Rural Future Networks

Final Report Summary - RUFUS (Rural Future Networks)

As the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) shifted from an agricultural-centred approach to broader rural development, the concept of multi-functionality in rural areas came into play. This in turn brought the CAP into closer association with a wide range of other policy regimes. These sectoral regimes interact in complex ways, sometimes mutually reinforcing, sometimes contradicting each other, and have a decisive effect on the sustainable development of rural areas. The project addressed these aspects of rural areas. It assessed the possible combinations of policy regimes to ensure integrated rural development.

Objectives:

- To better understand the combined effects of the CAP with European Union (EU) cohesion, employment, welfare and environment policy regimes in different types of rural areas, and their interaction with national and regional policies.
- To explain where the impact of EU policies is compromised because of lack of coordination, with particular reference to alternative understandings of multifunctional potential (diversification), territorial capital (endogenous potential), and territorial impacts of policy.
- To learn lessons about which territorial management mechanisms can be used to improve the impact of EU and national policies through integrated approaches.
- To provide tools to support a design of policies based on the diversity and the challenges of the rural regions.

Results:

An interdisciplinary methodology was used which encouraged a debate between quantitative classification and mapping with qualitative social science and policy approaches. The project developed a robust conceptual understanding of policy integration, multi-functionality of rural areas and territorial capital by exposing alternative positions and 'testing' these in empirical investigation. An integrated typology of rural areas based on cluster analysis of regional economic, ecological and social characteristics has been developed. It depicts comparative advantages of regions on NUTS 3 level. Thus, a better understanding of cohesion processes is established. A sub-typology allows for a closer look into the heterogeneity of the types. A set of land function maps and photorealistic landscape visualisations of representative areas showing scenarios of future rural development has been produced. The results are tested in case studies. The recommendations are based on the results derived from the tools (typology, map of potentials) as well as on the visions of future of stakeholders from the case studies. Discussions with stakeholders and politicians on the European level from the beginning of the project have been part of extended dissemination activities. Against the background of the grand challenges, the importance of and demand for reliable and up-to-date scientific evidence is growing, which is increasingly expressed by policy-makers at all institutional levels.

One core result of the analysis was that the overall driving factors for a more territorial and integrative rural development approach:

- cause parallel growth, stagnation and shrinkage processes within regions (region = NUTS 3 or below) which in turn
- cause the need for regionalised solutions (programmes, methods / delivery mechanisms) and a higher degree of policy integration.

The RUFUS project formulated the following policy recommendations for three policy levels:

Strategic level
- Implement a joint coordination strategy or strategic framework for the EU funds towards coordination and synchronisation of policies.

Programmatic level
- Development of Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the implementation of integrated policy approaches

Delivery mechanism level
- Enable financial engineering for regional budgets and regional revolving funds

Project context and objectives:

Within the 27 Member States in the EU, 60 % of the population live in rural areas covering 90 % of the territory. As such, rural development has become a vital policy area for assisting those regions in responding to the economic, social and environmental issues of the 21st century. The EU2020 strategy and the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative stress the necessity to stimulate smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and to introduce a new approach to innovation in Europe.

These issues are specifically relevant for rural areas where large imbalances still exist. The objectives of CAP have shifted from an agricultural centred approach to wider rural development.

The concept of multi-functionality in rural regions is now promoted and brings the CAP into closer association with a wide range of policy regimes, such as regional policy, spatial planning, environmental management, social and energy policy. These sectoral regimes interact with each other in a variety of ways determining the development of rural areas, thus leading to an increased need for policy integration.

The objectives of the CAP measures have not being fully achieved and the need for a new rural paradigm focusing on the multitude of rural regions, the diversity of economic driving forces (outside of agriculture) and the rise of new governance approaches appeared. Rural regions should be seen as multi-functional, not just in the sense of making multiple uses of the territory and landscape, but in encouraging a greater range of social and economic activity and opportunities. This approach to rural development must recognise the diversity in the characters and functions of rural regions and thus will be more spatially differentiated, with more specific approaches adopted for particular types of rural territories.

The influence of agriculture has generally declined as a driver of rural change, the importance of other sectoral activity has increased. Policy changes at EU, national and regional levels have over some years brought the CAP into much closer association with other sectoral policy regimes in support of integrated rural development. Thus, agricultural and economic development policy has interacted with environmental regulation and land-use planning policy in shaping rural areas. The significance of other sectors is becoming more widely recognised, notably social and welfare policy, tourism, transport, and increasingly, energy policy.

The pursuit of CAP objectives in the context of more sustainable rural development and a wider multi-functionality of rural regions must confront the reality of the way that diverse policy regimes interact with each other and with market forces to deliver outcomes.

In response to these reforms, the RUFUS project was launched to establish a multidisciplinary conceptual framework on policy integration and rural multi-functionality. The project involves collaboration between several other research projects (RUDI, EDORA, DERREG), stakeholders and users.

Main objectives

RUFUS primarily assesses the possible combinations of policy regimes and builds up networks to ensure sustainable and integrated rural development. The teams are investigating how rural development policy can be targeted at the specific endogenous potential of rural regions, which go beyond physical landscape potentials, to include social and economic activities and opportunities. The consideration of the specific combinations of strengths and weaknesses of rural areas as starting point for policy intervention is a central component of the project analysis.

RUFUS aims to provide policy makers and stakeholders with a better theoretical and practical understanding of how CAP measures and other forms of public intervention in rural development can be combined. Ideally, sectoral policy programmes would complement and reinforce each other, but calls for such 'integrated public policy' tend to underplay the complexity of governance. We must also recognise that the particular forms of combination and collaboration among policy regimes and the priorities for action will vary considerably from place to place. This depends on the characteristics of the rural area and its endogenous potential (or territorial capital) - its stock of environmental, human, social, economic and geographical assets.

