Research workshop on Empowerment of

rural areas: a research agenda for Horizon

2020 19 February 2015, Brussels

Report

European Commission – Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural development August – 2015

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Summary 3

What can research and innovation do to empower rural people? 3

At a glance: overview of the main research priorities 4

Report 5

Who attended? 5

Setting the scene: where does rural development fit in Horizon 2020? 5

Overview of past research: a wealth of projects but gaps still existing 5

Completing the picture: first plenary discussion 5

Setting priorities for rural development research 7

What are the gaps? 7

What can innovation and research do? 9

Conclusions: what are the research questions and activities which should be undertaken

in the context of Horizon 2020? 11

Research priorities 11

Some hints on how to organise and prioritise 13

Schematic representation of research activities proposed by the group 14

Appendices 15

Reports from the parallel sessions

Data, concepts, models and tools 16

Challenges and drivers 18

Policies and governance 19

New value chains in rural areas 20

Digital development opportunities 22

Ecosystem services and public goods 23

Territorial and social linkages 25

Workshop agenda 27

Participants list 29

More information

Workshop web page: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/what-can-research-and-innovation-do-

empower-rural-people

Disclaimer

This report assembles the contributions made by experts in the context of a workshop held on 19

February 2015. These contributions do not represent the views of the European Commission.

3 | P a g e

What can research and innovation do to empower rural people?

Rural development is often seen to be only a policy

issue. But for policy-making to be evidence-based

and well suited to the rapidly evolving needs on the

ground, a variety of questions must be answered

and tools provided. Reflecting on what these

questions should be, experts highlighted the crucial

importance for research outcomes to be well suited

to the operational needs of decision-makers in

order to ensure a real impact of rural development

research.

Around 20 experts participated in the workshop organised by DG AGRI on 19th February 2015 in

Brussels to discuss research priorities for rural development research under Horizon 2020,

the European programme for research and innovation, for the years 2016 and 2017 and beyond.

This workshop was part of a series of stakeholder and expert workshops organised in the context of

the preparation of the Horizon 2020 work programme for 2016-2017 to be adopted in October

2015, also preparing the ground for future programming exercises. It aimed at experts specialised

in rural development research together with various stakeholders. For one day, they worked

collectively on what they think should be the priorities for the future.

Shaping the future for 2016/2017 and beyond

The meeting was opened by Rob Peters, Head of DG AGRI's Research and innovation unit, who set

the scene and encouraged participants to actively contribute to defining priorities for the

Horizon 2020 work programme 2016/2017 and, beyond, for a longer-term strategy.

Miroslav Bozic (DG AGRI) then introduced the concrete objectives of the meeting by presenting

how rural development research fits in Horizon 2020. Empowerment of rural people is one of the

four challenges to be addressed under the "sustainable agriculture and forestry" activity of Horizon

2020's societal challenge 2.

A wealth of research already undertaken

Thomas Dax, from the Austrian Federal Institute of

Less favoured areas, speaking on behalf of the

ended ERANET RURAGRI, provided an overview of

past research activities on rural development, along

with main challenges and main gaps identified by

the ERANET.

The presentation triggered a discussion among

participants on the impact reached by the wealth of

research activities which have been carried out and

how future activities should be framed to maximize

impact on the ground.

Seven parallel groups building a bigger picture

Participants were then invited to split into smaller groups to work on knowledge gaps and research

question activities. The morning session was dedicated to horizontal issues such as 'Data,

concepts and models', 'Challenges, drivers and new research fields' and 'Policies and

governance'. The afternoon was dedicated to four thematic areas: 'New value chains in rural

areas', 'Digital development in rural areas', 'Ecosystem services and public goods' and

'territorial and social linkages'. Participants then gathered to cluster the outcomes of the

individual tables into a big common picture.

4 | P a g e

At a glance: overview of the main research priorities

The picture of how future rural development research should look like was drawn up by compiling

and clustering the research priorities identified by the seven groups. In short, experts would like

research activities to be interdisciplinary and focus on specific aspects including the following, in

order of priority:

Support policy design: analyse how policies implemented at various levels interact and impact

rural areas at local level; develop governance models for economic development and for improving

service delivery; clarify what rural, social and territorial cohesion actually mean;

Support greater involvement of society in policy-making: develop innovative ways to involve

people in policy-making at different scales, exploring how social media can help; develop

instruments to improve awareness and involvement of farmers in the delivery of public goods;

Help assess values and impacts: assess the contribution of different types of value chains and

of public goods to rural development; produce data to prioritise land-use; assess the impact of new

policy instruments such as networks;

Develop collective approaches: develop innovative tools favouring collective organisation of

services, collective provision of public goods, collective assessment and design of specific

instruments; developing social innovation and cooperation;

Develop methods: integrate models and data (including more social and environmental data);

compare rural development models; develop news ways to acquire data; align and consolidate

definitions of rural and functional areas and assess how data and models are used in practice;

Enhance opportunities related to digital development: identify barriers to the implementation

of e-services in rural areas; identify needs to facilitate the access to information and

communication technologies; assess the impacts of current digital uses in rural areas.

Contributions from the workshop will be fed into the reflection on future research activities to be

supported by Horizon 2020.

5 | P a g e

Who attended?

The workshop assembled 13 experts covering a broad range of rural development related issues

and who had been involved in former FP7 projects or in actual practice of rural development on the

ground. OECD and FAO were represented as well as ENRD. The audience was complemented by

around 10 participants from several units of European Commission DG Agriculture and rural

development, who was organising and DG Regional and Urban Policy.

Setting the scene: where does rural development fit in Horizon 2020?

Empowerment of rural people is one of the four challenges to be addressed under the "sustainable

agriculture and forestry" activity of Horizon 2020's societal challenge 2. In his presentation

Miroslav Bozic presented the main lines of the Horizon 2020 strategic programme for 2016/2017,

and in particular the elements which will shape the future call on "Rural renaissance". While the

short term priority is on designing the work programme for 2016/2017, he also explained that DG

AGRI is reflecting on a longer term strategy for EU agriculture and forestry and encouraged

participants to work with these two time horizons in mind.

