by Maria de Nazaré Oliveira Roca
Introduction
Conceptual framework and methodology
Policy framework for agricultural and rural development
Socio-economic and gender-related conditions of rural youth14
Mechanisms for increasing the involvement of young men and women in rural development
Concluding remarks and suggestions
References
Annex
In Europe, rural society continues to play an important role. Europeans feel a strong connection to their rural heritage. In the last few decades, parallel to the process of European economic and political integration, traditional rural values, habits, arts and crafts have been revitalized out of a need to preserve and enhance both national cultural identity and regional specificity.
The natural receivers and transmitters of this heritage, the rural youth, have become an increasingly rare added value. In most rural regions, the number of young people has decreased as a consequence of negative trends in natural demographic growth, and of out-migration and/or emigration of both young men and women. The situation has been aggravated by a variety of causes related to social, economic, cultural, demographic and geographic/environmental conditions, both internal and external. This has contributed to increased disparities in the standards of living and economies of rural and urban areas.
Over the last decades, traditional European agricultural landscapes have been changing substantially or even disappearing due to processes such as counter-urbanization, establishment of secondary residences, diffusion of industry and services, commuting, telework and telecommuting, growth in capital intensive and labour extensive agriculture related to an increasing importance of agribusiness, increasing pluriactivity and income diversification among rural households, and the growing economic and social value of rural areas that can produce organic foods and/or provide peace and refuge.
Environmental degradation has also become a common feature of rural Europe because of the under-utilization or abandonment of cultivable land as well as excessive use of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation. Threats to biodiversity have become ever more evident. Viable solutions to social, economic and environmental problems and sustainable development of rural Europe are increasingly jeopardized due to the decreasing presence of young women and men as the most productive, innovative and flexible members of society. The establishment and implementation of mechanisms to promote gender-equitable involvement of youth in rural development has become a priority of the Member States of the European Union (EU). Lessons learned from their experience at policy and practical levels could be useful for the European Countries in Transition (ECTs), where rural development has been particularly affected by a lack of productive involvement by young men and women. This study has three main objectives:
· to highlight socio-economic and gender-related problems and policy issues regarding the status and role of rural youth in the EU;· to identify existing mechanisms for increasing the involvement of youth in rural development; and
· to assess the potential transfer of positive experiences from market economy countries with important rural sectors to the ECTs.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of clarification, the following defines some key terms used throughout this study.
Rural Youth
Rural youth are considered all young people who live in a rural area. This includes not only young farmers (full-time and part-time) but all other young women and men who either make their livings from other rural activities, commute to work in urban areas, are unemployed or are students attending school in or outside rural areas.
Depending upon the statistics, the upper age limit for young people can extend from ages 24 to 35.2 For this study, young people includes those from ages 15 to 24 who are eligible to receive financial support from the EU Structural Funds that promote mechanisms to prevent youth outmigration or attract young men and women to rural areas.3
2 The limit of age 24 is often used in demographic, education and labour-related statistics, but it extends to age 29 in sociological and economic studies. The ages of 30 or even 35 also can be included, because of increasing economic dependency of the young on their parents due to long-term youth unemployment and a growing need to extend education and professional training as the demand for unskilled or low-skilled labour decreases and the need for highly skilled labour grows.3 Structural Funds, the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF) promote economic and social cohesion among countries/regions of the EU. For the ESF, the age of eligibility is 15 to 24 years and includes both rural and urban youth. For the EAGGF, the age of eligibility is 15 to 35 or 40 years, depending on the country, and includes only farmers.
Rural areas
There is no common definition of rural area among the EU Member States, which makes cross-country analyses difficult. Rural-urban boundaries are not always clear in contemporary Europe because of increasing pluriactivity in many rural areas, and because agriculture often is no longer the exclusive or even the main source of income for the population. The pluriactivity of the rural population has been brought about by the growth of manufacturing industries and producer services away from urban areas, made possible by the introduction of new technologies that decrease the need for physical proximity in processes of product design, production, management, commercialization, etc. A diffusion of small enterprises in traditionally agricultural areas represents the highest degree of agricultural-industrial and rural-urban integration. Rural labour costs are lower and decrease when part-time activities are inter-linked in the labour market (Mingione and Pugliese, 1987:92).
Rurality
The rural-urban dichotomy is linked to the controversial concept of rurality. Even though village morphology has been preserved in various degrees, rural civilization has not because of the penetration of urban activities and lifestyles. The rural milieu is no longer a place where life is different, but a place where people choose to live a particular type of modern lifestyle. This is the so-called 'neorurality' (Eizner, 1996: 374).
The intensity and effects of economic and social transformations have been quite different in various parts of rural Europe. According to the EU study 'Europe 2000+', the five categories of rural areas include those: (1) located near strongly urbanized zones; (2) with highly intensive tourism areas; (3) with developed pluriactivity; (4) predominantly agricultural including (4a) highly productive, modern agriculture and (4b) low productive, traditional agriculture; and (5) with reduced accessibility and high level of population ageing. (Comissão Europeia, 1995:119-121). The notion of rurality is hardly applicable in its traditional sense, even in categories (4) and (5) because of modernization of agriculture, improvements in communications, penetration of mass media and lowering or disappearance of rural activities and culture because of population ageing.
Rural development
Rural development is a process of structural changes in the increasingly complex economic, social, cultural, technological and environmental spheres of the rural milieu, which aims at improving standards of living and quality of life in an equitable, sustainable and efficient way. In order to achieve such an objective, it is crucial that all social groups in rural areas, including the young and old, women and men, be involved and participate actively. Rational use and management of endogenous natural resources, economic capacities and human capital needs to be ensured. Rural development policies should valorize and make efficient use of specific endogenous and potentially competitive advantages, diversify employment options and enhance entrepreneurial and other innovative activities in all spheres of life. The conceptualization, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development instruments/mechanisms should include policy decision-making at macro, intermediate and local levels.
Gender asymmetries
Gender asymmetries means inequities and/or imbalances between women and men in age composition, social status, educational levels, employment and other economic opportunities, and participation in decision-making. Such asymmetries have traditionally been mostly at the expense of women. Even when the rural world is undergoing socio-economic transformations, the gaps between female and male members of society tend to be the last ones narrowed or eliminated.
METHODOLOGY
This analysis was limited to countries with regions and rural areas (i) with a considerable agricultural sector and (ii) eligible to benefit from the EU Structural Funds under the EU Objectives Numbers 1 and 5b.4 This includes Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece, most of which suffer from development constraints and have strong dependency on the measures and programmes of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and EU Structural Funds. This selection was determined by the fact that the ECTs - some of which are already candidates for EU membership - will become beneficiaries of the EU Structural Funds aimed at the EU Objectives Number 1 and Number 5b. The per caput GDP in these countries is considerably lower than the upper limit of eligibility for Structural Funds and in all except Slovenia, the employment rate in agriculture is higher than 10 percent. Furthermore, there are similarities in the socio-economic and gender-related conditions between the EU regions presented in this study and the rural regions in the ECTs.