Therefore, the RUFUS project developed tools and approaches to describe and visualise this diversity allowing to take it as a basis for future policy formulation.

More specific objectives are:

- to investigate through cross-national comparison, the interplay of sectoral policy regimes and CAP support at the regional and local levels;
- to tie the understanding of policy regime interaction to a typology of rural areas which is differentiated at the regional level;
- to build the social dimension and endogenous development potentials into our analysis of rural change alongside economic, demographic and ecological variables;
- to analyse and communicate rural change through scenarios of the trajectory of types of rural area under varying policy approaches;
- to test findings against the experiences of different categories of local stakeholders including business, government, gender, young people, unemployed and other civic groups;
- to refine and communicate the scientific findings into practical recommendations for policy makers, agencies and other actors;
- to use an interdisciplinary methodology and explanation which encourages a confrontation of the hard empirical approach with the more qualitative social and policy approaches.

More specifically, the project had the measurable objectives of:

- reporting on the status quo of integration of the CAP with other policy regimes in five countries;
- establishing an integrated typology of rural areas (and conceptual tools) and critically reviewing this with the help of a wider panel of experts;
- using mixed methods in creating scenarios of likely development trajectories or 'rural futures' for each type of area;
- producing detailed evidence on the CAP and policy integration and development trajectories (rural futures) including visualisations of 'rural futures' in regions of the partner countries;
- to mirror and discuss the scientific findings of typologies and rural futures with regional public and private stakeholders in detailed case studies (action research);
- to produce policy integration guidance for the case study regions, and later, the countries and other rural areas; and to 'translate' this into recommendations in a form useful for stakeholders .

Objectives of the work packages (WPs):

Establish a relevant typology of rural regions and selection of comparative rural regions (WP3)

- To create a typology of rural regions
- To characterise rural areas in terms of their potential to adjust in different ways to structural and policy change.
- To widen existing typologies through inclusion of potentials and functions, specifically in the social area.
- To deliver a basic tool for a more regionalised EU rural policy.

Scenarios of pressures and potential developments for rural areas under different policy variants: simulation and photorealistic landscape visualisations (WP4)

- To create maps of the spatial distribution of the identified typologies of rural areas across Europe, and identify the response of a selection of the typologies to policy according to contrasting storylines.
- To represent the possible future directions that representative areas within the different identified typologies could take in the form of landscape function maps and photorealistic landscape visualisations.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of such means of representing possible futures through discussions with stakeholders in the local case studies (WP5).

Detailed case studies to test regional policy integration hypothesis and critical questions (WP5)
- To identify the 'drivers' and vicious circles and demonstrate the complex inter related dynamic of rural development in relation to policy integration.
- To identify and explain the construction of opportunities and barriers for fulfilment of intended policy effects.
- To identify development enabling landscape factors.

Policy conclusions and territorial approach (WP6)
- To make a fresh and critical review of the findings for practical conclusions and recommendations.
- To extrapolate the findings and conclusions beyond the case study locations and to consider the implications for the European territory as a whole.
- To formulate recommendations for policy makers by setting the conclusions in the context of other research findings and the wider context for rural development at the European, national and regional levels.

Project results:

A typology for rural areas in Europe

RUFUS offers information on how rural development policy can be targeted at the specific endogenous potential of rural regions to encourage multiple functionalities, which go beyond physical landscape potentials to include social as well as economic activities and opportunities. The project, started at the beginning of 2008, aimed at coming to new solutions for a wider approach including especially the social dimension as a central component of the analysis, alongside economic and ecological aspects.

Therefore, one major objective of RUFUS was to generate a tool in order to specify and visualise the different dimensions of regional resources. This characterisation tool consists of a typology of rural regions based on an indicator set developed by an interdisciplinary methodology. By means of the typology, different types of rural regions with specific characteristics concerning their capability, that means their specific resources and potentials, are derived. They reflect the diversity of rural areas in Europe.

The characterisation tool is based on a wide indicator set developed by an interdisciplinary methodology referring to the NUTS3 unit. NUTS3 allows for a sufficiently diverse comparison among and within the EU countries. Two important selection criteria for the indicators have been the policy relevance and the balance between social, ecological and economic indicators. Nevertheless, the data availability also significantly affected the indicator selection.

The calculation of rural types consists of two subsequent steps. First, urban regions have been identified. Two urban regions have been derived. In a second step, the remaining regions have been subdivided by a cluster analysis leading to five different rural types. Each cluster is defined as a specific type by interpreting and describing their characteristic aspects and their resources to reveal development potentials. The types, derived from the cluster of the statistical analysis, build the typology of rural regions. The description of the types is based on the comparison and ranking of the original indicator values. References are the mean values of the indicators in the nine project countries.

By means of this tool, different types of rural regions with specific characteristics concerning their resources and potentials are mapped. 893 regions in nine European countries have been clustered in seven types based on nine indicators. Beside two urban types (central and peri-urban), five different rural types have been derived.The typology is based on the results of a policy baseline assessment which reflects the actual politics relevant to rural regions. The ecological, economic and social resources of the regions are also all taken into account and, in this manner, types and sub-types can be described. The typology is very much a topdown statistical approach and the data used is provided by EUROSTAT - the statistical office of the EU situated in Luxembourg. By producing the results on the regional and local level and by deriving sub-types, the researchers try to come as close as possible to the regional reality. Nevertheless, the statistics do not include cultural features or indicators for 'endogenous potential' which are very significant for rural development. Thus, only quantitative indicators have been used for the calculation. There is a gap of information on the European level for qualitative data, especially on NUTS3 level. It is only through case studies that these factors can be effectively assessed.

