter EU’s Territorial Agenda Lisbon Strategy New territorial challenges First Action Plan for the Implementation of the EU Teritorial Agenda TPP STDP CR EGS SDS NLP RDS CR NSRDP CR CR DSR NSRF CR RDP CR

DPR ROP CCP TOP Axis III. Leader

Application level of the First Action Programme for the Implementation of EU TA in the Czech Rep.) Legend: Direct connection between the implementation and coordination of the issue of urban‐rural relations Indirect connection between the implementation and coordination of the issue of urban‐rural relations NSRDP CR: National Strategic Rural Development Plan of the Czech Republic for the period of 2007 – 2013 (Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic) NLP: National Lisbon Programme (2005 – 2008) – National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic RDS CR: Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic CCP: Cross‐border Cooperation Programmes DSR: Development Strategy of Regions NSRF CR: National Strategic Reference Framework of the Czech Republic for the period of 2007 – 2013 RDP CR: Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period of 2007 – 2013 DPR: Development Programmes of Regions ROP: Regional Operational Programmes TOP: Thematic Operational Programmes CCP‐ Cross‐border Cooperation Programmes EGS: Economic Growth Strategy of the Czech Republic TDP: Territorial Development Policy of the Czech Republic STDP: State Tourism Development Policy SDS: Sustainable Development Strategy of the Czech Republic

Recommendations:

With regard to the definition of several key shortcomings hindering more effective coordination between territorial cohesion issues and the urban development policy, the authors recommend the following:

(1) Establishment of a vertical structure reflecting hierarchy of strategic documents promoting the implementation of Action 1.1




47

With regard to the foregoing, it would be appropriate to establish an actual vertical hierarchy of documents and to systematically maintain their vertical and horizontal links. To promote comprehensive approach to the territory in these documents.

Furthermore, it would be useful to elaborate an analytical and conceptual material containing i.a. a proposal for managing this sphere – the situation around the vertical structure and hierarchy of documents. The key issue in this respect is the ultimate set‐up of competencies relating to territorial development and enhancement of the role of strategic documents of comprehensive regional nature over sectoral strategies.

(2) Setting up a systemic framework of the urban‐ rural issue – a comprehensive approach to territory

The above‐mentioned key shortcomings underline the necessity to set up a systemic framework for urban‐rural relations, which would accentuate a comprehensive approach to the territory. In this respect, we can define the following four partial recommendations:

a) To create a systemic framework for the solution of urban‐rural relations, based on the First Action Plan for the Implementation of the EU’s Territorial Agenda.

b) To elaborate methods for typology of rural areas, which can be used at the central and at lower levels (with a possibility of a more detailed specification based on specific conditions in the region). The elaboration of this method should take into account the mixed nature of territories in the Czech Republic and in the EU.

c) To propose and to develop tools strengthening urban‐rural relations, based also on the typology of rural areas.

d) To promote a comprehensive approach to the territory in strategic and development documents with a view of enhancing urban‐rural relations. To promote such comprehensive approach also by means of elaboration of spatial planning documents.

(3) Overcoming fragmentation of programmes financed from public funds and applying the territorial dimension in these programmes

The purpose of this recommendation is to promote “mandatory” inclusion of the territorial dimension in all relevant national and territorial programmes. This requires setting up links to other programmes whose implementation should result in synergic effects in the supported territory. Interim and final evaluation of synergic effects of programmes implemented in the territory has proved as necessary.

(4) Promoting research of urban‐rural issues

Appropriate set‐up of policies and approaches relating to urban‐rural issues depends i.a. on the knowledge of actual conditions and tendencies in the given territory. In this respect, it is




48

crucial to apply a multidisciplinary approach in long‐term research of the functioning of urban‐rural relations in the Czech Republic, funded at the national and at the regional levels. Research activities concerning urban‐rural issues should be more coordinated and confronted with practical connections and needs of the regional development (e.g. better coordination of research focused on rural development, funded by the National Agency for Rural Research with urban and territorial development studies). Results of such research should become a qualified basis for central and regional decision‐making processes.




49


Annex No. 7 – Summary of results of multicriterial analysis of the relevant documents

Summary assessment table: Relevant strategic documents at the European level for documents concerning the rural issue and its role in relation to urban areas

Focus Document type Coverage Document nature

Document R

elev

ance

urban urban / rural rural strateg. implem. legisl. method. EU case

studyCR - nat.

level CR reg.

level declar. defin. outlook tools recomm.

AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE URBAN INITIATIVE

2 √ √ EU-15 √

STRATEGY FOR THE OUTERMOST REGIONS: ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

2 √ √ √ √ √

DECLARATION ON REGIONALISM IN EUROPE

1 √ √ √ √ √

TURNING STRATEGIES INTO PROJECTS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 2007-13 STRUCTURAL FUNDS PROGRAMMES -4TH PROGRESS REPORT ON COHESION POLICY REFORM

2 √ √ EU-25 √ √

SIXTH PERIODIC REPORT ON THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF

4 √ √ √ EU-25 √ √




51

REGIONS IN THE EU FIFTH PROGRESS REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION, GROWTH OF REGIONS, GROWTH OF EUROPE

4 √ √ √ EU-25 √ √ √

THE GROWTH AND JOBS STRATEGY AND THE REFORM OF EUROPEAN COHESION POLICY, FOURTH PROGRESS REPORT ON COHESION

3 √ √ √ EU-25 √ √ √

FOURTH REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION, GROWING REGIONS, GROWING EUROPE

4 √ √ √ EU-25 √ √

THIRD PROGRESS REPORT ON COHESION: TOWARDS A NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH, JOB AND COHESION

3 √ √ √ EU-25 √ √ √

THIRD REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION: A NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR COHESION CONVERGENCE COMPETITIVENESS COOPERATION

3 √ √ √ EU-25 √ √




52

SECOND PROGRESS REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION: UNITY, SOLIDARITY, DIVERSITY FOR EUROPE, ITS PEOPLE AND ITS TERRITORY

2 √ √ √ EU-15 √ √

SECOND REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION

2 √ √ √ EU-15 √ √

EU COHESION POLICY 2007 – 13: THE IMPLICATION FOR SPAIN

1 √ √ √ √

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR SUSTAINABLE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT

4 √ √ √ EU-25 √ √ √

FIRST PROGRESS REPORT ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COHESION

2 √ √ √ EU-15 √ √

FIRST COHESION REPORT 2 √ √ √ EU-15 √ √

Explanatory notes – used acronyms: Relevance:

• Relevance assessment has been carried out by determining the weight of relevance in relation to the resolved issue, which was rated at the range of 0 – 5 (the highest weight is 5);

• 0 – irrelevant; 1 – very low relevance; 2 – low relevance; 3 – medium relevance; 4 – relevant; 5 – the document fully covers the issue. Focus:




53

• urban – the document is focused solely on urban issues • urban / rural – the document is focused on both urban and rural areas; • rural – the document is focused only on aspects of rural areas

Document type (only one of the choices below): • strateg. – a strategy or a document of a strategic nature relating to the reviewed issue; • implem. – an implementing document dealing with the application of aspects of the reviewed issue; • legisl. – a legislation or any other document having legal or regulatory significance for the reviewed issue; • method. – methodology or guideline relating to the reviewed issue.

Extent of coverage of the issue (only one of the choices below applies): • EU – a general document referring to all EU countries (or only to EU-10, EU-15, EU-25, EU-27); • case study – a case study of an EU Member State or an EU Member State Region; • CR – national level – the document covers the issue at the national level in the Czech Republic (e.g. a ministerial document, national strategy, etc.); • CR – reg. level – the document covers the issue at the regional level in the Czech Republic (particularly NUTS II a NUTS III).

Document nature: • declar. – a declaratory nature of the reviewed issue (i.e. the document only refers to the issue); • defin. – definitions, i.e. the document sets definitions and frameworks for resolution; • outlook – the document refers to potential future solutions, provides a future outlook; • tools – the document provides tools for solution, their description and applications; • recomm. – the document contains recommendations for solution of the problem.


List of analyzed documents by used acronyms

[1] Third report on economic and social cohesion ‐ A new partnership for cohesion, convergence competitiveness cooperation (2004): European

Commission, Brussels, 88 pp. [2] Third progress report on cohesion: Towards a new partnership for growth, jobs and cohesion (2005): European Commission, 41 pp. [3] Growing regions, growing Europe, ‐ Fourth report on economic and social cohesion (2007): European Commission, 229 pp. [4] The growth and jobs strategy and the reform of European cohesion policy, Fourth progress Report on cohesion (2007): European Commission, 12 pp. [5] Fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion – Growing regions, growing Europe (2008): 14 pp. [6] First cohesion report: European Commission, 156 pp.