Since most national rural development policies in the presented countries and regions are linked closely to the existing EU policies for agricultural, social and regional development, as well as to the use of the corresponding EU Structural Funds, the basic source of information in Section 2 (Policy Framework for Agricultural and Rural Development) is a selection of EU documents. In the analyses in Section 3 (Socio-Economic and Gender-Related Conditions of Rural Youth), the basic territorial unit is the Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units (NUTS) II.5 The EU statistical data suitable for cross-country and cross-regional demographic and socio-economic analyses are available only at the level of the NUTS II.6 For the purpose of this study, a selection of both rural and predominantly rural NUTS II was made, based on combinations of the following criteria:
· at least ten percent of the region's active population is employed in agriculture;· the region is included under EU Objective Number 1; and/or
· the region has rural zones included under EU Objective Number 5b characterized by (i) population density of less than 100 per km2 and (ii) a per caput GDP equal to or less than 90 percent of the EU average.
4 EC Objective Number 1 is to provide assistance for structural adjustment to developmentally lagging regions, mostly with GDP lower than 75 percent of the EU average. EU Objective Number 5b is to diversify areas characterized by low population density, high agricultural employment, low agricultural income levels, depopulation trends, sensibility to the evolution of the agricultural sector, and a highly peripheral position in relation to major urban centres.5 NUTS I are territorial divisions that correspond to planning areas such as the German Lander or British Standard Regions. NUTS II are the key reference for political administration and territorial planning and management. They correspond, in most cases, to specific regions into which the countries are divided. NUTS III are for analysing specific questions, such as employment pockets in crisis, declining industrial zones, etc. (Labasse, 1994). The list of the selection of NUTS II in Finland, Ireland (the whole country is a NUT II), Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece, grouped by EC regions, is in the Annex.
6 Analysis is based on data from EUROSTAT, the central statistical service of the EU.
In Section 4 (Mechanisms for Increasing the Involvement of Young Women and Men in Rural Development), the description and analysis of the mechanisms for increasing the involvement of the young in rural development are based on documents of the EU Commission's Structural Funds which are the most important source of cofinancing such mechanisms.
Agricultural and rural development in countries/regions selected for this study depend heavily on EU funding that is based on EU sectorial or transsectorial policies devoted to agriculture and social and economic cohesion among countries and regions. Such strong linkages between national and supra-national development policies call for constant and increasing adoption, adjustment and modification of policy goals and measures at all levels. The signing of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht, February 1992) added a final touch to the strengths of EU linkages, especially for the countries/regions eligible for the application of the EU's structural and Cohesion Funds.7
7 The European Union Treaty set up a Cohesion Fund to finance construction of major transport networks and environmental protection projects in the four least developed Member States (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) and to aid in efforts to fulfil the criteria of convergence toward European monetary union, related to price stability, public finances, exchange rates and interest rates. The fulfillment of such criteria implies application of restrictive monetary and fiscal measures that directly affect public investments.
The following section reviews the changes, implementations and linkages of EC policies and national policies dealing with agriculture and rural development, with reference to rural youth when applicable.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
The initial objectives of the CAP, established by the 1957 Treaty of Rome, were to increase productivity, raise the standards of living of farmers, stabilize prices, and guarantee supplies and reasonable prices to consumers (Descheemaekere, 1992). The price guarantee was the main instrument adopted to achieve these objectives.
By the mid-1980s, it was evident that the major result, as well as the major problem, of the CAP was surplus production, and that it had to be subjected to a substantial reform. In 1985, the European Commission established a series of regulatory mechanisms intended to enhance the effectiveness of the CAP prior to its reform in 1992 (Descheemaekere, 1992; Ilbery, 1994).
However, the initial effects of these mechanisms were not satisfactory. They were based less on reduction of guaranteed prices for subsidized products and more on the reduction of production itself through cessation of agricultural activity or re-conversion of surplus.
The impact of these measures was varied. The peripheral agricultural regions of the EU suffered the most negative consequences, such as the abandonment of farmland and consequent environmental degradation, decreased value of the rural landscape and out-migration. Out-migration, especially of the young, was induced partly by the extensification of agricultural activities and, hence, diminishing job opportunities.
The CAP Reform was introduced in 1992 with the following objectives:
· maintain the EU position as a major agricultural producer and exporter by promoting its farmers' competitiveness at home and in external markets;8· adjust the level of production to market demand;
· channel support to farmers' income where it is most needed;
· encourage farmers to remain attached to the land in order to retain rural population; and
· enhance ecological balance by encouraging environmentally sound activities, conservation of traditional rural landscapes and by cofinancing non-agricultural use of farmland (tourism, recreation, hunting, etc.).9
8 The EU is responsible for one-fifth of the world's total exchange of goods. Since the 1994 Uruguay Round of the GATT, there has been a liberalization of customs tariffs on goods and services. Today the World Trade Organization (WTO) regulates agreements and to a great extent sets the terms of the CAP and, thus, indirectly sets the agricultural policies of the Member States.9 The final two objectives are the basis of so-called 'settlement agriculture'.
Various measures have been introduced to achieve the above objectives as well as to reinforce the mechanisms linking subsidies to farmland and the quality of the produce rather than the size of the yield. The measures imposed by the present CAP Reform have resulted in the diversification of rural activities which have become a major orientation in rural development policy. By promoting an extensive use of farm lands and competitiveness in agriculture, the CAP Reform has contributed to lower employment in the sector.
The effects have differed in various regions of the EU. Rural areas in the developed EU regions with small employment in agriculture due to intensive modernization have been less affected by such policies than rural areas that still have important agricultural sectors. The implementation of measures in favour of settlement agriculture are intended for the latter areas, though, paradoxically, these areas suffer most from population ageing and exodus of youth.
A forthcoming CAP Reform, proposed in Agenda 2000 of the European Commission, should further the deregulation and competition in agriculture that were initiated in the 1992 CAP Reform. There is a persistent agricultural dualism in the EU. Intensive and market-oriented production in more developed and most favoured areas is in sharp contrast with marginalized, locally oriented production in less developed areas with low employment opportunities (Ilbery,1994: 290-291). The establishment of the European Single Market in 1993, which removed barriers to the circulation of capital and goods among EU Member states, has meant considerable disadvantages to countries/regions with high production costs and market prices. The quality requirements for agricultural products, a condition for their entrance into the external market, have contributed to further increases in production costs. The European Single Market has raised inequalities among rural areas within the EU, especially between less developed and more developed countries and regions. This agricultural dualism has been reinforced by the globalization of the economy because only the already competitive areas can meet new, globally imposed challenges efficiently.10
10 Adjustments induced by globalization have meant reductions in employment because of technological improvements in agriculture, forestry and fishery industries, and consequently contributed to rural out-migration. Meanwhile, new enterprises and residents have been attracted to some rural areas thanks to competitive and comparative advantages (OECD, 1996).