The typology is based on current and potential indicators, examples of which are: gross value added from manufacturing, inclusion in a Natura 2000 site, number of employees in agriculture, and number of hotels and campsites in a region. Using existing databases like EUROSTAT2 (2005) and CORINE3 (2005), researchers collected values for the indicators, and the following types of rural regions were identified and mapped.

Type 1 areas are the most socioeconomically successful with low unemployment and high income. No sector dominates in its contribution to the economy and there are a low number of Natura 2000 sites. Agricultural employment plays a major role.

Type 2 regions have a medium level of economic success in which agriculture and the service sector play a major role. They had a minor increase of population and their share of Natura 2000 sites and tourism is high.

Type 3 areas tend to be economically lagging behind with high unemployment and low income. There is a strong decline in population. The regions contain a high percentage of Natura 2000 areas, although importance of tourism is low.

Type 4 regions are relatively few in number. Similar to type 3 they are economically lagging behind with a high level of unemployment and a low income. However their population change is comparable to the overall average. These regions are orientated towards manufacturing with little potential for nature and tourism.

Type 5 regions have the highest income but higher unemployment than type 1. They are dominated by the manufacturing sector. Tourism is moderately important although it is not reliant on nature potential as there is a marginal number of Natura 2000.

The classification identified rural areas with common characteristics, development potential and needs. It indicated places where there was an accumulation of the same type of region as well as countries with a variety of region types. For example, Poland consists of mainly type 4 regions in the inner part surrounded by type 3 regions, whereas Germany has all types of regions.

It also indicated potential for development and where this might need policy integration, such as Type 3 areas which could use their Natura 2000 sites to cultivate the potential for tourism. They reflect the diversity of rural areas in Europe. By comparing the advantages of regions this typology could help the targeting of EU funding and, at a Member State level, it could feed into the co-ordination of strategies in regions of the same type (co-ordination of problem solving strategies). The five-type classification is best suited to national and European policy makers and might be used to monitor the programmes provided by Member States and EU: Are the starting conditions and development potentials (territorial capital) considered by the regions and funding programmes ? However, RUFUS has identified three sub-categories for each type which could be more useful to local policy makers.

Different outputs are provided by the RUFUS typology. Beside a series of maps for the RUFUS countries, descriptions of the types as well as of the sub-types are available. The indicators and the range of values of the 465 rural RUFUS regions can be provided.

The typology raised the interest of several stakeholder organisations and DGs of the EU COM. The possibility of using the typology for policy purposes has been discussed.

Scenarios of pressures and potential developments for rural areas in Europe

In the RUFUS project, also different methods for understanding and assessing development options at both the continental and the local scale have been explored. Both the assets of a region and the constraints for certain developments have been examined. The methods applied offer a combination of tools valuable to both policymakers and stakeholders for addressing the future challenges of rural areas.

Regional distinctiveness is supported by the EU in rural development policy. However, there is little information about the spatial distribution of the potential for rural development across Europe. The concept of territorial capital is used to consider spatial characteristics in assessing the capacity for rural development. Expert-based descriptions of territorial capital are translated into mappable proxies to locate regions with development functions for intensive agriculture, off-farm employment, rural tourism and conservation. Combining these potentials, the capacity for multiple functions within regions is assessed. A partial validation of the expert-based weighing of territorial capital is done by comparison with an empirical approach based on logistic regression. The results indicate strong variation between regions in rural development potentials. In Western Europe, regions with high rural tourism probability also share a high potential for conservation while opportunities for intensive agriculture and off-farm employment are generally low. In other parts of Europe these correlations are less pronounced. Several regions offer limited potential in all four considered functions while few regions have potential in all four functions. The assessment provides policymakers with assistance in identifying competitive rural development projects. Targeting rural development policies to high potential areas may increase policy efficiency.

Emphasis on rural development by the European Commission (EC) has renewed the need for tools that can help in determining local development options. Incentives that encourage multifunctionality would be aided by ascertaining the strengths and weaknesses of a region. Therefore, a methodological framework has been provided for identifying local development capital using scenario storylines, maps and visualisations of possible development outcomes to prompt discussion with local stakeholders about regional potentials. Result from a case study in Northern Portugal show that these tools are particularly suited to gaining a richer understanding of development assets and constraints and for providing insight in the role of spatial variation within regions, which is rarely addressed in scenario studies. The spatial heterogeneity of human, policy and environmental factors are shown to determine where different types of rural development are possible. We conclude that these tools can be used by local government agencies and land managers to develop policy interventions that consider local human capacities, willingness and environmental considerations.

Multifunctionality is widely viewed as a positive development options for rural areas. However, decentralisation of decision-making in many EU countries has meant very little guidance for local decision-makers about its implementation or maintenance. In a Dutch case study we test a participatory method for discussing and identifying assets and constraints for the maintenance and/or continued development of the multifunctional character of the rural region of the Achterhoek has been tested. An agent based model is used as a decision support tool that incorporates projections of demographic changes, EU-level policy reforms and land mangers choices about the maintenance of hedgerows and farm expansion. The images of these emergent landscape processes are used to discuss the trade-offs between wished developments with socio-economic trends. Insight into the spatial and temporal dynamics of a region allow for creative development of strategies aimed at achieving desired landscape outcomes. Testing of proposed measures in model simulation aids stakeholders in deliberation about robust development pathways for multifunctionality.