[7] First progress report on economic and social cohesion (2002): European Commission, 32 pp.

[8] Second report on economic and social cohesion (2001): European Commission, 37 pp.

[9] Second progress report on economic and social cohesion – unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory (2003): European Commission, 16 pp.

[10] Sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation. European Commission, 242 pp. [11] Guiding principles for sustainable spatial development of the European continent (2000): European conference o ministers responsible for regional

planning, 37 pp. [12] EU Cohesion policy 2007 – 13 – the implications for Spain (2006): European policy research centre, University of Strathclyde, 82 pp. [13] Turning strategies into projects: the implementation of 2007 – 13 Structural funds programmes (2007): European policy research centre, University of

Strathclyde, 132 pp. [14] The programming of the Structural Funds 2000‐2006 : an initial assessment of the Urban Initiative, European Commission, 39 pp. [15] Declaration on regionalism in Europe. Assembly of European regions, 12 pp. [16] Strategy for the Outermost Regions: Achievements and Future Prospects (2007): European Commission, 14 pp.

Summary assessment table: Relevant strategic documents at the national and regional level in the Czech Republic for documents concerning the rural issue and its role in relation to urban areas

Document lev an Focus Document type Coverage Document nature




55

urban urban /

rural rural strateg. urban urban / rural rural strateg. urban urban

/ rural rural strateg.

SUR 2 √ √ √ √ SHR 1 √ √ √ √ NLP 0 √ √ NRP 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ NSRR 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRV ČR 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ SRR 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PÚR 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ KMSP 2 √ √ √ √ KCR 3 √ √ √ √ √ PRK JčK 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK JmK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK KvK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK KhK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK LiK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK MsK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK OlK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK PdK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK PlK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK SčK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK ÚlK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK VyK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PRK ZlK 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √




56

ROP JV 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ROP JZ 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ROP MS 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ROP SČ 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ROP SM 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ROP SV 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ROP SZ 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PPS ČR-B 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PPS ČR-PR 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PPS ČR-AT 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PPS ČR-S 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ PPS ČR-SR 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ OP ŽP 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ OPD 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ OPPI 2 √ √ √ √ √ OP VVI 2 √ √ √ √ √ IOP 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ OP VK 1 √ √ √ OP LZZ 1 √ √ √

Vysvětlivky – použité zkratky: Relevance:






57

• urban – the document is focused solely on urban issues • urban / rural – the document is focused on both urban and rural areas; • rural – the document is focused only on aspects of rural areas.

Document type: • strateg. – a strategy or a document of a strategic nature relating to the reviewed issue; • implem. – an implementing document dealing with the application of aspects of the reviewed issue; • legisl. – a legislation or any other document having legal or regulatory significance for the reviewed issue; • method. – methodology or guideline relating to the reviewed issue.





[1] SUR – Strategie udržitelného rozvoje ČR (Sustainable Development Strategy of the Czech Republic), GOVERNMENT OFFICE 2004, available at

http://www.env.cz/AIS/web‐pub.nsf/$pid/MZPISF7Z6L7V/$FILE/SUR%20%C4%8CR_FINALlistopad2004.pdf (2.9.2008)

[2] SHR – Strategie hospodářského růstu (Economic Growth Strategy), GOVERNMENT OFFICE 2005, available at http://www.vyzkum.cz/storage/att/2E19C964AA2946D68D17482DC5DDFA0D/SHR%20Expert%20Final.pdf (1.9.2008)

[3] NLP ‐ Národní lisabonský program 2005‐2008 (National Lisbon Programme), GOVERNMENT OFFICE 2005, available at http://portal.mpsv.cz/sz/politikazamest/narodni_akcni_plan/narodni_lisabonsky_program_2005‐2008.pdf (1.9.2008)

[4] NRP ČR ‐ Národní rozvojový plán ČR pro období 2007‐2013 (National Development Plan of the Czech Republic for 2007‐2013), Ministry for Regional Development, http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐politika/narodni‐rozvojovy‐plan‐ceske‐republiky‐2007‐2013‐prvni‐pracovni‐navrh (24.8.2008)

[5] NSRR ‐ Národní strategický referenční rámec ČR 2007‐2013 (National Strategic Reference Framework of the Czech Republic 2007‐2013), Ministry for Regional Development, 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐politika/nsrr (24.8.2008)