National Agricultural Policies11
11 The discussion in this section is inspired mainly by the article Entre les constraintes des marchés et les heterogeneités structurelles des agricultures nationales (Perraud and Bonnet, 1996).
Member states maintain the autonomy of their national agricultural policies through differential use of EU financial support, complimentary national versus EC measures, and implementation of active policies in specific spheres, such as those related to social and fiscal benefits for farmers. In addition, Member States devise their own policy strategies for the application of the EU policy measures that are particularly favourable to national interests.
The scope and financial strength of national agricultural policies vary greatly among countries. For example, France's budget covers all areas of national agricultural policy, including modernization and renewal of the production system, and offers higher financial assistance to young farmers than to other farmers. In contrast, the Italian agricultural policy is determined regionally and has been marked by weakness in implementation and by a lack of transparency. The restricted role of Italy's central government probably limits the capacity to implement a more coherent policy, including ensuring greater benefits from the EU funding to farmers. Such a situation has been compensated to some extent by direct aid to market-oriented agriculture, in particular through direct payments for products. In Spain, agricultural policy promotes modernization of the sector and provides financial aid to investments. Since joining the EU, the budget for the agricultural sector has been restructured.
EU Rural Development Strategy
The EU Rural Development Strategy (launched in the 1980s) aims at providing promotion and support to non-agricultural activities, such as creation of small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), and developing and/or strengthening local craftsmanship, traditional agricultural products and fisheries, and rural tourism. Its priorities are to:
· revitalize the CAP, through attempting to make agricultural production meet demand, as well as by funding the modernization of farms and assisting young farmers in starting their own businesses;· encourage non-agricultural rural activities, particularly through employment creation, financial support to new enterprises, elaboration of environmental protection projects and developing tourism;
· improve infrastructure; and
· finance educational and training programmes for employment in crafts and SMEs. (Comissão Europeia, 1992)
The instruments established to support these priorities include the Structural Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the EU LEADER (Links among Rural Development Actions) Programme which was set up to promote local development in rural areas of regions covered under Objectives Number 1 and Number 5b.12
12 LEADER is discussed further in Section 4: Mechanisms for Involvement of Young Women and Men in Rural Development.
EU Regional Development Policy
Some EU policies intended to promote regional development explicitly address rural areas, specifically the valorization of their economic potentials and the elimination or narrowing of developmental gaps among them, mainly through use of the ERDF.
For rural areas included under the EU Objective 1, the main measures are diversification and reorientation of agricultural production, promotion of quality local products, village rehabilitation, conservation of rural heritage, tourism investments, irrigation, financial engineering for manufacturing and commercialization, etc. The same rural areas also benefit indirectly from the ERDF through direct investments in production, basic infrastructure and environmental protection, as well as through support to services for SMEs, research and technology development, social infrastructure and services (health and education) and professional training.
Support provided through the ERDF to rural areas included under the EU Objective Number 5b mostly relates to the creation of SMEs, development of the craft and tourism industries, environmental protection, establishment of infrastructure in favour of new employment opportunities (including use of new communications technology), programmes for the sensibilization of development agents and assistance in the design of projects for spatial and/or sectorial development.
Regional Development Policies Of Member States
Since the 1980s, the objectives of regional development policies have undergone radical changes in most of the Member States - from including income and employment redistribution to incentives for structural change aimed at diversification and increasing the potential for economic growth (Lorenzi, 1996).
The central countries have reduced financial aid to regional development policies in the context of budgetary restrictions. The peripheral countries of the south, as well as Ireland, have maintained or even increased their regional development expenditures. This has been supported by the EU Structural Funds (especially in relation to Objective Number 1) and by liberalization of conditions for increasing competitiveness. However, as stressed earlier, convergence criteria will continue to restrict public investments in regional development, including those intended for rural areas. (Comissão Europeia, 1994a).
EU Social Policy13
13 This section relies on analyses presented in the EU publication Europa Social (Comissão Europeia, 1991)
EU social policy is covered by the European Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of the Workers and the European Social Fund (ESF). The ESF, established in 1960, is the main instrument, covering the entire EU with the following objectives:
· combat long-term unemployment and encourage the professional insertion of youth (EU Objective Number 3); and· help workers adapt to industrial transformation and the evolution of production systems through preventive measures (EU Objective Number 4), in less developed regions (EU Objective Number 1), in regions affected by industrial decline (EU Objective Number 2) and in fragile rural areas (EU Objective Number 5b).
Activities funded by the ESF are normally coordinated with interventions financed by the ERDF. A good example of such coordination in rural areas is the Portuguese programme Local Employment Initiatives which works for the establishment, implementation and consolidation of small productive initiatives based on endogenous resources, as well as for meeting local needs by increasing employment opportunities for young people in search of a first job, and for the unemployed youth. The ESF's Support for Crafts Programme in rural Portugal is intended to encourage professional training and creation of job opportunities and to encourage the transfer of knowledge between artisan masters and their young apprentices.
A number of EU initiatives, including YOUTHSTART (see Section 4: Mechanisms for Increasing the Involvement of Young Women and Men in Rural Development) are also financed, entirely or partially, by the ESF.
Converging toward Monetary Union
Rural areas with insufficient or inadequate social infrastructure and services have been adversely affected by the application of governmental measures meant to fulfil the criteria for a single currency for the EU. These measures have more to do with economic efficiency than with socio-economic equity. "A country involved in a monetary union cannot pursue a policy designed to reduce employment when its partners are involved in pursuing policies designed primarily to reduce the level of inflation. If the country wants to pursue its preferred policy stance, it must first of all win the political battle over the objectives of economic policy" (Eintner,1994:15).
Although all EU Member States included in this study (except Greece) have fulfilled the convergence criteria, income and employment disparities among regions in these countries actually increased from 1983 to 1995 (Comissão Europeia, 1997).
In the above context, the less developed Member States will continue to depend heavily on the EU's Structural and Cohesion Funds, as well as on private investments and initiatives promoting development, in order to meet population needs, particularly in rural areas.
14 This section relies on statistical data from "Regions 1996" (EUROSTAT) and on information contained in the EU series "Regional Development Studies".
The exodus and unemployment of youth are often called the most striking features of contemporary rural Europe. There is a volume of literature with cross-country and cross-regional analyses of rural development issues in Europe, but an overwhelming lack of concrete, empirical information on rural youth, or on specific socio-economic and gender-related issues. Even in official EU publications, few studies or reports focus on socio-economic issues related to rural youth and even fewer touch upon gender-related dimensions.
In view of the above limitations, this section largely addresses demographic, cultural, social and economic characteristics of the entire population, while rural youth (female and/or male) is explicitly addressed to a lesser extent, depending on the available data. Also, geographical and environmental conditions are reviewed, as well as the organizational/institutional aspects of rural development, particularly (when data exists) those that directly affect young women and men. As mentioned in Section 1 (Conceptual Framework and Methodology), a selection of NUTS II was made to present the situation in rural areas, since there is not enough data for cross-country analyses.
GEOGRAPHICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
All selected NUTS II are located in the following EU Regions where there are considerable geographical constraints: the Atlantic Arc, the Western and Central Mediterranean, the Continental Diagonal, the Alpine and Perialpine Arc, and the Nordic Regions (Comissão Europeia, 1995: 171). Each of these areas faces considerable geographical constraints (mountainous, interior or peripheral), which are in part responsible for low population densities, the predominance of traditional agricultural systems, weak transportation and communication networks, and overall isolation.
The natural environment is also adverse. The soils are poor and fragile due to unfavourable climatic conditions (especially irregular rainfall in the Mediterranean region and the Continental Diagonal) and to specific relief and rock formations. This allows only poor agriculture and contributes to soil erosion which is often quite severe due to past over-exploitation or present day abandonment.15
15 The rural areas of Finland suffer from soil and landscape degradation mainly caused by livestock.
Forests that cover vast zones of these rural areas have suffered from fires and inappropriate selection for afforestation (e.g. pine trees in Northern Portugal and eucalyptus trees in Portugal and southern Spain which are both exogenous species that spread rapidly and prevent other trees from growing).
Scarcity and irregularity of water resources and inadequate water management have been serious problems in the Mediterranean region and the Continental Diagonal, constraining market-oriented agriculture which requires irrigation schemes.
On the other hand, these isolated conditions have helped preserve the natural and cultural landscapes, which are still undervalued but certainly constitute enormous potential for tourism and leisure activities. However, low population densities and depopulation (particularly the exodus of young people) create difficulties in using these potentials.
Low accessibility in terms of transportation and communication is another common characteristic of all selected NUTS II, particularly in the rural areas. The most adequate solution to this basic problem seems to be the improvement of links with those local urban centres that are best served in terms of national and international road and railway networks. This could, in turn, enhance diversification of economic activities. However, if there are no dynamic small or medium-sized cities, the probability of further migration from the region, especially of young women and men, will remain great.
DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES16
16 Data analysed in this sub-section are presented in Table 1 in the Annex.
In most of the selected NUTS II, population density is between 50 and 100 per km2. In one-third of the regions (mainly the Spanish and Portuguese interior and Finnish regions) densities are very low (fewer than 50 per km2). Regions with population density considerably above the EU average (116 per km2), are those where urban centres are located, such as Napoli in Campania, Bari in Puglia, Palermo in Sicilia, all in Italy, and Porto in northern Portugal. Lowest densities are typically related to adverse natural and environmental conditions and to low accessibility.
Rural areas generally have stagnant population growth. Some rural areas, such as the Interior and the Açores and Madeira in Portugal, and northwest and central Spain, are experiencing demographic decline.
During the last ten years, these regions experienced a decrease in inter-regional out-migration and an increase in intra-regional migration from rural areas to small and medium urban centres. There also has been an exodus of young people from rural areas and the counter-flow of an older, retired population, especially in the interior regions of Spain and France and the Atlantic Arc Region.
Out-migration of youth is much more intense in more distant and/or isolated rural areas still heavily dependent on agriculture than in rural areas close to urban centres. In the case of relative proximity of urban centres, out-migration has been replaced (at least partially) with commuting (e.g. northern Portugal and rural Austria), or there has been diversification of income combining part-time farming with employment in industry or services.
However, evidence shows the propensity of the young to migrate from rural areas is tending to decrease because of the urban employment crisis, and because some young women and men today seem to prefer to count on their parents' support and search for employment opportunities locally. It is likely this will further increase unemployment of rural young people in the near future.
In all regions, there are more young men than young women. Such differences are probably even more accentuated in rural areas, since it has been evidenced that young women, particularly those with higher education, are more likely to out-migrate than men. This has occurred in southern Europe and Ireland (Braithwaite, 1994:14).
It is also worth noting that rural regions of southern Spain and southern Italy have experienced significant immigration from North Africa, consisting mostly of young men who are seasonal agriculture workers.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC SPHERE17
17 Data analysed in this sub-section are presented in Table 2 in the Annex.
Employment
All rural areas in the selected regions have experienced a decrease in employment in the agricultural sector throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Nevertheless, according to 1993 data, most still depend heavily on agriculture. In fact, the agriculture sector exceeds 20 percent in regions such as Centro and Açores in Portugal, Galicia in Spain and all Greek regions.
The ageing of the farm population in almost all areas is illustrated by the fact that the percentage of farmers under age 35 who manage a farm-holding is less than 10 percent and continues to decrease. The farms managed by young farmers are significantly larger than those run by older farmers (Comissão Europeia, 1996:3).
The participation of young women in the rural (agricultural and non-agricultural) labour force is less than that of young men, mainly because of lack of opportunities for rural young women and cultural constraints. It may also be the case that women's farm work is not being adequately recorded in the statistics (Braithwaite, 1994).
The selected regions are also characterized by pluriactivity, a major feature in the European agricultural sector today. Young farmers tend to opt for part-time farming when they replace their parents, particularly in the peripheral regions (Comissão Europeia, 1996:4). The non-agricultural sources of income for farm households range from traditional rural manufacturing industries and services to new dynamic activities such as agrotourism and producer services. In all regions of Portugal, in central and southern Spain, northern and central Greece, and in Ireland, the share of part-time farmers is between 30 and 50 percent, while in inland France, north and northcentral Spain, southern Italy and southern Greece, their share remains between 10 and 30 percent (Comissão Europeia, 1995: 115).
Parallel to decreasing agricultural employment, there has been an increase in self-employment and the creation of new jobs in the SMEs. The share of SMEs in total industrial employment is particularly high in the Spanish Galicia (94.3 percent), the Portuguese Centro (90.3 percent), the Austrian Burgenland (95.1 percent), the Finnish Ita-Soumi (91.4 percent) and the French Limousin (84 percent).18
18 ENSR, 1995:130
In the period 1988-1992, employment in most of the regions increased in the industrial SMEs (i.e. those with ten to 99 employees). Furthermore, the SMEs have registered higher employment growth than the larger enterprises in all regions, except in some Greek regions and the French Poitou-Charantes and Corsica. At the same time, micro-enterprises have had even better performance regarding employment than the SMEs in all regions, except in Galicia and Murcia (Spain) and the inland French regions.
However, the growing importance of SMEs as generators of employment does not compensate for the high unemployment among the young in the selected regions, especially in those covered under EU Objective Number 1. This is because there is a crisis in the traditional manufacturing industry diffused in rural areas and largely linked to agriculture and/or cheap labour, as well as a decline in traditional activities, such as retail commerce and educational and health services. There is evidence that unemployment rates for young women have been higher than for young men. This partly explains why young women leave rural areas more than men (Braithwaite, 1994).
AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES
The share of agriculture in the GDP and in the value-added in all of the studied regions is decreasing.