In three of the RUFUS case studies (Castro Laboreiro - Portugal, Wesermarsch - Germany and the Brecks - United Kingdom (UK)) landscape visualisations of the scenarios were employed to support the discussions of rural development potentials and challenges in focus groups with local stakeholders. Furthermore, the value of using visualisation techniques was assessed through surveys of meeting participants. The main conclusions from this experience can be summarised as follows:

1. Landscape visualisations can be an effective tool for communication of ideas and engaging public / policymaker interest in rural development scenarios and issues. This is particularly true when collaboration between different parties is needed.
2. Different types of visualisations perform complementary functions. It is important to match the characteristics of the output to the needs of the audience. This requires considering factors such as the size of area shown, the level of feature detail or photorealism and the importance of interactive capabilities (e.g. ability to navigate around or alter the content shown).
3. It is important to think about the use of visualisations throughout a planning or policy formulation process rather than just to present results at a final meeting. Where possible, it is helpful to involve the stakeholders in selecting the style and content of the visualisations and in defining their needs for any supplementary information.

Future research priorities include investigating the scope for using virtual globes such as Google Earth and enhancing interactive 'what if?' capabilities through a tighter coupling of geographical information system (GIS), modelling and real-time visualisation components. However it is not simply a matter of technical challenges and a multi-disciplinary combination of applied computing, environmental and social science research is required for the effective future development and use of landscape visualisation methods.

Detailed case studies to explore policy integration and future rural development options

The aim of the RUFUS project was to create a better understanding of the key factors of change in rural areas and how it might be influenced by policy. More specifically - to explain how the complex interplays of the CAP and other sectoral policies support or come into conflict with institutional structures for rural development. Case studies in twelve regions across Europe with the aim to identify dynamics of regional development and types of policy integration were conducted. The document analysis, interviews and workshops in the case regions provided valuable feedback on the RUFUS typology leading to further improvement of the typology. Structural and institutional settings on the regional, national and European level that may support or hinder attempts for policy integration were identified.

Evidence about hampering factors and best practice examples of mechanisms for 'policy integration' was collected. As a result, recommendations concerning identified problems on different decision levels could be made. The cases displayed how regions following very different developmental paths seem to have more in common regarding institutional structures than first believed. The results indicate that several issues and problems concerning policy integration are similar between regions of very different type and character. The findings lead to the following implications for policy.

- National government rules and institutions can be major barriers to policy integration
The funding possibilities through the second pillar of the CAP were generally looked upon as a positive opportunity to advance land management activities in rural regions. In fact national level regulations were quite often seen as more of a hindrance to effectively use the programs than the EU. From most of the case regions problems were reported concerning coordination between national ministries, government offices and local authorities, thus making joint initiatives very difficult. When the combination of EU, national and regional institutional rules adds up it sometimes makes programs too strictly steered. In order to make the management more effective in the regions there is a need for consistency between national regulations and EU funding. This ought to be of major concern for the member states as well as for the Commission.

- The function and effect of EU programmes and funds vary between Member States
National preconditions such as institutions and political-administrative structures influence the forms and degree of policy integration that is developed in a particular region. This become visible when EU programmes are applied in the regions. Regions do not always have organisational structures to meet the EU demands on regional co-operation. The EU can take the role of a facilitator in the sense that funding strategies can provide visions and 'tool-package' which regional actors can use. The Leader-approach has from a bottom-up perspective, pinpointed the need for policy integration. In several regions Leader program serves such an integrative process.

- Development activities transgress borders
Cooperation between neighbouring regions was a recurrent feature in the case study regions. Especially, when it comes to issues related to the labour market and employment neighbouring regions benefit from cooperating. Also cultural events and leisure time activities establish mobility between neighbouring regions. The findings demonstrate that regions develop a regional identity highlighting their own uniqueness - but also that regions perceive themselves as being part of other identities that they are sharing with their neighbouring regions, like having the same development problems or belonging to the same type of landscape. Frameworks that support territorial policy integration strengthen rural regions' efforts to build stronger alliances.

- The need of EU related competence in the region
Regional actors perceive EU programmes as difficult to understand and the work-load required for a successful application as too heavy. Considering that a successful development is strongly dependent on a region's endogenous potential it is essential that regional actors understand the variety of programmes and initiatives that can be applicable. The regional administrations are often not adequately trained in global territorial management. It is therefore difficult to meet the demands for a professional application to the structural funds. To fully understand the rules risk getting so complicated that it loses legitimacy among the actors and stakeholders. Increased similarity of rules between the regional development fund and the social fund so that actions can be coordinated in the regions could help as well as to allow innovative and integrated approaches a wider scope of development. The case studies showed that knowledge transfer and information about EU-initiatives is one of the most successful strategies to overcome the threshold. Improved knowledge transfer and competence building regarding application management is recommended.

- Different endogenous potentials in rural regions need different solutions
In most of the case study regions policymakers were not aware of the strengthening of a place based perspective on rural development in the policy discussion. This calls for improved dissemination as described above. Further, as rural regions vary from being dominated by agrarian production to dominated by manufacturing industry, different regional preconditions create different policy. This is neither surprising nor need to be a problem. The heterogeneity of the local endogenous potential and its use by actors of local development has to be better taken into account by the EU. Revision is often perceived as too rigid and does not always serve its purpose. For evaluation it is recommended to introduce methods that can show effects of initiatives - not that rules have been followed. Simplify procedures i.e. downsize the revision processes e. g. by mutual approval of results by courts of auditors at all levels.

