Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Rural urban partnership for economic development

More Related Content

Similar to Rural urban partnership for economic development

Rural urban partnership for economic development

  1. 1. Rural-Urban Partnership for economic development: rationale, geographies and governance approaches Paolo Veneri Regional Development Policy Division OECD 27 October 2015 GLOBAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING The Role of Intermediate Cities in Strengthening Urban-Rural Linkages towards the New Urban Agenda
  2. 2. Outline 1. What is urban / what is rural 2. Demographic, economic and well-being profile of urban and rural areas 3. Urban-rural interactions and regional performance 4. From linkages to partnerships 5. Building effective U-R partnerships
  3. 3. 1. What is urban / what is rural Current OECD classification of urban and rural areas The current OECD typology is defined for Territorial Level 3 regions and into 3 major categories. Subsequently, rural regions are classified in 2 sub-categories TL3 regions Intermediate Predominantly rural Predominantly urban Rural close to a city Rural remote Based on population density of local units Based on accessibility / distance to cities Large regions (TL2) Usually the first government layer after the national/federal one Smaller regions, often corresponding to admin. entities (i.e. Départements in France)
  4. 4. 2. Demographic, economic and well-being profile of urban and rural areas In OECD countries, on average, almost 80% of rural population live close to an urban area (2012)
  5. 5. 2. Demographic, economic and well-being profile of urban and rural areas Different types of regions show similar patterns of growth in GDP per capita, 2010-12
  6. 6. 0.005.01.015 AverageannualgrowthofrealGDPpercapita(2000-12) Rural remote Intermediate Urban Rural close to a city 3. Urban-rural interactions and regional performance Economic growth in the last decade was highest in rural regions close to cities Cities support GDP (and population) growth in surrounding rural places Source: OECD regional database Average annual growth of real GDP per capita (2000-12) by type of region
  7. 7. Strong spatial externalities between urban and rural regions are observed  population rural regions grow more, ceteris paribus, the more connected they are (the smaller the distance) to the closest urban or intermediate region  there positive growth spillovers from urban to rural regions in terms of population and GDP. The existence of these externalities makes worth shifting the attention from the administrative to the functional organization of the territory (functional regions) 3. Urban-rural interactions and regional performance
  8. 8. 4. From linkages to partnerships Definition Rural-urban partnerships are mechanisms of co- operation between urban and rural stakeholders in order to reach common objectives. Distinctive features: 1. a membership mix that includes the relevant rural and urban stakeholders 2. initiatives aimed at yielding collective benefits to urban and rural partners Characteristics: • Members of R-U partnerships can belong to the private or public sector, depending on the context and on the purpose of the initiative. • The public sector is often the key promoter of the R-U partnership, which can range from a formal body with delegated power to an informal co-operation platform
  9. 9. 4. From linkages to partnerships Some observed purposes of R-U partnerships Category of benefit observed Example of sub-type of objective Example of practical experience Production of public goods Landscape preservation Better management of natural resources Larger and more integrated markets Urban agriculture (Rennes, FR): small scale farming activities in peri-urban spaces Promotion of an integrated food supply chain (Forli, IT; Nuremberg, DE): connecting rural- areas to the market, through co-operation between urban and rural actors Common Management of water resources (Forli, IT): mountain municipalities providing water benefit from a share of revenues, investments in cultural heritage and tourism development initiatives Achieving higher economies of scale Providing better and cheaper services to both urban and rural communities Education and health care through the use of ICT (Central Finland) Waste management (West Pomerania, PL): through co-operation between R and U municipal. Capacity building Improve capacity of local administrations to carry out policy Manage conflicts for land use conflicts for land use between farming and housing (Geelong, AU) Account for negative cross- border externalities Housing and land use policy that account for the need of landscape preservation (Limiting “sprawl”) Integrated spatial plan: housing, land use policy and transportation are co-ordinated at the level of functional region (Pays de Rennes) Overcoming co-ordination failures Building a common vision for development and matching investment decisions Common plan for economic development (Geelong, AU; Nuremberg, DE)
  10. 10. The case of Forlì-Cesena, Italy: different geographies for different functions Labour market areas (LLSs) Rural-urban. agro-industry partnership Tourism and water: the area of Romagna (territorial identity – soft factor) Forli Cesena  different regions for different functions  labour market areas are not large enough to catch all the territory of the R-U partnership  soft factors such as a strong territorial identity (e.g. ‘Romagna”) plays a role for the identification some of the partnerships (tourism, water, etc.) 4. From linkages to partnership The spaces of co-operation (case studies)
  11. 11. 4. From linkages to partnership The example of urban agriculture in Rennes Métropole (RM) Context: political choice for “ville archipel” (agriculture between urban centres) Tool: Local Agricultural Programme within a Common inter-municipal plan (SCoT) Rural areas - Ecosystem services - Niche food products - Landscape - Quality of life Urban areas - Advanced services - Access to large market - Diversification Meta-objectives: - Set-up an agricultural observatory to monitor economic dynamics - Combine planning, land and agriculture - Strengthen the grove in its multiple roles - Adapt to the new energy and climate context - Strengthen the linkages between agriculture and citizens (communication; short circuits and local identity of products; support agricultural diversification) RM gave to farmers financial subsidy in two cases: a) support the "agricultural diversification": (for 20% max of the investment - farm products stores led by farmers groups; b)Under the program "Breizh bocage" : RM contributes for 100% to the plantation of hedgerows (mulching, plantations, soil preparation, maintenance during 3 years ).
  12. 12. 4. From linkages to partnership Four governance approaches to R-U partnerships Explicit rural-urban partnership Partnership deliberately addresses the management of rural-urban relationships. Implicit rural-urban partnership Co-operation is driven by objectives mandating the involvement of urban and rural areas. No delegated functions High flexibility (large and diverse set of actors) Lower access to resources Potential discord between actors Example: Nuremberg Metropolitan Region With delegated functions High access to resources High influence Low flexibility Example: Rennes Métropole With delegated functions High access to resources Need comprehension of U-R issues Example: Province of Forlì-Cesena No delegated functions Soft co-operation High flexibility Sectoral approach Example: Prague and nearby municipalities in Central Bohemia
  13. 13. 5. Building effective R-U partnerships: a strategy Matching ..the appropriate scale Including ..the relevant stakeholder Learning ..to be more effective 1. Better understanding of R-U conditions and interactions 2. Addressing territorial challenges through a functional approach 3. Working towards a common agenda for urban and rural policy 4. Building a enabling environment for R-U partnership 5. Clarifying the partnership objectives and related measures