However, in almost all rural areas, there has been an increase in the average size and a decrease in the number of farm holdings due to abandonment of agriculture and/or land consolidation. These processes have been more intense in northern than southern regions, mostly because of the differences in traditional inheritance and property rights that have led to a higher degree of fragmentation in the south. Land consolidation is a consequence of agricultural modernization and specialization. Small and medium farm holdings are frequently bought by large (often foreign) firms. The same occurs with small and medium food processing enterprises that cannot fulfil the EU norms and which tend to become absorbed by large distribution chains.
Land concentration in the Mediterranean regions and inland Spain has been an obstacle to the creation of new enterprises, largely due to the small middle class. Nevertheless, in some of these areas, especially in the coastal regions, considerable technical improvements were undertaken in production (e.g. irrigation), commercialization and marketing, especially in industrial agriculture and horticulture.
There also has been a general increase in the ha/employed ratio as a result of extensification, which explains, in part, the increase in unemployment.
Although some improvements took place in all studied regions, their agricultural productivity and efficiency are generally low.
To counter these trends requires a high degree of professional training in the use of new agro-production and management techniques. However, the ageing farm population and a decreasing young population make such requirements difficult to meet, although EC cofinanced training programmes are normally available in a considerable number of rural areas.
FINANCIAL AND LEGAL ISSUES WHEN STARTING NEW AGRICULTURAL SMEs19
19 This sub-section is based on an EC Commission Report on young farmers and problems of reactivating European agriculture (Comissão Europeia, 1996)
Financing is the major problem young farmers face.
Limited financial resources, high land costs and high taxes often prevent young farmers from purchasing land. Even inherited farms can present obstacles, e.g. unless all heirs decide to continue with the agricultural activity, they must divide the land which can lead to discord, or the person who continues the agricultural activities must use revenue to pay off other heirs rather than re-investing in the enterprise itself.
Furthermore, production licences for certain farming activities now have market value. This aggravates the financial situation of young farmers who must buy not only the land and means of production, but also the licence to produce. Similarly, a young farmer often must restore the production potential that diminished during the previous generation's activity.
Young farmers quite frequently face difficulties in obtaining credit. Banks grant loans more easily to already established farming businesses than to unproved projects. The result is selective crediting.
When the younger generation takes over the activities, but the parents remain on the farm, the transition is difficult. This actually means that the agricultural enterprise must yield sufficiently high revenue to support two family households during a considerably long period of time (ten to 15 years). Also, in a majority of small farm enterprises, this period of transition is characterised by a strong economic dependency of the young and by a small division of responsibilities. It also can be difficult to assure adequate housing for two families, due to economic or other difficulties because of the legal constraints to new housing construction.
SOCIO-CULTURAL SPHERE20
20 Data analysed in this sub-section are presented in Table 3 in the Annex.
Education and Professional/Vocational Training
In most of the selected regions, the percentage of youth enrolled in secondary or college education is below national averages, particularly in inland and southern Spain and southern Italy. In rural areas of these regions, the educational level of the young is probably even lower than at the regional levels (NUTS II), since many young men and women move to the local and regional urban centres for secondary schooling, or leave their regions to attend colleges.
Young rural women have lower educational levels than young urban women and, in some cases, than young rural men. Such evidence is strongest for Spain, Ireland and France. In Greece, the educational levels of young women is much lower than in other rural areas of Europe because many parents feel that their daughters should only marry and have children (Braithwaite, 1994:28-29).
However, the desire to continue education is generally stronger for young rural women than young rural men, often because sons are often the heirs of parental farm holdings, thus education, when available and affordable, is the only way young rural women can improve their social status.
Professional training for rural economic activities, cofinanced by the EU Structural Funds, has been increasing since the mid-1980s. Most of these courses are organized for young people who are searching for a first job or are already unemployed. A major problem facing such initiatives is the lack of qualified trainers, particularly when the courses are in traditional rural arts and crafts. There is also a problem attracting participants who must travel long distances to the classes and often lack transportation. Young women and men who complete the courses often are not given the necessary financial or organizational support to start their own business so they leave for more prosperous rural areas or even for cities, in search of more satisfactory employment.
Fewer young rural women participate in professional training courses than young rural men, mainly because of family burdens and/or household responsibilities. Their participation is frequently in short-term courses or in courses at inferior levels that cover traditionally female activities. It is important to note, however, that the enrolment of young women in training courses has been increasing, even in traditionally male domains such as farming technology and management (Braithwaite, 1994).
Although women represent about 35 percent of the active labour force, only 10 percent of agricultural entrepreneurs are women. However, according to the EC, an increased role for women in management of farm enterprises is unavoidable because of women's capacity and competence in efficient management.
Many imaginative ideas regarding diversification of entrepreneurial activities in rural areas have come from women because women are often in a position to generate supplementary, and sometimes indispensable, income to the family household through off-farm employment, usually part-time which is a new work concept in rural areas. (Comissão Europeia, 1996:4-5)
Quality of Life
The quality of housing in all selected regions is below national averages. In the Portuguese NUTS II, for instance, from 18 to 25 percent of the houses are not equipped with modern bathrooms (e.g. bathtub, shower). In Italy and France, the proportion is even higher (21 to 39 percent). Furthermore, the share of houses constructed before 1950 is higher in all selected regions than the averages of their respective countries.
However, in rural areas which experienced strong immigration, especially from the 1960s through the mid-1970s, construction of new houses for immigrants became a flourishing local business. Unfortunately, in many cases instead of traditional housing construction, the styles and building materials popular in the immigrants' homelands were used in the new housing construction causing a significant loss of authenticity and diminishing the value of cultural landscapes of those rural areas. Today, there are signs of a return to tradition, and old houses are being restored in many areas which opens new opportunities for involving young men and women in rural tourism and the complementary cultural and environmental activities.
The degeneration of housing standards is most apparent in regions with ageing populations. Houses are frequently abandoned even in villages or small towns with historic and architectural value. In more dynamic rural areas, where there is diversification of economic activities mainly related to tourism, restoration and reconstruction works offers new job opportunities to the rural youth. On the other side, in rural areas that attract tourists or people seeking a country house, the housing rents and real estate prices have been inflated to such an extent that they contribute to out-migration of young people who cannot afford them (Fielding, 1994).
The decline in the number of education and health care facilities, as well as in the quality of their services, has been one of the most serious rural problems. In areas dealing with out-migration and ageing of the remaining population, the small local population cannot support or provide sufficient health care, educational facilities or services. This only reinforces the vicious circle linking the exodus of young women and men with the overwhelming lack of local amenities and opportunities. For instance, if the young aspire to higher education, they must commute or move away. Also, young couples who have difficulty finding health and child care facilities in rural areas often decide to migrate to local or regional urban centres and either commute to their rural jobs or find new work in the city (Bryden, 1992).
Young rural women tend to be more deprived of educational and social services than young men (Braithwaite, 1994).