- Compartmentalisation of funding programmes and 'funding shaped' potentials
Consistency between sectors is needed in the main strategies for rural development. There is for instance a conflicting position between a spatial strategy, which is based on self-contained rural villages and towns and an economic strategy, which aims for a better interconnection of urban and rural activities. The relationship between spatial strategies (which have a clear remit to integrate sectoral policy) and agriculture and forestry is very weak. There is a strong accent on urban development in spatial strategies and much potential to address changing rural landscapes in spatial planning. The intention of policy integration is often contrasted by the compartmentalisation of funding programmes. The need for a higher degree of discretion on spending and a streamlining of programmes was emphasised. Compartmentalisation of administration and policy risk shaping the perception of which potentials a region has. Examples of such 'funding induced' or 'funding shaped' potentials were for instance found within tourism. It is recommended to allow e.g. the rural development fund to handle a wider scope of issues in closer interaction with structural funds. Cooperation between programmes could be strengthened to the extent that they were organised within one common framework. A streamlining of guidelines would help regional actors to apply for and use funding in a way that was better adopted to their specific potential and development needs.

Policy conclusions from the RUFUS project

Against the background of the grand challenges, the importance of and demand for reliable and up-to-date scientific evidence is growing, which is increasingly expressed by policy-makers at all institutional levels.

The basis for the policy recommendations was laid and described in report D.6.1 'Driving factors for territorial and integrated approaches'. One core result of this analysis was that the overall driving factors for a more territorial and integrative rural development approach:

- cause parallel growth, stagnation and shrinkage processes within regions (region = NUTS 3 or below) which in turn
- cause the need for regionalised solutions (programmes, methods / delivery mechanisms) and a higher degree of policy integration.

The RUFUS project formulated the following policy recommendations for three policy levels.

Strategic level

Implement a joint coordination strategy or strategic framework for the EU funds towards coordination and synchronisation of policies:

- strengthen the EU's role as facilitator of policy integration including an improved compliance between EU and national policies, regulations and funding;
- provide visions and guidelines for a common European development policy including a common agreement about development in rural areas as part of regional development;
- strengthen the place-based approach to respect the diversity of EU regions and valorise endogenous potentials;
- extend and improve local co-operation / governance models, like urban, leader, Euregio;
- provide a framework and 'tool-package' to support regional actors;
- allow innovative and integrated approaches a wider scope of development.

Programmatic level

Development of Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the implementation of integrated policy approaches

- Define a general regulation in a common and simplified finance, administration and monitoring system complying with the requirements of integrated approaches.
- All funding lines with integrated approaches, e.g. integrated regional development, integrated coastal zone management, water framework directive, urban development, should be subject to this regulation.
- The funding implemented through this general regulation should be earmarked that the money can be assigned to the EU fund from where it originates.
- Implementation of integrated approaches is connected with a higher risk of failure - but also with the chance of higher benefits for EU regions.

It should be agreed between the EU Parliament, the EC and the Member States to allocate a share of the funds to these approaches and increase the possible error rate to maximum 10 %.

Delivery mechanism level

Enable financial engineering for regional budgets and regional revolving funds

- The aim of financial engineering is to improve and ensure integrated regional and rural development.
A part of the budget from the funds should be allocated to regional budgets and regional revolving funds on OP/RDP-level for integrated development (maximum 10 - 15 %).
- The EU funding for the budgets and revolving funds is mutually eligible in compliance with all current regulations and guidelines.
- The money is earmarked to the EU funds where it originates. As incentive for managing authorities the funding will go back to EU level if the budgets and/or funds are not implemented.

Support the local level

- The diversity of regions should be seen as advantage and asset. All levels of provision of technical assistance to build up solutions should be exchanged between regions of the same type.
- A database to initiate the future exchange of approaches and solutions between the regions is needed. In addition, the EC will put a higher emphasis on valorisation of regional diversity and endogenous potentials based on typologies.
- The approval and revision procedures should be simplified i.e.
- Downsizing the revision processes by mutual approval of results by courts of auditors at all levels benefit from the diverse potentials in up competence about application management.
- Improve knowledge transfer and build competence about application management. The information should not exclusively focus on funding opportunities but also about the ideas behind EU initiatives. To understand the motive and larger picture is encouraging and empowering to regional actors. Technical assistance could be allocated to support the learning processes and competence building - on all levels and not only for administration - to benefit from the diverse potentials in EU regions. In addition, it is worth thinking to build up an 'Approaches and solution database' on EU-level to initiate future exchange between regions.

Potential impact:

Dissemination activities

Dissemination and impact to policy and the general public

RUFUS has been designed from the start with the objective of providing knowledge that can be used in a practical way by policy makers and stakeholders.

Fortunately, the finalisation of the RUFUS results and the intensive discussion about the post-2013 policies for rural areas coincided. This led to intensive discussions about our results with members of both, DG Agri and DG Regio, and a strong interest in the events and policy papers. Several partners of the RUFUS project have been involved in policy debates about the shaping of the future policies. It is a challenge but also stimulating if scientific results are recognised outside of the scientific community.

The fact that RUFUS was allocated in the socio-economic sciences and humanities (SSH) research area of FP7 was a crucial pre-requisite for the close science-policy-interaction. Policy and society oriented topics are in the centre of SSH research and not a 'nice addendum' to other research strands. This allows for a broad inclusion of disciplines dealing with societal questions. Further on, SSH supports the dissemination of research results to public and policy by providing guidelines and practical support (e.g. workshops with journalists to learn about how to formulate policy briefs). Insights into society and culture, as can be provided by SSH research, are central to enhance the successful and appreciable implementation of various kinds of innovations. Therefore, SSH is especially suitable for dealing with topics like the ones RUFUS worked on: policy integration, science-policy-interfaces, and bottom-up approaches. But not only the generation of new knowledge and scientific evidence is crucial; research results of projects funded within the scope of FP7 can only unfold their effects on policy-making if they are efficiently disseminated to policy-makers and stakeholders.