Editor's Notes

  • This presentation tries to answer to the question: Do we have economic reasons to foster rural-urban partnerships? Answers are based on theory and on the evidence provided through the case-study analysis.

    In order to justify a policy intervention to help the formation of rural-urban partnerships we have to understand the following issues:
    What are the main challenges that regions want to address through rural-urban partnerships?
    How these challenges are based on specific linkages between urban and rural areas?
    How the purposes of rural-urban partnerships change depending on the type of territory?
    What are the observed outcome of rural-urban partnerships? What are their foundations?
    What are the potential risks of rural-urban co-operation?

  • The building blocks are «local units» (i.e. municipalities, counties in the US, wards in the UK, etc.).
    Our classification was built in the early 2000s with the OECD Working Party on Territorial Indicators. It’s a result of finding a common ground for the different countries at that time. The main objectives of such classification were: a) international comparisons; b) robust way to describe, with an international perspective, the entire territory of different countries; c) when possible, adhere to policy relevant units of analysis.

    A region is classified as intermediate if the share of population living in rural local units is between 15% and 50%
  • This graph uses the OECD regional classification, which distinguishes all TL3 regions in “Predomanatly urban”, “Intermediate” and “predominantly rural”. The latter are further classified in “predominantly rural close to a city” and “remote rural regions”. The graph shows how total population that live in predominantly rural region is split in “close to a city” and “remote”.

    Note: in order to be considered “close to a city”, at least 50% of regional population should be able to reach a city of at least 50 000 inhabitants in less than 45 minutes driving (60 minutes for American countries).

  • Regarding the convergence of rural regions, there is an important difference between rural remote regions and rural close to cities. The former in 1995 had on average a level of GDP per capita that was 93% of the average GDP per capita in the OECD. In 2011 this level decreased to 88%. On the other hand, the pattern for the rural close to cities has been opposite: levels of GDP per capita were 84% of the average level in 1995, while in 2011 it was 86%.
  • Production of public goods (or “club” goods)
    Higher external visibility and attractiveness
    Exploiting local productive linkages (e.g. agro-industry) and economic complementarities
    Easier access to natural resources (incl. renewable energies)
    Strengthen territorial identity and social capital
    Achieve higher economies of scale
    Network economies (e.g. overcoming limits of small-size business environments)
    Higher political power, financial resources and better dialogue with other government levels
    Improving quality, access or economic viability of services’ provision
    Capacity building
    Improving local government capacity to carry out tasks
    Account for negative externalities
    Coordinating land use policy (e.g. sprawl issues)
    Limiting zero-sum competition among municipalities (e.g. tax competition)
    Overcoming coordination failures
    Setting and aligning priorities for economic development
    Improving local knowledge through social learning and information sharing

×