Due to rural exodus and/or negative natural increase, there is a growing concentration of utilities and services, such as shopping centres in bigger villages, small towns or at highway junctions. Consequently, and parallel to insufficient public transport services and infrastructures, there is a growing dependency on private transportation to meet consumption needs. The young, as well as the old, are usually the most affected among social groups because the majority cannot afford to buy or maintain a private automobile (Knox, 1984). Consequently, they depend on retail and personal services available in rural areas, although the prices there tend to be higher.
Lacking and low quality of transport networks are also major obstacles to young farmers' decisions to assume management of their family enterprise or to start a new business on their own.
SOCIO-CULTURAL CHANGE
Rural lifestyle is affected by the radical changes caused by the economic and cultural globalization that results, in part, from the development of communication and information technologies. Even remote and lagging rural areas with problems of physical accessibility now can be linked to the world through satellite TV and telephone, and the Internet.
There are positive effects of such changes. For example, because of the generally higher quality of their natural and social environment, rural areas have increasingly become attractive to those engaged in telework, firms that provide services for businesses in the manufacturing sector and environmentally friendly high tech industrial plants. However, because most newcomers choose to move to rural areas where there are already physical infrastructure and social facilities, this new trend could actually result in a further increase in the economic disparity between rural and urban regions.
Technological progress in communications, especially in mass media, also contributes to the homogenization of consumers' habits, values and attitudes which diminishes cultural distance between rural and urban people. This normally means transfers of urbanities to the rural world which contributes to the disruption of traditional rural mores.
The intense transformation of rural lifestyles affects mainly rural young people. For instance, in the mind of a young person, the perception (increasingly virtual) of the world brought by TV is confounded with his/her views about the immediate world. Normally the expectations in terms of jobs, earnings, leisure, etc. cannot be fulfilled by opportunities available in the immediate rural area. Thus, young women and men dream of leaving the countryside even though they are aware that high expectations are increasingly hard to meet in urban areas, especially big cities. This perceived inability to satisfy individual and group aspirations is related to increasingly problematic social behaviour among young rural men and women, such as violence, drugs, alcohol abuse and even criminal behaviour. This is also connected to a high degree of uncertainty/insecurity that generally governs all spheres of the contemporary world.
There are also other social problems specific to rural areas that directly affect the youth, e.g. risk of loosing cultural identity as traditional lifestyles disappear or feeling unable to participate in public life or decision-making processes related to their lives (Comissão Europeia, 1996). Such problems are more frequent among young rural women than men and have to do with certain cultural traditions (Braithwaite, 1994: 32-33).
At the same time, there is a search for local/regional cultural identity in an increasing number of western European rural areas, and there is an intense desire to revive traditions such as folk music, poetry, storytelling and festivities as well as traditional recipes, clothing construction and design, etc. Young women and men are increasingly engaged in such activities through active participation in various clubs and associations. This also reflects economic interests related to the growing demand for tourism and leisure.
ORGANIZATIONAL SPHERE
Institutions and Decision-Making
According to an 1995 EU study on youth policies, two models of youth services have been adopted by national authorities of the Member States. In the first model, youth-related activities are considered a function of the civil society, particularly youth associations and private institutions, and the only role of the state is to define a legal support framework in terms of funding and social infrastructure. In the second model, the state and public administration have a strategic role, planning and coordinating youth-related policies, designing programmes to encourage youth initiatives in the economic and cultural spheres, and supporting mechanisms enabling the young to participate in economic, political and social life. Among the countries studied here, only Ireland adopted the first model. All other countries implement the second model, using the principle of subsidiarity.21
21 According to the Treaty of Maastricht, subsidiarity means that a higher authority may not and must not act, if an objective can be achieved satisfactorily at a lower level.
Over the last ten years, factors common to all areas of Europe have led toward a convergence of these two models, in terms of objectives and working methods. These factors include:
· unemployment and inadequate education and training among the youth, often resulting in their marginalization and exclusion;· the changing labour market which requires that workers be provided with specific technical skills; and
· increasing poverty among youth, especially among those from the lagging rural areas.
The regional and local levels are the best environments for establishing and implementing coherent, efficient, transparent and lasting youth policies. Supporting non-governmental youth organizations and cooperatives also can contribute to the success of efforts to involve young women and men in local and regional development.
In terms of decision-making, most of the studied regions either have a certain amount of power on their own (e.g. Italy and Spain), or have only limited power (France), or have no power whatsoever (in Ireland, Portugal and Greece). Application of the principle of subsidiarity to the institutional aspects of rural youth assistance requires greater empowerment of regional and local authorities. This can ensure their greater efficiency and competitiveness in making use of future investments, especially those based on the EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.
At present, however, most important decisions are made by central governments and, since the regions do not participate in defining objectives, the true interests of the people in the regions are hardly taken into account. This is especially true in rural regions where political and administrative structures are less developed than in urban settings and local authorities have limited power to implement decisions of the central government. Effectiveness of activities at the regional level are often inadequate due to insufficient opportunities for a democratic decision-making process (Wiehler and Stumm, 1995: 97-98; 103).
PERSPECTIVES FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Without interventions, the current socio-economic processes in rural areas probably would lead to further decline of agriculture, stagnation of industrial activities, insufficient service increases, low value-added employment opportunities, etc., parallel to a further concentration of industries and services in urban centres and growing problems of access for rural people in dispersed villages and small towns in the countryside.
Most rural areas selected for this study will continue to depend heavily on agriculture, although the growth of agricultural production is not an EU policy priority and the agricultural economy will become more limited by global and EU trade measures, and by environmental protection laws.
It is, therefore, imperative to build a strategy of rural development where economic diversity, social equity and decentralization of decision-making are the key factors in making efficient and sustainable use of comparative advantages and local dynamism. Such a strategy should be supported by necessary infrastructures and facilities and by development of small and medium-size urban centres in the rural areas (Bryden, 1992: 9-10).
The most promising use of comparative advantages of rural areas includes the following agricultural and non-agricultural activities:
· specialization of agricultural products with local/region-specific qualities,
· industrial activities based on endogenous resources and modern technologies,
· tourism and leisure,
· retirement residences, and
· residences for the active population within commuting distance from large urban centres.
In order to ensure success, preliminary activities that will enhance industrial projects in the areas (e.g. labour force recruitment, quality of life, integration of local development programmes) and local initiatives (e.g. monitoring, marketing, management consulting) should be supported. The establishment of productive activities also can create employment in a variety of related areas such as cultural and leisure activities, and services to improve the quality of life and environment (Comissão Europeia, 1995).
The most disadvantaged rural areas, such as those eligible for EU Structural Funds, do not have sufficient comparative advantages. However, maintaining rural population and agricultural activities in these areas is increasingly considered indispensable for a number of important reasons, such as preservation of the environment and biological diversity, and prevention of desertification. Policies should be designed to encourage involvement in environmentally friendly and supportive activities such as organic farming, management of forests and protected areas, and waste processing.