Overview of past research: a wealth of projects but gaps still existing

In his presentation, Thomas Dax cast light on the wealth of research which has already been

undertaken on rural development: 90 to 100 framework programme projects (FP5, 6, 7), over 110

other European studies, 18 relevant networking and cooperation initiatives as well as other studies

by OECD, FAO etc… The comprehensive review carried out by ERANET RURAGRI and the clustering

of past projects along three main axes (ecosystem services and public goods, socio-economics in

rural areas and land-use management) proved helpful to identify research areas which have been

broadly covered and others which would need additional efforts. Key elements of recent rural

development research were also highlighted (see slide below), as well as changing trends in

rural development perspective which invite to reinvent research activities on this topic.

Completing the picture: first plenary discussion

Participants were invited to react to presentations and complete the overview of past research. The

following elements came out of the discussion.

There is a pressing need to capitalise on past research

Participants were impressed by the review of research activities which have been undertaken since

FP5 and questioned whether findings and lessons learnt had translated into concrete policy

development and substantial impact on different areas and challenges. They asked how much

these projects can inform on instruments which have been used, tested or are available to

governments to achieve rural development goals which are broadening. This gap between research

and policy-making calls for proactive dissemination activities. There is a real need to take into

6 | P a g e

consideration results from research projects. Policies should also be more flexible to incorporate

those results.

Research must involve stakeholders and citizens to increase impact

A lot of the rural development challenges of yesterday are still there today. Participants questioned

why goals are not achieved yet. They recommended that research projects involve stakeholders

in order to define real needs and find practical solutions. The VOLANTE project, which elaborated

three visions of future land-use, was mentioned as a good practice of stakeholder engagement.

Later analysis however revealed that one of the visions could not at all be implemented in practice.

There is a real need to get more impact out of research. Learning from past research can help in

that respect.

Research time frame and modalities favour short term, non-participative approaches

The current research delivery process itself is an issue, in terms of time and of modalities. Three-

year projects do not leave enough time to involve stakeholders in a right way, building trust and

mutual recognition. In parallel, the fact that researchers are obliged to deliver publications in the

short term decreases time available for interacting with stakeholders. Longer-term research

activities would facilitate the implementation of projects in a way which delivers more solid results

and achieves real impacts. Furthermore, long term research priorities would improve coherence of

implemented projects. Concretely participants recommended exploring possibilities of multi-

period projects with mid-term reviews, connecting ideas, areas and more encompassing

researchers and projects to get the bigger picture and better understand complexity of issues at

stake.

The overarching narrative needs to be reworked and communication improved

Experts also insisted on the need to build a narrative that can easily be explained, funded and

defended on a long-term basis by policy-makers. Rural development is a complex issue for policy-

makers and increasingly urbanized populations are not necessarily ready to understand the need

for rural investment despite the fact they would also benefit from it. Better communication

strategies are needed to raise awareness of the importance of rural development policies.

For them, we had moved to a post-productivist rural narrative in which agriculture was considered

as an increasingly marginal issue, and where the main discussion was on endogenous development

potential. The food crises have brought a break in this narrative with a renewed interest in

productivity opportunities related to bio-based products. The growing emphasis on biomass

production is putting a big pressure on planet boundaries. Farming may become profitable again

and rural areas may contribute to the wealth of the planet. Relations between urban and rural

areas are changing as well. There is a need to work on a new scenario for rural areas.

Differentiating between regions to come out with results of interest to all areas

When defining research projects it is important to take into account the particularities of different

regions in Europe. Needs and impacts of research are different depending on the stakeholders

involved in each territory. Some participants felt like marginal areas were less well served by

research activities.

Creating more space for interdisciplinary approaches and social sciences

Participants also promoted the need for research to be more interdisciplinary and to include Social

Science and Humanities aspects to a much greater extent. Issues like quality of life are seldom

addressed. Experts would like to see greater connections with societal challenge 6 for example.

As a result of their plenary discussions, participants reworked the list of themes to be

addressed in the parallel sessions to accommodate new issues like the new rural

narrative and social cohesion elements.

7 | P a g e

Setting priorities for rural development research

Participants worked in a 'world café' method and were asked to answer a set of questions leading

to the definition of main research questions and activities to be prioritized in Horizon 2020 work

programme 2016-2017 and beyond in the longer term. These questions were:

What are the gaps?

What can research and innovation do to help?

Define research questions and activities that should be undertaken in the context of

Horizon 2020.

Two sessions were organised, one tackling horizontal issues and one tackling rather thematic

issues. We provide below an overview of the commonalities between the different sessions.

What are the gaps?

Reflecting better rural diversity

A challenge for any research activity is to

properly take into account the diversity of rural

areas, which is used and across the world. So

far, this is not yet addressed sufficiently well.

They also signalled a need for analytical tools to

better describe the rapidly evolving structure of

rural communities and study criteria which

determine their endogenous potential, including

their capacity to interact with other areas.

More comprehensive and reliable data

beyond agricultural data

As a preamble, participants identified gaps

around definitions of rural areas (considered

as unstable and not always consistent with reality) which can influence the quality of data

generated on them. They also consider data on agriculture is over-represented compared to

other data of importance for rural development like social indicators (community structures,

skils, demography, well-being1…) and environmental data which is highly needed to better

design, monitor and evaluate policy interventions regarding ecosystem services. Participants

recommended exploring various ways to collect data, including crowdsourcing (for example with

farmers for environmental data), and assessing the potential interest of big data.

Useful and reliable models working across scales

Participants discussed difficulties in working with models and highlighted a lack of knowledge on

how these models are used in reality and on how to better use results and data. They

raised the issue of scale, suggesting improving the possibility to upscale and downscale

analysis thanks to models, and also exploring ways to combine different models elaborated for

different regions in one single system (a condition to make them really useful), although past

experience (SEAMLESS) has proved this can be very difficult.

Knowledge on how to better integrate policies aiming at converging objectives

There is a need to increase knowledge about which of the many policies implemented at

different scales are influencing rural areas and in which way. Such an assessment requires

adequate evaluation methods and tools which still need to be improved, for example by making

1 See OECD recent developments "How's life in your region?"

8 | P a g e

better use of qualitative data. This knowledge is seen as a condition to facilitate policy

integration and improved governance models, which in turn are considered as necessary

steps towards rural development. Participants consider more knowledge is needed on the barriers

to such integration of various policies and how to overcome them.