[6] PRV ČR – Program rozvoje venkova České republiky na období 2007 – 2013 (Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic), Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, May 2007

[7] SRR ‐ Strategie regionálního rozvoje ČR pro léta 2007‐2013 (Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic for 2007‐2013), Ministry for Regional Development 2006, available at http://www.mmr.cz/strategie‐regionalniho‐rozvoje‐ceske‐republiky‐pro‐leta‐2007‐2013 (24.8.2008)

[8] PÚR ‐ Politika územního rozvoje ČR (Territorial Development Policy of the Czech Republic) – working draft (for external comments round ‐ June 2008), available at http://www.mmr.cz/politika‐uzemniho‐rozvoje‐cr‐2008 (26.8.2008)

[9] KMSP ‐ Koncepce rozvoje malého a středního podnikání na období 2007 – 2013 (Small and Medium‐sized Enterprise Development Concept), Ministry of Industry and Trade 2006, available at http://www.mpo.cz/dokument17476.html (24.8.2008)

[10] KCR ‐ Koncepce státní politiky cestovního ruchu v České republice (State Tourism Policy Concept in the Czech Republic), for Regional Development 2007, available at http://www.mmr.cz/koncepce‐statni‐politiky‐cestovniho‐ruchu‐v‐cr‐na‐obdobi‐2007‐2013 (24.8.2008)

[11] PRK JčK ‐ Program rozvoje Jihočeského kraje (Development Programme of the South Bohemian Region), Regional Authority of the South Bohemian Region, 2008, available at http://www.kraj‐jihocesky.cz/index.php?par[id_v]=710&par[lang]=CS (14.8.2008)

[12] PRK JmK ‐ Program rozvoje Jihomoravského kraje (Development Programme of the South Moravian Region), Regional Authority of the South Moravian Region, 2006, available at http://www.kr‐jihomoravsky.cz/Default.aspx?PubID=8427&TypeID=2 (14.8.2008)




59

[13] PRK KvK ‐ Program rozvoje Karlovarského kraje 2007‐2013 (Development Programme of the Karlovarský Region 2007‐2013), Regional Authority of the Karlovarský Region, 2007, available at http://www.kr‐karlovarsky.cz/kraj_cz/nav_krajsky_urad/dokumenty/koncepce/seznam/PRKK2007_2013.htm (14.8.2008)

[14] PRK KhK ‐ Program rozvoje Královéhradeckého kraje, (Development Programme of the Královéhradecký Region), Regional Authority of the Královéhradecký Region 2006, available at http://www.kr‐kralovehradecky.cz/rozvoj kraje (14.8.2008)

[15] PRK LiK ‐ Program rozvoje Libereckého kraje 2007‐2013 (Development Programme of the Liberecký Region), Regional Authority of the Liberecký Region, 2007, available at http://www.kraj‐lbc.cz/public/orlk/prlk_cerven2007_146dfbf98b.pdf (14.8.2008)

[16] PRK MsK ‐ Program rozvoje Moravskoslezského kraje (PRK) pro období 2005‐2008 (Development Programme of the Moravian‐Silesian Region 2005‐2008), Regional Authority of the Moravian‐Silesian Region, available at http://verejna‐sprava.kr‐moravskoslezsky.cz/rr_09.html (14.8.2008)

[17] PRK OlK ‐ Program rozvoje Olomouckého kraje (Development Programme of the Olomoucký Region), Regional Authority of the Olomoucký Region, 2007, available at http://www.kr‐olomoucky.cz/OlomouckyKraj/Regionální+rozvoj/Program+rozvoje+územního+obvodu+OK/PRÚOOK_CZ.htm?lang=CZ (14.8.2008)

[18] PRK PdK ‐ Program rozvoje Pardubického kraje (Development Programme of the Pardubický Region), Regional Authority of the Pardubický Region, 2006, available at http://www.pardubickykraj.cz/document.asp?thema=2713&category= (14.8.2008)

[19] PRK PlK ‐ Regionální plán Plzeňského kraje (Development Programme of the Plzeňský Region), Regional Authority of the Plzeňský Region 2004, available at http://www.kr‐plzensky.cz/article.asp?itm=26205 (14.8.2008)