Many activities that make good use of the comparative advantages suggested above are more suitable for the young, since they are the most prone to innovations, open-mindedness and risk-taking. Rural women, both young and old, have qualities and advantages that can be developed, e.g. domestic management skills could be applied to rural tourism, cooking skills could form a basis for the development of small-scale food and beverage production, experience in working with children and the old could be useful in the establishment of local social care services (Braithwaite, 1994:34-35).22
22 This does not advocate that women be confined to traditional female chores, but suggests that undervalued domestic activities could become a means for young women's social and economic empowerment.
Across the EU, particularly in the less developed countries or regions, few mechanisms are devoted to the involvement of rural youth in development. This is a paradox in view of the fact that youth unemployment is a major social and economic problem leading to rural exodus and/or marginalization in all rural areas of the Member States. However, there is a set of mechanisms that promotes the role of young women and men indirectly, that is, without specifically addressing this segment of the society.
Most national mechanisms favouring rural development in the studied countries have been designed, established and implemented in coordination with EU structures, since almost all national/regional development programmes are cofinanced by the EU Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund. The involvement of the young can be encouraged through direct measures (e.g. incentives to start business, vocational and professional training) or through indirect measures (e.g. those that lead to the creation of new employment, training, community action opportunities). The following mechanisms have been established to enable the active participation of young women and men in rural development for their own benefit and that of their community.
DIRECT YOUTH POLICY MECHANISMS
EU Objective Number 3
The European Social Fund gives financial support to mechanisms that help young women and men to find their first stable job after completing secondary or college education, as highlighted below.
· Vocational training - for young people who are school drop-outs without basic skills and capacities - providing skills, adapted to their own capacities as well as to market needs, including both practical experience and theoretical training, and offering job search orientation.· Basic training - for gaining professional experience in enterprises or appropriate centres.
· Training programmes - for introducing use of new technologies and acquisition of new skills required by employers.
· Financial aid to hire employees - for re-established, more stable jobs, as well as for self-employment initiatives.
Such ESF-related actions cover the entire EU, but priority is given to regions under the EU Objectives Number 1, Number 2 and Number 5b, with special efforts to meet the current and prospective needs of their labour markets.
EU Objective Number 5a
Within the EU Objective Number 5a (structural adaptations in the agricultural and fisheries sectors, in line with the reform of the CAP), the EAGGF finances the following mechanisms for the establishment or improvement of farm holdings run by young farmers.
· Aid to the establishment of, and investments in, farm holdings of young farmers by providing them with necessary financial resources to meet business start-up costs, specifically acquiring real estate and capital goods, and covering risks associated with new responsibilities. The age limit is 35/40 years (depending on the criteria in individual countries). This kind of assistance is also extended also to part-time farmers engaged in forestry, tourism or craftsmanship. Member States can apply these mechanisms totally or only partially and can complement them with national resources. The amount and type of such assistance differ considerably among countries.· Professional training of young farmers, as a pre-condition for the above-mentioned aid, is directed to young farmers without required professional skills (i.e., secondary school, or college degree in agronomy), and provides financial support to organize or participate in at least 150 hours of skill training courses. A considerable part of the funds is used for courses in environmental protection, management of forests and reorientation of agro-production.
YOUTHSTART Programme: Insertion of Unskilled Young Persons in the Labour Market
This programme was established in 1994 as part of the EU initiative 'Employment and Valorization of Human Resources'. It has five major areas of interest.
· Actions by public and private sectors that complement other ESF supported actions, as well as those under the Leonardo Programme (which offers initial vocation training to the young people who have completed basic schooling). This includes defining objectives and norms in subjects such as orientation, training and learning, evaluation, introducing innovative methods for the social and economic integration of youth and the transfer of good practices, and strengthening relations among education, professional training and the labour market.· Actions based on experience with pilot-activities or with EU programmes (such as Leonardo) including training and employment programmes for the young that valorize entrepreneurial spirit, training of trainers in employment centres, acquiring experience in areas such as arts, architecture, environment, urban rehabilitation, social work and application of innovative models for local development.
· Aid in creating employment opportunities, especially through inter-country exchange networks, including trade organizations and associations of young entrepreneurs, cooperation among local development agencies and local employment initiatives aimed at social and economic integration of young women and men.
· Support of regional and local information services.
· Promotion of the YOUTHSTART programme itself among the young
INDIRECT YOUTH POLICY MECHANISMS
CAP Reform Supporting Measures
· Aid to farming operations that encourages early retirement for farmers (54 and older), permits the hiring of younger replacement workers and restructuring and improvements in the economic viability of the remaining farm units. This can indirectly provide better conditions for the establishment of young farmers and contribute to the development of their farm holdings. This is optional for Member States.· Support of environmentally friendly production methods that preserve the environment or promote afforestation. Such measures are attractive to young farmers who are more ready and willing to adapt new ideas in the agricultural sector such as organic farming.
Mechanisms Envisaged under the EU Objective Number 1: Development and Structural
Adjustment of Disadvantaged Regions
Objective Number 1 stresses improvement in several areas related to development.
· Production: direct investment to create lasting jobs.
· Infrastructure: for economic development and environmental protection.
· Services: based on making the best use of local and regional potentials.
· Research and development (R&D).
· Investment in infrastructure for education and health.
· Vocational training in teaching, research and administration.
· Employment assistance in employment.
· Rural development measures such as adaptation of agricultural structures, encouragement of tourism, preservation of heritage and quality standards.
All these measures can provide support to young rural women and men either as direct beneficiaries, or indirectly though improvements in rural areas, especially through measures that promote living and working in the countryside.
|
In Beira Interior, Portugal, a programme to rehabilitate historic villages has been implemented to develop rural tourism and retain the resident population. In the Peloponnisos region of Greece, the construction of a highway and the rehabilitation of cultural heritage are the basis for a tourism development programme. In Alentejo, a Portuguese region heavily dependent on agriculture, a project on technological improvements in the extraction and treatment of ornamental stones was set up to help curtail the exodus of the young population. |
Mechanisms Envisaged under the EU Objective Number 5b: Development and Structural Adjustment of Rural Areas
EU Objective Number 5b measures are intended to promote alternative activities in rural areas.
· Investments in infrastructure that enable the creation of jobs outside agriculture such as small firms, tourism or environmental protection.· Services for small firms.
· Research and development.
· Training in land management and agricultural work.
Support is provided to active participation of all development agents at the EC, national and local level, and includes young women and men.
EU Innovative Measures
ERDF Supported Programmes23
23 Source: Comissão Europeia (1995b)
The following types of pilot-projects within the programmes financed by the ERDF are the most attractive and beneficial to young rural women and men.
Cooperation for integrating the concept of information society
· Objectives: introduce the concept of information society in the regions included in EU Objective Number 1 with priority given to employment policies.· Spheres of action: strategy and action plans to develop an information society in the lagging regions through partnerships of public and private local development agents; and pilot-projects to illustrate good information society practices for regional development, including applications related to creating employment and appropriate training activities for the disfavoured regions.
· Beneficiaries: regional authorities, public or private entities.