They also pinpointed the problem of objectives which often differ from one policy to another (in

particular for sectoral policies). Furthermore, they consider there is a lack of policy clarity on

what social and territorial cohesion means and how to achieve it across different regions. They

recommended improving understanding of existing rural narratives.

Better understanding of rural-urban linkages and other types of territorial interactions

Participants identified a need to better define and describe rural-urban relationships, with the

objective to better adapt policies and governance models to a rapidly changing reality.

They suggested building an inventory of communities which are already organising these relations

and which could provide useful examples, and a sample to look at how new instruments

provided by EU policies 2014-2020 are used. Beyond what the very valuable outcomes of the

recent RURBAN study, they suggested looking at rural-urban linkages in a broader sense

(also looking at rural-rural linkages and linkages of rural areas with areas abroad) and maybe

scaling-up the unit of analysis. They suggested building visions of how sustainable rural-urban

relations could look like in the future, at different scales.

Improving assessment of values and impacts

Participants consider increased knowledge on impact of rural development policies would be

useful. For example, they would like to be able to assess the impact of rural policies at household

level to determine what the optimum level of service provision would be.

They also recommend improving the understanding of how different sectors and value chains

(food and non-food) interact. Furthermore, knowledge on how various types of value chains

impact on rural territories in economic, environmental and social terms is still lacking, as well as

a real understanding of the role of agriculture in the bioeconomy and the impact of both agriculture

and the bioeconomy on rural development.

Finally, a lot of work is still needed on how to value ecosystem services and public goods, and

how to improve their remuneration through markets or other channels.

Taking social issues better into account

Participants highlighted the need to better take into account social dimension of rural

development in various aspects: in data collected, in the analysis of public goods, which tends to

focus on the environment only, in the analysis of communities, networks and how these contribute

to development.

Better assessing needs for infrastructures and services

Contributions suggested we need more knowledge on the needs for infrastructures, especially in

relation with broadband, on current uses of information and communication technologies

(ICTs) in more or less equipped areas and on what future uses may be (foresight). The

potential for new business development needs to be better assessed, in particular in the field of e-

services which are likely to compensate for the decline of public services in rural areas. Cost-

benefit and impact analysis for various ICT applications are needed, as digital development

may have varying effects on employment for example.

Designing business models for rural territories

Participants recommended analysing new business models and their potential for rural

development, especially their capacity to attract qualified people to rural settlements. While looking

9 | P a g e

at businesses and value chains in general, they stressed the need to build holistic approaches,

moving beyond the usual sectoral approaches to really assess how value chains can be better

connected and embedded in the territories.

Renew approaches to ecosystem service and public good delivery

Participants suggested investigating further how collective approaches and landscape

approaches to the analysis of ecosystem services and public good provision can be

improved. Barriers to such collective and landscape approaches need to be well understood. They

then recommended working on the design of alternative instruments to those currently used

by policy-makers, exploring result-oriented support schemes for example. They also

recommended analysing more deeply trade-offs between delivery of public and private goods,

understanding the awareness and power issues at stake in particular.

What can innovation and research do to help?

Experts listed the following types of activities which could prove useful for rural development and

empowerment of rural people.

improve data collection and use:

o develop methodologies which help to integrate data, reconcile quantitative

and qualitative data, combine locally elaborated data for upper scale analysis in

order to better describe territories, also developing news ways to collect data

(crowdsourcing, open data…);

o develop indicators, which could be meaningful for policy-makers and citizens,

exploring what can be measured and what cannot, and which indicators are more

or less useful for policy design, monitoring and evaluation and likely to be

accepted by citizens;

o assess how data is used for policy-making or other purposes and develop

recommendations on how to make data more useful;

improve the understanding of how rural people, communities and businesses

behave, connect and interact:

o increase the knowledge on individual behaviour of rural inhabitants and their

interactions with newcomers (with the idea to identify or create new collaboration

models between different people living in rural areas);

o explore how networks unfold and perform (improve understanding of how

they work, of relations between various players, motivations and barriers to

networking; improve methods to monitor and evaluate the concrete impact of

these networks, and in fine the impact of the cooperation measure under rural

development and of networks financed under CAP and Horizon 2020);

o define functional areas: research could help consolidate ways to define

functional areas and better describe linkages between different areas (rural-

urban, rural-rural, linkages beyond regional borders, across borders,

internationally);

o explore the impacts of ICTs in social relationships;

o seek to better understand the mechanisms for social cohesion;

develop tools and approaches supporting better policy design at different scales:

o identify approaches that will make the policy cycle more effective and

transparent;

o Identify innovative ways to involve stakeholders and citizens in the policy

process at different scales;

10 | P a g e

o provide additional insights on governance models: failures and successes,

new trends and developments, innovative land-use management models, links

between official government structures and other bodies;

o develop models for policy integration (cross – sectorial policies included),

casting light on how to achieve complementarity of policies at local level;

o explore the interest of cross-sectoral approaches and instruments such as

Community-Led Local Development, integrated territorial investments, economic

development partnerships or other forms of integrated local development

approaches;

improve knowledge on how rural service delivery could be improved:

o develop tools to identify needs (education, training, other services) in order to

design policies which help to keep population in rural areas;

o explore the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in

delivering, in an efficient way, basic services to population in rural areas;

improve the understanding of how value chains perform, interact and impact rural

areas:

o assess the territorial impact of different value chains (e.g. bio-economy), for example analyse what is the spill-over of value chains on the territory itself;

o assess the value of what farmers produce, including private and public goods,

and look at the how much value is added to the product in the following steps of

the value chain, to feed in a reflection on possibilities to bring back value-adding

production steps closer to the farmer and on impact such a policy would have on

rural development in general;

o understand the competition for resources between different value chains, what are the linkages between them and potential for creating synergies;

o explore the concept of 'shared value': analyse how businesses respond to different emerging values and what is the role of society in this process;

o analyse the role of quality schemes; o Explore the respective role of informal and formal value chains in rural growth;

o assessing the potential risks and opportunities related to an increased use of

ICTs in rural areas. In terms of employment, ICTs could increase the use of

teleworking helping people to set up new business in rural areas. At the same time

robotics could decrease the labour force needed for agriculture activities;

develop tools to value ecosystem services and public goods and improve their

delivery:

o assess the economic value of food and others services that rural areas could

provide;

o develop alternative valuing methods to the "costs incurred and income

foregone" approach; these should distinguish between the capital value and the

income that could potentially be generated and take into account site specificity;

o help identify who buys, who pays and who benefits from public goods or

ecosystem services delivery, looking at various levels (local communities,

National, EU…) and analysing the distribution of powers between different actors

taking into account historical and economic contexts;

o building "good practices guide" based on the evaluation of initiatives and

decisions of rural communities and analysing the quality of PG and ESS delivered,

to enable a more effective management and better policy design.