[20] PRK SčK ‐ Program rozvoje Středočeského kraje (Development Programme of the Central Bohemian Region), Regional Authority of the Central Bohemian Region 2006, available at http://www.kr‐stredocesky.cz/portal/odbory/regionalni‐rozvoj/program‐rozvoje‐kraje/ (14.8.2008)

[21] PRK ÚlK ‐ Program rozvoje Ústeckého kraje 2008 – 2013 (Development Programme of the Ústecký Region 2008‐2013), Regional Authority of the Ústecký Region 2008, available at http://rozvojkraje.kr‐ustecky.cz/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?u=450018&id_org=450018&id=41679&p1=117147 (14.8.2008)

[22] PRK VyK ‐ Program rozvoje kraje Vysočina(Development Programme of the Vysočina Region), Regional Authority of the Vysočina Region 2007‐2008, available at http://www.kr‐vysocina.cz/vismo/zobraz_dok.asp?u=450008&id_org=450008&id_ktg=32129&archiv=0&p1=0&p2=&p3= (14.8.2008)

[23] PRK ZlK ‐ Program rozvoje Zlínského kraje(Development Programme of the Zlínský Region), Regional Authority of the Zlínský Region 2002, available at http://www.kr‐zlinsky.cz/docDetail.aspx?nid=3325&docid=27808&doctype=ART&did=3332 (14.8.2008)




60

[24] ROP JV – Regionální operační program NUTS 2 Jihovýchod (Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 South East), 2007‐2013, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐op (15.8.2008)

[25] ROP JZ – Regionální operační program NUTS 2 Jihozápad (Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 South West) 2007‐2013, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐op (15.8.2008)

[26] ROP MS – Regionální operační program NUTS 2 Moravskoslezsko (Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 Moravia‐Silesia), available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐op (15.8.2008)

[27] ROP SČ – Regionální operační program NUTS 2 Střední Čechy (Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 Central Bohemia), 2007‐2013, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐op (15.8.2008)

[28] ROP SM – Regionální operační program NUTS 2 Střední Morava (Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 Central Moravia), 2007‐2013, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐op (15.8.2008)

[29] ROP SV – Regionální operační program NUTS 2 Severovýchod (Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 North East), 2007‐2013, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐op (15.8.2008)

[30] ROP SZ – Regionální operační program NUTS 2 Severozápad (Regional Operational Programme NUTS 2 North West), 2007‐2013, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/regionalni‐op (15.8.2008)

[31] PPS ČR‐B ‐ Programový dokument Program přeshraniční spolupráce Česká republika – Svobodný stát Bavorsko (Programming document Cross‐border cooperation Czech Republic – Free State of Bavaria) 2007–2013, 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/op‐preshranicni‐spoluprace‐cr‐bavorsko (21.8.2008)

[32] PPS ČR‐PR ‐ Operační program přeshraniční spolupráce Česká republika – Polská republika (Operational programme of cross‐border cooperation Czech Republic – Poland) 2007–2013, 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/op‐preshranicni‐spoluprace‐cr‐polsko (21.8.2008)

[33] PPS ČR‐AT ‐ Operační program Cíl Evropská územní spolupráce Česká republika – Rakousko (Operational programme of cross‐border cooperation Czech Republic – Austria) 2007–2013, 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/op‐preshranicni‐spoluprace‐cr‐rakousko (21.8.2008)

[34] PPS ČR‐S ‐ Programový dokument Program přeshraniční spolupráce Česká republika – Svobodný stát Sasko (Operational programme of cross‐border cooperation Czech Republic – Free State of Saxony) 2007–2013, 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/op‐preshranicni‐spoluprace‐cr‐sasko (21.8.2008)




61

[35] PPS ČR‐SR ‐ Programový dokument Program přeshraniční spolupráce Slovenská republika – Česká republika (Operational programme of cross‐border cooperation Slovak Republic ‐ Czech Republic) 2007–2013, 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/op‐preshranicni‐spoluprace‐cr‐slovensko (21.8.2008)

[36] OP ŽP ‐ Programový dokument OP Životní prostředí pro období 2007–2013 (OP Environment 2007‐2013), Ministry of the Environment, 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/opzp (21.8.2008)

[37] OPD ‐ Programový dokument OP Doprava pro období 2007–2013 (OP Transport 2007‐2013), Ministry of Transport 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/op‐doprava (21.8.2008)