Discussions and interviews with experts of the policy-making world, scholars and communication specialists played an important role in the RUFUS research. As to the results, the RUFUS typology can help differentiate the rural territory of the EU into meaningful units that represent the variety of rural experience. The findings on rural futures in the form of scenarios have been tested against local understandings in the case studies using visualisations leading to policy relevant findings. The outcomes of the case studies are not only empirical examples, but they have been drawn together with results from other projects to assist in reframing RUFUS' conceptual framework and understanding of policy interaction. Further on, they can be used to illustrate potentials in a way that informs policy makers at different levels from European to the regional level. Success has been measured in terms of the extent to which RUFUS was able to arrive at practical policy recommendations on policy integration; the value of the approach in enabling regional stakeholders to review and realign their own policies and actions; and the guidance that it can provide at the European level on further adjustment of the CAP.

The research team worked with stakeholders and policy makers to take forward the scientific findings on the dynamics of policy integration and rural development to identify success factors and barriers, and made recommendations about policy integration with the CAP. Therefore, dissemination plays an important role during the lifetime of the project and beyond.

The general lines of the RUFUS dissemination strategy have been the following:

- focus on provision of evidence for policies
- knowledge improvement of PhDs
- interdisciplinary information to scientists.

To build the basis of the dissemination the coordinator / manager of the project and the members of WP6 have been responsible for the communication and dissemination. Due to the small budget of RUFUS, no extra team for dissemination could be created and the dissemination was done beside the other tasks of the coordinator and WP6 members. The manager of the project participated in a SCOOP training course for dissemination to the public / policy.

These partners have been responsible for:

- the development of a corporate design for print and online materials;
- the internal and external communication;
- the identification of relevant target audiences for whom the research matters most;
- the dissemination of interim and final results.

The central focus of the RUFUS project, as an applied research project, has been to deliver useful information and scientific evidence for stakeholders and policy makers. Therefore, the delivery of this information has been prepared carefully.

- Defining issues

To focus the project issues a baseline comparative assessment of the interaction of policy regimes for rural areas has been prepared at the beginning of the project. Further on, meetings with stakeholder groups and representatives of different DGs have been organised in the first year of the RUFUS project. These meetings provided clear evidence about policy issues at stake and their importance.

- Knowledge transfer - Two-way dialogue

This led to the establishment of a continuous engagement throughout the lifetime of the RUFUS project with these policy makers and stakeholders in a dialogue about the implications of the project results and the development of practical recommendations, as well as the relevance of the project findings to the wider European territory.

Another pillar of the knowledge transfer was the external scientific panel as advocates for their countries to guide and test the project approaches and results.

- Stakeholder characterisation

Scientific community and the rest of the society are often two worlds speaking to each other without clear evidence of understanding. Thus, in order to better disseminate the scientific results of the RUFUS project to the society and European decision-makers it is essential to carefully choose the target groups that will be addressed and to determine their interests.

On the European level, several meetings and workshops with stakeholders and representatives of DGs took place. The project members met with the DGs at least once a year; with some persons even two or three times depending on the topics. Each meeting had a different topic (exploring the general interest of the policy makers in the RUFUS project; presenting first results; presenting final results from some WPs). Further on, meetings with stakeholders (Committee of the Regions, young farmers, European Parliament, Country Land and Business Association, European Association for Rural Development Institutions, European Landowner Association, COPA, European Environmental Bureau, SALAR, House of the Dutch Provinces, Assembly of European Regions, Council of European Municipalities and Regions, European Economic and Social Committee, CEDAG AISBL, East of England European Partnership, several German farmers groups members) took place in 2008 and 2010.

Tools and material

Project website contributed to the information of the wider public. The webpage presented the description of project activities, presentation of results, publications and information about events.

A flyer presenting the RUFUS project was designed at the beginning of the project.

Newsletters have been prepared every six months and sent to stakeholders and scientists for information about the RUFUS activities.

Brochures giving a short overview of the RUFUS activities and results have been published in 2009 and 2011.

Case study fact sheets describing the main characteristics of the case study areas have been designed and uploaded to the RUFUS website, introducing the case study areas.

In June 2011 the following contribution from the RUFUS project has been made to an OECD book regarding the territorial approach in rural development.

Sylvia Herrmann: 'Diversity of rural characteristics and its use for policy purposes in Europe'. In: Mantino, F. & Ranaboldo, C.: Contribution of the territorial approach to the definition of new future rural policies (INEA-OECD-RIMISP Edition)

Dissemination to science

The interdisciplinary focus of the RUFUS project is also mirrored in the scientific dissemination activities. Scientific results are published in disciplinary (geography, sociology, planning science) as well as in more cross-cutting journals.

The interdisciplinary research method played an important role in the RUFUS project. Dissemination activities have been shaped in a way that should encourage more working across disciplines on important questions where economic, social, human and ecological factors all play a part in explanations. Beside the publications in scientific journals a specific educational component has been established to support this interdisciplinary work: PhD workshops for knowledge exchange. A series of workshops aiming to address the work of PhD students engaged in the project from various disciplines have been organised. These seminars allowed to exchange specific findings and to discuss cross-disciplinary issues, underlying theories and the methodologies. Not only the RUFUS PhDs but also those working with the members of the external scientific panel have been involved. This led to the establishment of a wider network of interest on rural development among young researchers. The involvement of the PhDs also ensured future research capacity in the research field.

TRUST / RUFUS Scientific Conference, 25 - 26 August 2010, Hannover, Germany

A main dissemination event was the scientific conference in autumn 2010 in Hannover held to present the RUFUS findings to the scientific community and to discuss the results in comparison to other approaches. The International conference 'Diversity of rural areas in Europe and beyond' was organised by the RUFUS team at the Leibniz Universität Hannover (LUH) together with the research initiative 'Transdisciplinary rural development studies' (TRUST) at the LUH. The overall objectives of the conference have been:

- to work out still open scientific questions which should be covered in the coming years;
- networking between the scientific players in the research field 'rural development';
- establishing a personal network for the COST action 'Diversity of rural areas in Europe and beyond'.