11 | P a g e

Conclusions: what are the research questions and activities which should be

undertaken in the context of Horizon 2020?

Participants were invited to cluster the research questions identified in the parallel sessions around

main issues to progressively build a picture of what future rural development research under

Horizon 2020 could look like. They were then invited to allocate 5 dots each to the different

questions, 3 for their highest priorities (red●) and two for their second-rank priorities (blue●). As

time allocated for clustering and voting was limited, this report has slightly adapted the clustering

to group issues that fit better together. The results of the vote are to be considered as indicative

and mirroring to a great degree the composition of the expert group participating in the workshop.

The outcomes reflect the complexity of the discussion and the impression that the group was still

searching for a new framing of the issues.

The group initially arranged research questions around five main centres of gravity, all overlapping

with one another: methods, involvement in policy, collective approaches, 'assessing values' and

'digitality'. For the purpose of reporting, we added three other centres to cluster research activities

which did not fit entirely well in the five above: policy design, public goods delivery, and economic

and value chain development. A schematic representation is provided at page 15.

Eight clusters of research questions and activities

Develop methods

Interdisciplinarity●●● of research appeared as an important priority for participants. In addition,

three main types of research activities were identified as important:

integrating models and data●●: moving away from "primary production only" data and

including also social indicators (including micro-models and crowd sourcing);

comparative analysis of rural development models across different rural areas in

terms of their impact on the different regions (exploring various approaches e.g. more

flexibility vs. more regulation); and

designing open data systems.

12 | P a g e

As a bridge or enabler between methodological research and policy design, participants

identified the following activities as priorities:

clarify what is rural social and territorial cohesion●●●●;

align concepts and definitions of rural areas;

consolidate the definition of functional areas, compare these functional areas with

administrative units and use these new functional delineation as a tool for local

development strategy development●; and

look at how data and models are used, which ones are used and why? Explore how to

make data and models mode useful and easy to use.

Contribute to better policy design

Research could help policy design by:

capturing the linkages and interactions between policies at different scales

(EU/national/regional/local) and how they are performing across different rural areas at the

local level ●●●●●●;

analysing how policies are planned in different territories and how to overcome

contradictions between different policies;

developing governance models for economic development and related local

initiatives (mainly business governance)●●●●●●; and

developing governance models for improvement of social services (mainly government)●●●.

Support greater involvement of society in policy●●●●●

The group put a high emphasis on the role of research in supporting greater involvement of society

in policy making or policy implementation. They recommended supporting activities that would:

develop, test and evaluate innovative ways to involve people in policy-making at

different scales ●●●●;

understand how innovation could help peer to peer interactions and knowledge creation ●;

develop instruments for farmers and foresters involvement in climate change mitigation;

analyse how social networks could create a new set of values in rural areas ●; and

conceptualise efficient instruments to raise awareness and increase involvement of

farmers in the provision of Ecosystem services and public goods●●.

As a contribution to greater involvement of society and development of collective approaches, they

also recommended supporting research that would:

foster, support and help to scale up social innovation and cooperation in rural areas●;

support self-organisation, in particular in the field of basic services●●.

Using or developing collective approaches

In close relation with the cluster above, the following activities were clustered around the objective

to use or develop collective approaches:

developing innovative tools for policy makers to design services at territorial level (in

connection with people and local groups);

assessing the reciprocity of public goods delivery between urban and rural

communities (environmental services versus public services)●●●.

developing collective approaches for public goods provision: governance, scale,

tools and new instruments for the Common Agricultural Policy ●●●; and

Foster greater delivery of public goods

Two activities were pointed out as most important in the field of public goods delivery:

providers versus beneficiaries: assess the level of engagement of those who pay, who

are paid and who benefit ●●;

measuring and communicating about public goods: improving the quality of

information/data on the less measurable public goods.

13 | P a g e

Help assessing values and impacts●

Several activities were proposed to help assess values and impacts:

produce data to help prioritise land use ●●●;

assess public goods contribution to the regional economy and quality of life ●●●;

and

improve understanding of which value chains models (food and non-food) benefit different types of territories and measure their impact. An emphasis is put on governance and interlinks between different value chains within a given territory and how to coordinate them●●●;

assess the value of each production step in the value chain of rural based

products●●; and

look at the impact of policy instruments especially the new ones, including networks.

Contribute to economic and value chain development

Research activities on economic development and business models were proposed by several

parallel sessions, in particular:

developing new economic and business models for rural areas●●●; and

developing new value chains in rural areas (e.g. bioenergy) in a way that maximizes their territorial impact.

Enhance opportunities related to digital development

Finally, several research questions came out of the parallel session on digital development:

defining the barriers for implementing services based on ICTs;

identifying needs to facilitate the access to ICTs (infrastructures, skills, education etc);

assessing the impacts of current ICTs uses in rural areas; and

ways for interfacing people and internet.

Some hints on how to organise and prioritise

The questions above form a wide set of issues to be potentially addressed by Horizon 2020.

Priorities will need to be made in the future. Although again indicatively, the choices participants

made show that the most important function of rural development research is to support policy

development and new governance approaches with a high emphasis on involvement of

society in policy. Then assessing values and impacts get the largest attention.

Looking at individual activities, the top 5 voted activities are around capturing linkages and

interactions between policies implemented at different scales, developing governance models

for economic development, clarifying what is rural, social and territorial cohesion,

testing innovative ways to involve people in policy and ensuring research is

interdisciplinary.

The second block of equally ranked activities tackle issues around land-use prioritisation,

contribution of public goods to the regional economy and reciprocity of public goods

delivery between rural and urban areas, assessing which types of value chains contribute

the most to territorial development and developing new business models for rural areas.

These activities clearly serve the wider objectives of the top 5 activities.

Further down the list appear activities which go deeper into one aspect like assessing the value

of each production step within value chains, measuring engagement of providers versus

beneficiaries of public goods or developing collective approaches to public good delivery.