[38] OP PI ‐ Programový dokument OP Podnikání a inovace pro období 2007–2013 (OP Enterprise and Innovation 2007‐2013), Ministry of Industry and Trade 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/oppi (21.8.2008)

[39] OP VVI ‐ Programový dokument OP Výzkum a vývoj pro inovace 2007–2013 (OP Research and Development for Innovation 2007‐2013), Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 2008, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/vavpi (21.8.2008)

[40] IOP ‐ Integrovaný operační program pro období 2007 – 2013 (Integrated Operational Programme for 2007‐2013), Ministry for Regional Development 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/iop (21.8.2008)

[41] OP VK ‐ Operační program Lidské zdroje a zaměstnanost pro období 2007 – 2013 (OP Human Resources and Employment 2007‐2013), Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/opvpk (21.8.2008)

[42] OP LZZ ‐ Operační program Vzdělávání pro konkurenceschopnost pro období 2007 – 2013 (OP Education for Competitiveness 2007‐2013), Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2007, available at http://www.strukturalni‐fondy.cz/oplzz (21.8.2008)




62

Summary assessment table: Specialized studies and documents concerning the urban and the rural space and urban-rural relations for documents concerning the rural issue and its role in relation to urban areas

Focus Document type Coverage Document nature

Document

Rel

evan

ce

urban urban

/ rural

rural strateg. urban urban / rural rural strateg. urban urban

/ rural rural strateg.

RURAL 1-DG-Rural Develop. in the EU 3 √ √ EU-27 √ √ 2-Review and Improvement-RA 4 √ √ √ √ √ 3-Purple EAFRD Programme 5 Jul 2006 2 √ √

Purple regions √

4-Report-Rural development 3 √ √ EU-25 √ √ 5-Leader-best practice 2007 3 √ √ √ √ 6-leader-best practice 2008 3 √ √ √ √ 7-Leader mag 8 3 √ √ √ √ 8-Leader mag7 3 √ √ √ √ 9-Leader mag6 3 √ √ √ √ 10-Leader mag5 3 √ √ √ √ 11-Leader mag4 3 √ √ √ √ 12-Leader mag3 3 √ √ √ √ 13-Leader mag2 3 √ √ √ √




63

14-Leader mag1 3 √ √ √ √ 15-mini_en 2 √ √ √ √ 16-eval1_en 2 √ √ √ √ 17-RD_Report_2006 3 √ √ EU-25 √ √ 18-2007enfinal 2 √ √ EU-27 √ 19-2.3.ruralareas 3 √ √ EU-15 √ √ 20-728007 2 √ √ √ √ √ URBAN

1-repus_finalreport 4 √ √

Central and Eastern Europe √ √

2- Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament_Cohesion_Policy 3 √ √ √ √ √ OTHER 13-European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) 4 √ √ √ √ √ 14-Report on Community policies and spatial planning 3 √ √ √ √ 16-Sustainable Urban Development in the EU_A framework for A. 4 √ √ √ √ 17-Communication from the Commission_A stronger partnership 3 √ √

EU peripheral

regions √




64

18-Concepts and Strategies for Spatial Development in Germany 2 √ √ √ √ √ 19-First European Quality 3 √ √ √ √ 29-FR European spatial planning 3 √ √ √ √ 30-Reg.disparities and cohesion, DG 3 √ √ √ √ 31-Complemetarities between U-R 3 √ √ √ √ √ 33-CEMAT_Glossary_ Territory andlandscapeNo2_BIL 1 √ √ √ √ 34-CEMAT92-871-5637-9 1 √ √ √ √ 37-ERP_68_BIL 2 √ √ √ √ 38-ERP_67_BIL 2 √ √ √ √ 44-CRCreportFINAL1 3-4 √ √ √ √ √ 51-Summary report 3-4 √ √ √ √ Guidelines_210408_revi- Sed_EN (2)1 2-3 √ √ √ √ Latvia guidelines May 08 3 √ √ √ √ √

ESPON 20-ESPON 1.1.2 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 24-ESPON 1.1.3 full_revised_version 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ 28-ESPON 1.1.1 4 √ √ √ √ √ √




65

APPLICATION AND EFFECTS OF THE ESDP IN THE MEMBER STATES 4 √ √ EU-27 √ √ √ STUDY ON URBAN FUNCTIONS 2 √ √ EU-27 √ √ √ THE ROLE OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED TOWNS 4 √ √ EU-25 √ √ √

Explanatory notes – used acronyms: Relevance:



• urban – the document is focused solely on urban issues • urban / rural – the document is focused on both urban and rural areas; • rural – the document is focused only on aspects of rural areas.