Three sessions covered a wide range of topics. The session 'Characterisation of diversities of rural areas' covered a broad range of existing approaches to classify rural areas - from typologies as policy support instruments to scientific exercises testing different methods of data clustering and categorising. The question of how to separate rural and urban areas has also been an issue.

Opposite to the more top-down statistic-led approach of typologies, the second session 'Diversity in governance and participation in rural areas' was related to bottom-up, stakeholder oriented methods. In this part, the existing approaches of stakeholder inclusion, the pros and cons of these approaches as well as open research questions were discussed.

The third session 'Future oriented measures to support diversity of rural areas - a new vision on infrastructures and services' covered a topic which is still at the beginning of exploration. For the successful consideration of the diversity of regions, adapted instruments for policy implementation must be provided. The heterogeneity of regional situations, the diverse mix of strengths and weaknesses, and the differences in endogenous potentials ask for new types of instruments or a different view on existing instruments. One of the main instruments for the development of rural areas is the provision of infrastructures (technical, social) and services of general interest. Due to demographic change, migration and change of economic priorities in rural areas the current state as well as future planning of infrastructures has to be rethought. Oversized technical infrastructures have to be adapted. Social infrastructures often do no longer fit with the needs of the citizens in the region. Ecological infrastructures often only exist for compensation reasons. In this situation a new view on infrastructures in general and especially their (possible) interaction is needed. Initial research approaches and first concepts were presented during the conference.

The following papers have been presented by the RUFUS project:

- S. Herrmann: Introduction to RUFUS and the workshop
- A.-K. Baecklund: Diversity of policy integration - Tentative results from the RUFUS project
- J. Scholz, S. Herrmann: RUFUS typology of rural areas
- P. Verburg, D. van Berkel: RUFUS map of potentials of rural areas
- Lovett: Visualisation and participation
- S. Elbe, V. Nadin: Conclusion of findings -open research questions.

Several presentations to diverse groups of scientist (especially to female researchers) have been given to promote the idea of integrated research in the SSH area (see list of dissemination activities).

Further on, brochures and scientific publications have been produced. Another source for dissemination to science was the RUFUS website.

RUFUS discussion paper 2008-1: Nadin, V.; van Nes, A.; Tan, W., Position Paper: Comparison of policy objectives relevant to rural development
RUFUS discussion paper 2010-2: Haaren, C. von, The RUFUS common understanding and use of core terms
RUFUS discussion paper 2010-4: Scholz, J.; Herrmann, S., Rural regions in Europe. A new typology showing the diversity of European rural regions.
RUFUS discussion paper 2011-3: Akkie van Nes, Mechanisms and procedures for the distribution of EU CAP funding in the case study countries.

- Rufus scientific papers (not peer-reviewed)

Rural Regions in Europe. A new typology based on a multi-sectoral point of view, Scholz, J. and Herrmann, S., Proceedings of Conference 'Integrated Assessment of Agriculture and Sustainable Development (AgSAP)', March, 2009, Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands
Rural Regions in Europe. A new typology based on regional development potentials., Scholz, J. and Herrmann, S., Proceeding of Conference 'European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE)', Ljubljana, Slovenia, 29 June - 2 July 2009
Realizing rural futures. RUFUS (Rural Future Networks): EU funded FP7 project, Van Nes, A. and Tan, W., The Architecture Annual 2007-2008, Delft University of Technology, Rotterdam 2009 , p.76-81
Understanding European regional diversity - Lessons learned from case studies. Baecklund, A-K., Schenk, A., Research Report, 2011, Department of Human Geography, Lund University. (open access).

Cooperation with other projects / programmes

Contacts with several other European projects (e.g. RUDI, CAP-IRE, RURALJOB, RURACT, CURE, DERREG) have been established. A specifically close cooperation was established with RUDI (KBBE), CAP-IRE (SSH), and DERREG (SSH).

The project manager presented RUFUS in the CAP-IRE meeting in Brussels (October 2009) as well as in the DERREG Policy Workshop in Brussels (March 2011).

During the RUFUS conference 'Diversity of rural areas in Europe and beyond' 2010 in Hannover project coordinators or partners from the FP7 research projects DERREG, PRIMA, and INTANGIBLE ASSETS, as well as from the ESPON project EDORA presented their results. An intensive discussion about the possibilities to combine these diverse views on rural areas took place and resulted in common publications and the proposal for a COST action.

Cooperation with experts supporting the dissemination

The panels working with RUFUS offered both an excellent network for dissemination.

External scientific panel (ESP)

The ESP was a substantial part of the scientific work area of the RUFUS project. The ESP actively contributed to the results of the different WPs of the project. RUFUS involved scientists from South and Eastern European countries in an ESP. The commitment of members of the panel will be to read proposals and outputs from the project, to support the WPs with the data gathering in their home countries, and to advise on findings and recommendations for their specific countries. The ESP supported the wider dissemination of project results into other research, professional and political networks related to rural development. They also enabled a discussion about and the transfer of the results to their countries and regions.

Scientific advisory board (SAB)

The board mainly advised on scientific issues related to the project. The SAB member Elena Saraceno helped to establish a close connection to the European policy makers. Together with the SAB member Susan Baker already two other applications for SSH projects have been elaborated.

Further dissemination is planned in the following way:

The time after the end of the project will be especially dedicated to additional scientific publications. Based on the presentations and discussions during the last years RUFUS scientific conference 'Diversity of rural areas in Europe and beyond' three different special issues are in preparation in scientific journals.