Apart from integrating models and data, issues around methods are further down still, probably

because they are seen as a means rather than an end. These will be useful indications to reflect on

for the optimum sequencing and organisation of activities in Horizon 2020.

14 | P a g e

Schematic representation of research questions and activities identified as priorities by the experts participating in the workshop

15 | P a g e

Appendices

Reports of individual tables

Workshop final programme

List of participants

16 | P a g e

Data, concepts, models and tools

Host: Alexia Rouby

What are the gaps?

Computational models:

o Participants signalled the difficulty of working with models, which appear as a

black box and fail to generate trust from most users. One exception may be CAPRI

although attendees also wondered how it was used in practice.

o Models are useful as a simplification of a complex reality, however very few of them are

good enough. We lack knowledge on how these models are used in reality and

on how to better use results and data.

o Models are often either done at European level or at regional level. The possibility to

upscale and downscale analysis thanks to models needs to be improved. To be

useful, models would need to respect differentiation of regional conditions, integrating

different territorial dimensions. Maybe a solution would be to combine different

models elaborated for different regions in one single system.

o However, participants wondered if integrating models is such a smart way forward. On

the one hand, it is a precondition to make them really useful. On the other hand,

past experience (from for example FP7 SEAMLESS) showed that it is extremely

difficult to combine models which have been conceived for different scales or

themes, which use different matrix of concepts and definitions, different data and

indicators and which work with a different level of granularity.

Data:

o Definitions of rural areas vary, are not always consistent with one another and lead

to varied statistics on rural population or area. They are done in such a way that some

countries officially do not have any rural region any more, when in practice a lot of

people perceive themselves as rural dwellers in these countries.

o Participants identified a bias in the production of data on rural areas, with an over

representation of data regarding agriculture and little data on other aspects.

o There is a huge gap in social indicators, like the composition of the community

(different groups and how they interact and influence the development of an area),

well-being, who is moving in or out and why, demographic data. The data that is there

is considered of insufficient quality. DEMIFER was mentioned as a relevant ESPON

project on this topic. OECD also mentioned they have published the first set of

indicators on regional well-being under the title "How's life in your region?" (nine

dimensions are covered with integrated indicators).

o There is also a gap on environmental data, which would be needed to give priority

to the delivery of different ecosystem services.

o Participants identified issues around levels of disaggregation: there is a lack of

indicators which could be used everywhere in a satisfactory manner. Well-being for

example is quite subjective and different components of it may not have the same

value in different areas. We need to explore different ways to collect data, maybe

involving stakeholders and citizens in assessing for example sustainability. These

methods will depend on what we want the data for.

o Attendees questioned the potential interest of 'big data', seeing it both as an

opportunity to get more data and as a risk to get a lot of very low quality data.

o People commented that there is a tendency to forecast the impact of EU policies

with data which is too crude, leading to inadequate results.

o Finally the low accessibility of data, in particular of data which is mostly on paper

(qualitative) was mentioned as an obstacle.

17 | P a g e

What can research and innovation do? Where can research and

innovation play a role?

Developing meaningful indicators:

o research can help to develop indicators which would be meaningful to the policy-

makers and to the citizens. Activities could explore what can be measured and

what cannot, and which indicators are more or less useful for policy design,

monitoring and evaluation.

o As regards development of composite indicators, participants highlighted pros and

cons. The same black box effect applies as for models. There is a need to develop

indicators which make sense, which can be endorsed by people and

developed using a transparent process. The regional competitiveness index

was quoted as an example of composite indicator which used a very statistical

approach for a politically sensitive issue and triggered a lot of criticism.

o On indicators there were comments by participants that the choice of indicators

is often political and that governments tend to change indicators as soon as they

come in power to highlight different facets of their policies. Research activities are

therefore not the only condition to better and stable indicators.

Improve the way we collect and use data:

o How to integrate data? How to use data and metadata? When to use statistics and

when to use case studies? How to reconcile reality from case studies with the

sometimes different image provided by statistics. These are all questions to

which research could contribute.

o Research could also help develop different ways to collect data, looking into

crowd data sourcing, crowd knowledge, open data.

Understand better how networks unfold:

o The EU puts emphasis on networks as a driver for development and innovation.

Research is needed to understand how they work, connections and relations

between different players, the centrality of some people, their motivating role

and on the contrary the barriers and obstacles to networking, in particular related

to generation issues.

o More elements are needed also on how to monitor and evaluate the concrete

impact of these networks, and in fine the impact of the cooperation measure

under rural development and of networks financed under CAP and Horizon 2020.

Describing territories:

o Research could help to find a way to combine locally elaborated data for upper

scale analysis. The metaphor of pixels was used as well as the notion of open

data.

o Another question for research is to actually explore how data is used for policy-

making or other purposes and if in reality it is used at all.

o OECD and the European Commission are developing a regional database which

should be used by research and innovation activities. Researchers could analyse

gaps in this database and see what is missing which could be added.

Research questions and priorities

Integrating models and data, moving away from "primary production only" data and

including also social indicators (including micro-models and crowd sourcing).

Aligning concepts and definitions.

Clarify what is rural social and territorial cohesion.

Look at how data and models are used, which ones are used and why? Explore how to

make data and models mode useful and easy to use.

Look at the impact of policy instruments especially the new ones, including networks

Produce data to prioritise land use.

18 | P a g e

Challenges and drivers

Host: Ana Cuadrado Galván

What are the gaps?

Participants identified a need for:

more knowledge about the impacts of rural development policies at household level

in order to define the delivery of services needed in rural areas (medical, healthcare,

education etc.);

deeper analysis of the impacts of rural development programmes to better understand the

cost-benefit relationship of the implementation of policies;

analysing the complementarity of different sectors (e.g. farming and non-farming

activities) in order to look for more coherence in policy implementation, in the context of

multi-functional rural areas;

additional integration strategies going beyond the LEADER approach with the aim to be

translated in the right governance models;

better understanding of the role of agriculture role in the bioeconomy and its impact on

the development of rural areas;

better understanding of the existing rural narratives;

analysis of new business models in rural areas which could attract qualified people for

the benefit of rural economic development.

What can research and innovation do? Where can research and

innovation play a role?