Document type: • strateg. – a strategy or a document of a strategic nature relating to the reviewed issue; • implem. – an implementing document dealing with the application of aspects of the reviewed issue; • legisl. – a legislation or any other document having legal or regulatory significance for the reviewed issue; • method. – methodology or guideline relating to the reviewed issue.





[1] 1‐DG‐Rural Develop.in the EU: Rural Development in the European Union, Statistical and economic information, Report 2007, DG for Agriculture and rural

development, November 2007

[2] 2‐Rewiev and Improvement‐RA: Review and Improvements of existing delimitations of rural areas in Europe, Institute for Environment and Sustainability – JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Communities (printed in Italy) 2007

[3] 3‐Purple EAFRD Programme 5 Jul 2006: EAFRD Regional programmes 2007 – 13 “An opportunity to be realized”, A report of the PURPLE network based on work to date in 12 European regions in 8 Member states, Peri Urban Regions Platform, June 2006

[4] 4‐Report‐Rural development: Rural Development in the European Union, Statistical and economic information, Report 2006, DG for Agriculture and rural development, August 2006

[5] 5‐Leader‐best practice 2007: A selection of LEADER + best practices, Observatory of rural Areas, European Communities 2007 (Manuscript finalised in December 2006, printed in Italy)

[6] 6‐leader‐best practice 2008: A selection of LEADER + best practices, Observatory of rural Areas, European Communities 2008, (Manuscript finalised in June 2007, printed in Italy)

[7] 7‐Leader mag 8: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: Governance in LEADER +, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2007, (Manuscript finalised in June 2007, printed in Belgium)

[8] 8‐Leader mag7: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: Networking in LEADER +, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2007, (Manuscript finalised in December 2006, printed in Italy)

[9] 9‐Leader mag6: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: The future of LEADER, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2006, (Manuscript finalised in October 2006, printed in Italy)

[10] 10‐Leader mag5: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: Innovation in LEADER +, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2006, (Manuscript finalised in June 2006, printed in Italy)

[11] 11‐Leader mag4: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: Making the best use of natural and cultural resources, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2006, (printed in Italy)

[12] 12‐Leader mag3: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: Adding value to local products, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2005, (printed in Italy)




67

[13] 13‐Leader mag2: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: Use of new know‐how and new technologies, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2005, (printed in Italy)

[14] 14‐Leader mag1: Leader + Magazine, Special focus: Improving the quality of life in rural areas, European Commission Magazine published by Observatory of Rural Areas, European Communities 2005

[15] 15‐mini_en: Common indicators for monitoring LEADER + programming 2000 – 2006, Commission working document VI/43625/02‐revl: 18.12. 2002, EC Agriculture Directorate‐General, December 2002

[16] 16‐eval1_en: Guidelines for the evaluation of LEADER + programmes, EC Agriculture Directorate‐General, Commission working document VI/43503/02‐Rev.1, January 2002

[17] 17‐RD_Report_2006: Rural Development in the European Union, Statistical and economic information, Report 2006, DG for Agriculture and rural development, August 2006

[18] 18‐2007enfinal: Agriculture in the European Union, Statistical and economic information, Report 2007, DG for Agriculture and rural development, February 2008

[19] 19‐2.3.ruralareas: A typology of rural areas in Europe indicators on strength and weakness of rural territories and selections of areas (NUTS III), Ipartimento per i Servizi tecnici nazionali, Politecnico di Milano – Dipartimento Economia e Produzione; Study programme on European spatial planning of the European Commission; Milan, November 1999

[20] 20‐728007: Pracovní dokument o doplňkovosti a koordinaci politiky soudržnost s opatřeními pro rozvoj venkova, Výbor pro regionální rozvoj, PE407.841 v01‐00, DT 728007CS doc., external translation

[21] 1‐repus_finalreport: Final report: regional polycentric urban system, INTERREG IIIB, strategy for a regional polycentric urban system in Central Eastern Europe, Economic Integration Zone, RePUS

[22] 2‐Sdělení Komise Radě a Evropskému Parlamentu_Politika soudr.: sdělení Komise Radě a Evropskému parlamentu, Politika soudržnosti a města: přínos měst a aglomerací k růstu a zaměstnanosti v rámci regionů, Komise evropských společenství, Brussels 13.7. 2006