Planned scientific publications resulting from results of the RUFUS project and the RUFUS conference

Using an agent-based model as a workshop dialogue tool: understanding rural development trade-offs in a Dutch case study, Derek van Berkel, Environmental modelling and software
Die Diversität ländlicher Räume in Deutschland und ihre Steuerung, Manuel Döllefeld, Janita Volkers, Christina von Haaren, Sebastian Elbe, Sylvia Herrmann, Johanna Scholz, Berichte über Landwirtschaft (in German)
Policy integration for territorial management and planning of rural regions, Vincent Nadin, Christina von Haaren, Ann-Katrin Bäcklund, Anett Schenk, Sebastian Elbe European Planning Studies
Policy integration in rural development: a comparison of Somerset, England and Kop van Noord Holland, the Netherlands, Akkie van Nes, Vincent Nadin, Alex Wandl, Kim van Klooster, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Application of the RUFUS typology for European policy, Sylvia Herrmann, Johanna Scholz, Manuel Döllefeld, Regional Studies
The delineation between urban and rural areas and the policy implications, Thiemen Boll, Christina von Haaren, Vincent Nadin, Johanna Scholz
Planning, design and governance implications of rural, intermediate and urban regions, Alex Wandl, V. Nadin, C.v.Haaren Planning and design

Special editions by the RUFUS partners

Sylvia Herrmann and Andrew Copus (Eds): SI European typologies and their use for sustainable rural development. International Journal of Sustainable Development(SI confirmed)
(Special Issue of the session 'Characterisation of diversities of rural areas', RUFUS conference 'Diversities of rural areas in Europe and beyond', August 2010)

RUFUS typology of rural areas - methodology, Johanna Scholz, Sylvia Herrmann, Manuel Döllefeld, Andrew Lovett
An assessment of rural development potentials at the European scale, Peter Verburg, Derek van Berkel
Comparison of typologies, Sylvia Herrmann, Andrew Copus, Johanna Scholz

Christina von Haaren, Christian Albert, Joan Nougera-Tur (Eds): Future oriented measures to support diversity of rural areas - an new vision on infrastructures and services. Planning practice and research (SI confirmed)
(Special Issue of the session 'Future oriented measures to support diversity of rural areas -a new vision on infrastructures and services', RUFUS conference 'Diversities of rural areas in Europe and beyond', August 2010)

Integration of ecosystem services in rural planning, Christina von Haaren, Christian Albert

Ann-Katrin Baecklund, Anett Schenk (Eds): Diversity in governance and participation in rural areas. European urban and regional studies (SI to be confirmed)
(Special issue of the session 'Diversity in governance and participation in rural areas', RUFUS conference 'Diversities of rural areas in Europe and beyond', August 2010)

RUFUS -diversity of policy integration, Ann-Katrin Baecklund
Visualisation and participation, Andrew Lovett

Displaying the diversity of rural territories combining top-down and bottom-up methods, Sylvia Herrmann, Ann-Katrin Baecklund.

Actions to inform stakeholders and policy makers

-Delivery of a policy brief to inform the wider public and the policy about the RUFUS results.
- Laymen report to the case study areas in the national languages to inform about the RUFUS results.

Application for future research projects

Further on, the coordinator and the partners will undertake different actions to use the scientific basis created in the RUFUS project in future research and implementation projects.

The following actions are planned:

- Submission of a proposal to FP7 SSH call 2012 concentrating on the cohesion of European regions and the necessary instruments.

- Participation in a bid for the Open Research Area (ORA) for the Social Sciences call 2011/2012 together with University of Birmingham, Wageningen University and University of Lille (30 September 2011). Topic: Knowledge as a function to connect the economic and the social.
- Cooperation with DG Regio to derive a project related to the support of rural resilience.
- Planned participation in an application for the first call of the ERANET Ruragri (Spring 2012).

Widening the network created during the RUFUS project

- Submission of a proposal to the EU COST action with the title 'Diversities of rural European areas as key to encounter societal challenges - assessment, analysis, and planning' in autumn 2011 including partners from 10 countries (including ESP members). This COST action aims to strengthen and widen the network laid in the RUFUS project for the topic of integrated rural development. Several presenters to the RUFUS scientific conference in August 2010 in Hannover very strongly supported this approach.

Objectives of the proposal:

The diversity of rural areas in Europe increasingly raises the interest of policy makers and stakeholders. Several political papers point out that this diversity has to be considered to develop more efficient and accepted policy programmes and instruments. Scientifically based tools and methods are needed to deal with this complex problem. Several research projects, in different European (Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), FP7, ESPON) and national research programmes, deal with these questions. Most are not connected to each other. The action seeks to connect them through targeted actions to derive commonly used libraries of information, and specific dissemination activities. Further on, a set of methods will be delivered combining top-down and bottom-up approaches. A gap analysis for further research and the formulation of an integrated research concept for diversified rural development will be provided. This will contribute to the continuity of European research and will consider the needs of stakeholder and policy.

- Further on, the project manager PD Dr Sylvia Herrmann attended a conference in Italy organised by INEA and RIMISP with the aim to establish - with the help of OECD - a broad international network for rural development. RUFUS became a member of this group and the manager will attend further meetings.
- Presentation of RUFUS results by the project manager PD Dr Sylvia Herrmann during the final conference of the FP7 project PRIMA 'Evaluating decentralised policies: Challenges, evaluation techniques and policy impacts' in Clermont-Ferrand (27 - 28 October 2011).
- The cooperation with other SSH projects during the lifetime of the RUFUS project resulted in a close cooperation with other universities in Europe for future European / international project bids.

Final Report Summary - RUFUS (Rural Future Networks)

Diese Seite teilen

Herunterladen