Research activities could help in particular:

to better understand the mechanisms for social cohesion;

to increase the knowledge on individual behaviour of rural inhabitants and their

interactions with newcomers, with the idea to identify or create new collaboration models

between different people living in rural areas;

to explore the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in

delivering, in an efficient way, basic services to population in rural areas;

to develop tools to support policy makers to identify needs (education, training, services) in

order to design policies which help to keep population in rural areas;

to identify the economic value of food and others services that rural areas could

provide.

Research questions and priorities

Developing new economic models for rural areas.

Foster, support and scaling up social innovation and cooperation in rural areas.

Interdisciplinary research.

New economic governance models and innovative local initiatives.

19 | P a g e

Policies and governance

Host: Miroslav Božić

What are the gaps?

As a preambule, the diversity of rural areas is to be considered as a cross-cutting element to all

aspects below.

In addition to a wide diversity of rural areas, there is also a diversity of policies having an

influence on rural areas. Polices are framed at different scales (EU/national/local) and therefore

there is a need to increase the knowledge about which policies (at different scales) are

influencing rural areas and in which way.

There is a lack of policy clarity on what social and territorial cohesion is and how to

achieve it across different regions. There is a need to strengthen the social dimension in

policies as policies should focus on people which are the ones driving the economic cohesion.

Policy integration is considered crucial for further unfolding the development potential of

rural areas. Therefore there is a need for more knowledge on the barriers for integration

of different policies and how to overcome them. Conflicting goals and paradigms of

different EU policies were mentioned in particular.

Policy development requires having adequate evaluation methods and tools to assess what

and how policies are delivering on the ground. For the moment policy evaluations are mostly

based on quantitative data which are not always sufficient to see the real picture. Participants

recommended using more qualitative data and methodologies. For example, analysing the

process would add value to policy evaluation. Involving more researchers in performing the

evaluations next to consultants was mentioned as an option to achieve a more multi-actor

approach towards the evaluation. Furthermore, a need to connect and formalise the evaluation

process between Horizon 2020 and Rural Development policies was highlighted.

Rural areas are core to the provision of ecosystem services. It is a well-known concept, but

putting a value (not only an economic one but also a value for people) to eco-system services

is still a challenge. There is a gap in knowledge on how to 'maximise the value of

ecosystem services for rural areas', which instruments can facilitate this process (e.g.

economic instruments, less regulation) and how to implement them effectively.

What can research and innovation do? Where can research and

innovation play a role?

Research activities could contribute to:

identify approaches that will make policy cycle more effective and transparent;

develop tools supporting better decision making at different scales;

explore modalities for stakeholder involvement in decision making;

develop more meaningful indicators for policy evaluation;

develop models for policy integration (cross – sectorial policies included);

shed light on how to achieve complementarity of policies at local level.

20 | P a g e

Research questions and priorities

Capturing the linkages and interactions between policies at different scales

(EU/national/regional/local) and how they are performing across different rural areas at the

local level:

o Which operational framework and tools would best enable to capture policy

linkages and interactions?

o How to overcome contradictions between policies and thus lead to better policy

integration?

o Which coordination mechanisms are needed and at which level?

Modalities for stakeholder involvement in decision-making at different levels:

o What are the mechanisms allowing the involvement of stakeholders (also multi-

sectoral) in policy design and implementation?

o How to evaluate of these mechanisms, for example networking activities and their

impact on policy design and implementation as well as their potential in practice?

Comparative analysis of rural development models across different rural areas in

terms of their impact on the different regions. In this respect different approaches are to

be explored (e.g. more flexibility vs. more regulation).

21 | P a g e

New value chains in rural areas

Host: Miroslav Božić

What are the gaps?

Building a holistic approach towards value chains: there is a need to move beyond the sectoral approach to value chains, hence to look at them in a more integrated way to see how

they can best be embedded in the territory.

Policy integration: most of the current policies are sectoral with sometimes diverging objectives. Therefore, policies should be integrated to a greater extent to support more holistic and integrated approach to development of value chains in rural territories.

Territorial impact of value chains: there is a lack of knowledge on the territorial impact of various types of value chains; impact should be looked at in economic (profitability, influence on other sectors), social (e.g. generating employment) and environmental terms.

Addressing market failures in value chains: there is a mismatch between how society values certain products and what people actually pay for them given that many values (environmental and social) embedded in products are not translated in the actual price of the product.

What can research and innovation do? Where can research and

innovation play a role?

Research activities could help to:

understand the competition for resources between different value chains, what are the linkages between them and potential for creating synergies;

assess the territorial impact of new value chains (e.g. bio-economy), for example analyse what is the spill-over of value chains on the territory itself;

explore the concept of 'shared value': analyse how businesses respond to different

emerging values and what is the role of society in this process;

analyse the role of quality standards and schemes: there are many quality standards and

schemes developed in food and non-food sector value chains. Which role do they play in rural development?

Explore the respective role of informal and formal value chains in rural growth: formal and informal value chains/networks (food and non-food) operate jointly in rural territories and their role and connections between them would be worth studying;

Analyse different rental schemes for a better allocation of production factors and investments in value chains.

Research questions and priorities

Understanding which value chains models (food and non-food) benefit different types of territories, what is their impact on rural territories (in economic, social and environmental terms) and how to optimise them to maximise their impact. An emphasis is

made on governance and interlinks between different value chains within a given territory and how to coordinate them;

Development of new value chains in rural areas (e.g. bioenergy) in a way that maximizes their territorial impact.

22 | P a g e

Digital development opportunities

Host: Ana Cuadrado Galván

What are the gaps?

Identifying the real needs for infrastructures: There is a lack of knowledge about where

are the real needs for infrastructures (e.g. broadband) in different regions or territories.

Current and future uses and needs of information and communication

technologies (ICTs) in rural areas: there is a need to identify current uses of ICTs in

rural areas and their impacts as well as current needs of people living in the less digitalized

areas. Taking into account the high speed evolution of ICTs and their applications, it will be

useful to develop foresight exercises to identify future trends and potential future scenarios

for the development of rural areas in this respect.

In the current context of declining basic public services in rural areas, ICTs could

compensate/replace them with/by e-services (e.g. telemedicine). More knowledge on the

opportunities and constrains in the implementation of e-services is needed.

It is essential to identify and characterize the digital divide between rural and urban areas

to prevent the artificial creation of marginalized areas.

There is a lack of cost-benefit analyses on ICTs applications in rural areas, including in

the field of precision farming technologies.