[23] 13‐European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP): ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union, European Commission, May 1999, ISBN 92‐828‐7658‐6




68

[24] 14‐Report on Community policies and spatial planning: Report on Community policies and spatial planning, Working document of the Commission services

[25] 16‐Sustainable Urban Development in the EU_A framework for A.: Sustainable urban development in the European Union: A framework for action, Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

[26] 17‐Communication from the Commission_A stronger partnership: Communication from the Commission: A stronger partnership for the outermost regions, Commission of the European Communities, COM (2004) 343 final, Brussels 26.5. 2004

[27] 18‐Concepts and Strategies for Spatial Development in Germany: Concepts and strategies for spatial development in Germany adopted by the standing conference of Ministers responsible for spatial planning on 30 June 2006, Secretariat of the Standing Conference of Ministers responsible for spatial planning, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS), 2006

[28] 19‐Frist European Quality: First European Quality of Life Survey: Urban‐rural differences, European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions, Office for official publications of the European Communities, 2006, Luxembourg, ISBN 92‐897‐0960‐X

[29] 29‐FR European spatial planning: Study programme on European Spatial Planning, Final report, 31 March 2000

[30] 30‐Reg.disparities and cohesion, DG: Regional disparities and Cohesion: What strategies for the future, Study, European Parliament – DG for Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department Structural and Cohesion policies, May 2007, IP/B/REGI/IC/2006_201, 14.5. 2007, Brussels

[31] 31‐Complemetarities between U‐R: Complementarities between urban and rural areas in promoting employment and social inclusion, Christoph Hermann, CEMR – Council of European Municipalities and Regions

[32] 33‐CEMAT_Glossary_Terrytory andlandscapeNo2_BIL: Spatial development glossary, European Conference of Ministers responsible for Spatial/Regional planning (CEMAT),Territory and landscape No 2, Council of Europe, September 2007, ISBN 978‐92‐871‐6286‐1

[33] 34‐CEMAT92‐871‐5637‐9: 13th European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional/Spatial planning CEMAT, Ljubljana 16‐17 September 2003, Documents of the conference, Territory and landscape No 1., Council of Europe, January 2005, Belgium, ISBN 92‐871‐5637‐9

[34] 37‐ERP_68_BIL: Spatial planning for the sustainable development of particular types of European zones: Mountains, Coastal zones, Rural zones, Flood‐plains and Alluvial valleys, Council of Europe publishing, Sofia, Bulgaria, 23‐24 October 2002

[35] 38‐ERP_67_BIL: The role of Local and Regional Authorities in transnational co‐operation in the field of Regional/Spatial development, Council of Europe publishing, Dresden, Germany, 15‐16 May 2002




69

[36] 44‐CRCreportFINAL1: Seeing the light? Next steps for City regions, New Local Government Network (NLGN), December 2005

[37] 51‐Summary report: Activities on urban‐rural linkages, Summary report for the European Commission – DG Regional Policy, Robert Lukesch, Hirzenriegl 5.5. 2008

[38] Guidelines_210408_revised_En (2)1: Guidelines for elaboration of the integrated development strategy of local government, final draft, Riga, Latvia, 19 Jun 2007 (revised 21 April 2008)

[39] Latvia Guidelines May 20081: Guidelines on regional strategic planning in Latvia

[40] 20‐ESPON 1.1.2: Urban‐Rural relations in Europe 1.1.2, Final Report, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, ISBN 951‐22‐7244‐X

[41] 24‐ESPON 1.1.3_full_revised_version: Enlargement of the European Union and the wider European Perspective as regards its polycentric Spatial structure, Final Report, The Royal Institute of Technology, December 2005 (updated in August 2006), ISBN 2‐9599669‐3‐7

[42] 28‐ESPON 1.1.1: Potentials for polycentric development in Europe, Project report, Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, August 2004 (revised version May 2005), ISBN 91‐89332‐37‐7

[43] Application and effects of the ESDP in the Member States: (ESPON project): The ESPON Monitoring Committee, 290 pp. [44] “The Role of Small and Medium‐Sized Towns (SMESTO)”: Final report of the ESPON project, The ESPON Monitoring Committee, 435 pp. [45] Study on urban functions (2007): final report of the ESPON projects, The ESPON Monitoring Committee, 253 pp.