What can research and innovation do? Where can research and

innovation play a role?

Research could play an important role in giving answers to the gaps mentioned above.

Furthermore, the experts identified three main areas where research could contribute:

exploring new approaches for basic services in rural areas based on ICTs;

understanding the impacts of ICTs in social relationships;

assessing the potential risks and opportunities related to an increased use of ICTs in

rural areas. In terms of employment, ICTs could increase the use of teleworking helping

people to set up new business in rural areas. At the same time robotics could decrease the

labour force needed for agriculture activities.

Research questions and priorities

Identifying needs to facilitate the access to ICTs (infrastructures, skills, education etc).

Assessing the impacts of current ICTs uses in rural areas.

Defining the barriers for implementing services based on ICTs.

Developing innovative tools for policy makers to design services at territorial level.

Analysing how social networks could create a new set of values in rural areas.

Understanding how innovation could help peer to peer interactions and knowledge

creation.

Designing open data systems.

Developing new business models in rural areas.

23 | P a g e

Ecosystem services and public goods

Host: Gaëtan Dubois

What are the gaps?

One major concern guiding this breakout session was to avoid working on the definition of

ecosystem services and public goods and to rather concentrate on the implementation of and

concrete experience about these concepts. There is a need to work on the management of

ecosystem services (ESS) and public goods (PGs) with the involved actors. Participants

identified gaps around the following issues:

Collective dimension of ESS & PGs: One farmer working alone is not sufficient to achieve

satisfactory results. It is necessary to identify why it is difficult to implement actions towards

ESS and PGs collectively and how to build collective awareness around these issues in the

farming community. There is a need for collaboration and cooperation. Different concepts and

approaches are needed to tackle this underdeveloped area ranging from training to changes in

the institutions.

Regional/landscape scale: in close relation with the necessary collective dimension, there is

a need to better integrate the territorial dimension of ESS and PGs delivery.

Instruments: the design of the instruments to deliver ESS and PGs is one of the gaps

identified. Alternative models for payment of ESS should be developed. The collective

dimension should be taken into account. While the Common Agricultural Policy the agri-

environmental schemes are focused on management issues, there is a need to build result-

oriented approaches and tools supporting them. Additionally the agri-environmental schemes

are still based on the principle to compensate for "costs incurred and income foregone" which

link them to agricultural markets but also to individuals and are a constraint to implement

payment for ecosystem services at collective level.

Data: data is lacking and data acquisition in this domain is costly. Participants suggested

farmers could be data providers and new technologies could also be used.

Stakeholders and trade-offs – socio-ecological systems: trade-offs between delivery of

PG and ESS and market goods should be analysed. How does the provision of ESS affect land

use? There is a need to better understand the position of the different stakeholders, to explore

the tensions (eg CAP reform) and how to handle them. There is a need to work on the relations

and limits within the socio-ecological systems: awareness of the issues, involvement of the

actors (not only farmers), broadening the area of each stakeholder…

Not only environmental PGs: one gap is that often environmental PGs only are studied. The

concept of PGs should be broadened to non-environmental PGs for instance the social por

cultural public goods related to vitality of rural areas.

What can research and innovation do? Where can research and

innovation play a role?

Valuation of PGs and ESS: research could help develop methods that differ from the

"costs incurred and income foregone" approach. These should distinguish between the

capital value and the income that could potentially be generated and take into account site

specificity.

Who buys, who pays & who benefits from PG/ESS provision or delivery? These

questions should be analysed at various levels (local communities, National, EU…). The

distribution of powers between different actors could be analysed, taking into account the

historical and economic contexts (markets).

Effective management of PGs and ESS: research and innovation activities could help

building a "good practices guide" based on the evaluation of initiatives and decisions of

rural communities and analysing the quality of PG and ESS delivered.

24 | P a g e

Research questions and priorities

PGs contribution to regional economy and quality of life – effective transformation

Collective approaches for public goods provision: governance, scale, tools + CAP

Reciprocity of public goods delivery between urban and rural communities – public

services in rural areas

Awareness and involvement: conceptualisation of efficient instruments for farmers to

provide ESS and PGs

Providers vs beneficiaries: assess level of engagement of those who pay, who are paid

and who benefit.

Measuring and communicating about PGs: quality of the information/data for the less

measurable PGs.

Climate change mitigation: instruments for farmers and foresters involvement.

25 | P a g e

Territorial and social linkages

Host: Alexia Rouby

What are the gaps?

Defining and describing rural-urban relationships: the work on RURBAN has provided

some conceptual framework but it has been tested on a limited number of case studies in

Europe and would need further consolidation. We still need to work on how we define rural-

urban relationships and how we describe them. Furthermore, it would be useful to be able to

describe the composition of rural communities, which has changed a lot recently, with a lot of

newcomers from the city, which often have different types of skills. Participants felt they miss

analytical tools to look at community structures.

Tension between policies and reality: rural-urban relationships have evolved tremendously

recently and policies are late in adapting to this reality. This was the reason why the RURBAN

preparatory action was launched initially and it is still true today.

Inventory of communities which are already organising relations between urban and

rural areas: it would be interesting to have a clear picture or list of entities which are already

actively engaged in management of rural-urban linkages. Furthermore, it would be interesting

to know which of these authorities or communities will use the new policy

instruments provided by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and why (or

why not if they did not use them). In general, a question is to know how to create commitment

from these entities to work on rural-urban linkages.

Functional relationships between rural and urban areas: the most recent study RURBAN

was mostly about governance of partnerships and worked mainly on relations between

agglomerations and rural areas in the immediate proximity or 'hinterland'. Analysis would need

to be enriched and consolidated by looking at rural-urban linkages in a broader sense,

including also rural-rural relations, more analysis on networks of small market towns and even

relations beyond the regional borders. Some rural areas are indeed connected to other areas

outside of their regions and even abroad or overseas, and looking at these relationships would

be an interesting way to assess how global issues impact on rural areas and if influences

automatically go via an urban gateway or not. To this end, there would be a need to scale-up

the unit analysis, beyond the communities which were the RURBAN unit of analysis. This

would help to understand how rural and urban areas interact in a variety of settings, or how

functional linkages operate in a system of valleys in sparsely populated areas for example.

Participants found that visions of how sustainable rural-urban relations could look like

in the future, at different scales, were missing. The VOLANTE project has provided visions of

future land-use but it is very much focused on land-use and does not provide the full picture

that participants would like to see.

Endogenous potential to interact: there is still a lack of knowledge on how spatial or

other endogenous characteristics influence the capacity of communities to establish

linkages and interactions with other areas (urban or rural)

Understanding of social cohesion: experts still identify a gap in the definition of economic,

social and territorial cohesion. As this is a big political goal for the EU, they feel an urge to

clarify what is territorial and social cohesion.

What can research and innovation do? Where can research and

innovation play a role?

Defining functional areas: research could help consolidate ways to proceed to define

functional areas and back these methods with sound argumentation on the relevance of the

methods. Activities could describe linkages better, looking at where the links are. As

some work has already been done there, activities should fill gaps in previous research by

26 | P a g e

deepening analysis of more distant rural-urban relationships than city-hinterland, rural-

rural linkages, linkages beyond regional borders, across borders or internationally even.

Governance: make policy fit – on the aspect of governance, there was a debate in the

group whether more research should be done or whether it is now solely a matter of doing

it. Additional research activities could provide additional insights into:

o failures: why it fails and how to avoid failures, based on an inventory of worst

practices;

o new trends and developments: looking at new collectives who get involved in

forms of relation which are still new (recycling or waste, urban food and farming,

energy provision…);

o competition for land use and innovative ways to manage it: a set amount of

land resources will face an increasing demand for different types of uses and

managing land resources in the most efficient way still requires some research;

o links between official governments and other more informal types of

governance structures, which form in areas which are deserted by public

services and structures.

Identify innovative ways to involve people in the policy process (in rural areas,

urban areas or across urban and rural areas), at different scales (from local to EU), paying

special attention to groups which are in minority, going beyond usual suspects.

Assess the value of what farmers produce, including private and public goods, and

look at the how much value is added to the product in the following steps of the value

chain, to feed in a reflection on possibilities to bring back value-adding production steps

closer to the farmer and on impact such a policy would have on rural development in

general.

Explore the interest of cross-sectoral approaches: what impact do instruments such

as Community-Led Local Development, or LEADER or integrated territorial investments,

economic development partnerships or other forms of integrated local development

approaches have.

Research questions and priorities

Governance models: the group distinguished between two different types of governance

models which may have to be developed separately as they involve different types of

actors and networks:

o governance models for economic development (mainly business governance);

o governance models for improvement of social services (mainly government).

Assess the value of each link in the value chain of rural based products.

Consolidate definition of functional areas, compare these functional areas with

administrative units and use these new functional delineation as a tool for local

development strategy development.

Develop innovative ways to involve people in policy making at different scales.

27 | P a g e

WORKSHOP

"EMPOWERING RURAL AREAS: A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR HORIZON 2020"

19 FEBRUARY 2015

AGENDA

Venue: DG AGRI, rue de la LOI 130, 1000 Bruxelles – Meeting Room 11/S1

9:00 – 9:30 Arrival and registration

9:30 – 9:40 Welcome and introduction to meeting – Rob Peters, European Commission

9:40 – 10:00 Rural development research under H2020: what are the objectives? How to best

address them through the Horizon 2020 programming process?

Miroslav Božić, European Commission

10:00 – 10.20 What has already been done? Overview of past European research activities –

Gaps and needs for the future – Thomas Dax, BABF, ERANET RURAGRI

10.20 -10.50

First plenary discussion:

- Comments on the two previous presentations.

- Inputs on past or on-going research activities which are important for the gap

analysis

Moderated by Alexia Rouby, European Commission

10.50 – 11.00 Introduction to interactive working sessions:

Presentation of methodology and quick agreement on list of themes to be retained

for discussion. – Ana Cuadrado Galvan, European Commission

11:00 – 11:15 Coffee break

11:15 – 13:00

Interactive work I: Setting the agenda for European rural development research –

Horizontal issues

- What are the gaps?

- Where can research & innovation play a role? What are the key issues on which

research and innovation could contribute the most?

28 | P a g e

- Defining research activities and questions

--------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.- Data/concepts/methods: measuring trends in rural development, are there gaps here? When we compare different methods, do we get something consistent, are definitions and concepts clear? Are datasets complete, useful, adapted to what is at stake now?

Table 2.- Challenges and trends/new research fields: what's new in rural development that has not been researched yet sufficiently? (demographic change, location factors, drivers of attractiveness, ICT…)

Table 3.- Policies tackling development of rural areas/governance models/Rural proofing: what can we say there that would be new?

13:00 – 14:15 Lunch break

14:15 – 16:15

Interactive work II: Setting the agenda for European rural development research

– Thematic issues & societal challenges

- What are the gaps?

- Where can research & innovation play a role? What are the key issues on which

research and innovation could contribute the most?

- Defining research activities and questions

-------------------------------------------------------

Indicative list of potential themes for discussion (to be revised by the group):

Value chains in rural areas

Public goods and ecosystem services

Digital development in rural areas

Territorial linkages

16:15 – 16:30 Coffee break

16:30 – 17:00 Plenary discussion: bringing it all together and setting priorities

17:00 – 17:10 Wrap-up, follow-up and closure – Rob Peters, European Commission

29 | P a g e

LIST OF EXTERNAL PARTICIPANTS

Title (Mr/Mrs)

First name Name Company/organisation

1 Mr Han Wiskerke Wageningen University

2 Mr Richard Wakeford Birmingham City University

3 Mr Thomas Dax Federal Institute for Less Favoured and Mountainous Areas, Austria

4 Mr Stefan Neumeier Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Germany

5 Mr Karlheinz Knickel Institute for Rural Development Research at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University

6 Mr André Torre* UMR SAD-APT Agro Paristech

7 Mr Razvan Popa* Fundatia ADEPT Transilvania

8 Mr Goran Šoster PREPARE network

9 Ms Kirsten Birke Lund ELARD

10 Mr José María Gil Centro de Investigación en Economía y Desarrollo Agroalimentario

11 Ms Teresa Pinto Correia Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas

12 Mr Gianluca Brunori University of Pisa

13 Mr Stefano Marta FAO

14 Mr Raffaele Trapasso OECD

15 Mr Gerald Schwarz German Thünen Institute

16 Mr Fabio Cossu ENRD

* Confirmed but could not attend at late notice