Cooperation for technological innovation and transfer
· Objectives: improve incentives for innovation and promote technological R&D in the lagging regions.· Spheres of action: innovative strategies developed through partnerships among regional agents to promote cooperation among enterprises, technological R&D institutions and public institutions that are aimed at evaluating business needs and providing SMEs with innovative approaches to management, organization, training and technological development; pilot-projects on technology transfers, demonstrations of technological innovations and appropriate practices for regional development, especially those that enhance the diffusion of technology and valorize the research done by businesses that have had a positive effect on the economy of depressed rural regions.
· Beneficiaries: regional authorities, public or private entities.
Cooperation based on new employment opportunities
· Objectives: to promote regional and local strategies for new employment opportunities and verify possibilities to create proximity employment through pilot projects.· Spheres of action: priority areas for creating proximity employment such as social care, rehabilitation and modernization of housing, public transportation, retail convenience shops in rural areas, environment-related activities such as recycling, protection of natural zones and pollution prevention through (i) local and higher-level strategies for removal of development obstacles to proximity activities (monitoring and marketing of commercialized products; training courses), (ii) structuring of the supply side needed to start new businesses, and (iii) pilot projects to support creation or diversification of enterprises through facilitation, mediation, consulting and financial engineering.
· Beneficiaries: partnerships among local and regional authorities, development agencies, associations, foundations and private enterprises in zones with at least 200 000 inhabitants.
Pilot-projects of territorial planning
· Objectives: to reinforce economic and social cohesion and to promote sustainable development across the EU that is balanced and meets the needs of regions and their populations; to provide relevant authorities and local communities with tools supporting more effective decision-making; to encourage such authorities to take into account interdependencies involved in territorial planning and, thus, to face particular problems through close cooperation among directly affected states or communities; and to develop a global perspective of the EU territory and non-EU countries.· Spheres of action: specific zones such as coastal, mountainous or rural zones, river and lake basins.
· Beneficiaries: partnerships between local and regional authorities of Member States.
EAGGF Supported Programmes
EAGGF finances the implementation of pilot projects for adapting agricultural and forestry structures and demonstrative projects, including development and valorisation of forests and the transformation and commercialization of agricultural products. The main purpose is to illustrate the possibilities of new systems and techniques and, above all, to disseminate knowledge and experiences (Comissão Europeia, 1996: 9).
EU Innovative Measures and the Rural Youth
Although empirical records of direct participation of the youth in pilot projects are not yet available, there is reason to believe that young rural women and men can benefit from the above-mentioned innovative measures through:
· direct employment creation and/or training courses, particularly in communication and information technology and R&D, since the young are the most receptive to innovation;· new employment opportunities in non-productive support activities such as child care, environmental protection, activities valorising young rural women's skills, etc.;
· improvements in infrastructure and social services in rural areas attractive to high tech firms because of environmental quality and of human resources.
EU initiatives
Links among Rural Development Actions Programme (LEADER)
Created in 1991, LEADER promotes a bottom up approach to development. It is the only EU initiative based on local development strategies based on rural communities' proposals for solving their own development problems. Its main objective is to elaborate and implement innovative actions addressing problems in rural areas through the valorization of their endogenous human, economic, cultural and natural resources.
At the local level, the programme is executed and managed by local action groups (LAGs) established by public and private partners to create and implement a common strategy and innovative measures for the development of rural areas. Other public or private local agents can also benefit from LEADER by implementing more focused activities within the local development strategy defined by the LAGs.
Territories eligible for financial support through LEADER are those included under EU Objectives Number 1 and Number 5a, which are relatively small and have strong socio-cultural, economic and/or environmental identities, such as micro-regions, valleys and small settlements.
In the first phase (1991-1994), most of the 217 territories benefiting from LEADER were located in southern Europe, had low population densities and difficult geographical conditions. In its current phase (1994-1999), now called LEADER II, it finances technical assistance (prior to investments) for diagnostic studies, social research and designing development strategies, and implements programmes with replicable/transferable innovations. The financial support is given to:
· technical assistance for rural development;· execution and management of local development projects;
· professional training (facilitators, local population, insertion of people in precarious working and living conditions);
· development of rural tourism contributing to the economic diversification of the rural world;
· establishment of small scale enterprises (access to high level services, assistance in launching proximity services, telework);
· valorization and commercialization of local agricultural, forest and fishery products (innovative investments);
· preservation and improvement of the environment and of living conditions (village rehabilitation, cultural creativity and diffusion, protection and valorization of natural resources and landscapes, waste elimination and recycling).
LEADER II also supports establishment of a European network to facilitate the interchange and transfer of experiences and know-how. All projects must involve partners from at least two Member States which supports inter-country cooperation.
These measures affect young women and men directly through employment creation and professional training, as well as indirectly through improvements in basic infrastructures and environmental protection. It was recorded that young women and men participated actively during the preparation and monitoring of the first phase of the LEADER operational programmes.
|
In Amvrakikos, Greece, territorial planning actions aimed at protecting the environment of this exceptional biotope and at enhancing the local economy in order to develop eco-tourism. In Ireland, a marketing plan was designed by a rural tourism cooperative to promote the country's stagnant sector in the European market. In Serra do Caldeirão, Portugal, child care services were established which opened employment opportunities, particularly for young women. In Teverina, Italy, a visitor accommodation system was established through rehabilitation of buildings located in rural areas or historic centres suitable for the development of tourism. In Ireland, a LAG gave support to the creation of a Centre of Technological Information and Training, based on the concept of telecottages (community teleservice centres) in an effort to overcome problems related to the peripheral situation, and to promote tourism. In Massif Central, France, pedestrian circuits and mountain tourism were developed by a local sports and cultural association. In Cantabria, Spain, a LAG established an itinerary network that enables visitors to learn about the area's culture, history, economy and environment. In Ireland, technical assistance was provided to a group of farmers that established a nursery for the production of decorative plants. More than 2 ha were cultivated and, for the first time in the country's history, flowers were exported to Holland. In Orense and Sierra de Gata, Spain, LAGs established plant nurseries aimed at producing species appropriate for reforestation. |
Programme NOW
NOW provides equal employment opportunities for women through professional and vocational training, better access to adequate employment and to leadership at work.
The following measures supported by NOW are aimed at young rural women:
· personalized and flexible training, particularly for employment in SMEs;
· training for enterprise management;
· cooperation and networking among local employment initiatives for women; and
· creation of self-employment, SMEs and cooperatives plus related financing tools.
In the regions included under the EU Objective Number 1, support is also provided for: creating linkages among training establishments, universities and enterprises; innovative teaching materials; social support infrastructures; and sensibilization on the need for equal opportunities for women.
Programme SME
The objective of this EU initiative is to help small and medium industrial or service enterprises, particularly in the regions included under EU Objective Number 1, adapt to the EU single market and to ensure their competitiveness at the international level. This initiative can contribute directly to the expansion of self-employment and the creation of new job opportunities among young women and men in rural areas, because they are the most likely group to take risks. The following measures are eligible for financial support:
· improvement of organization and production systems;· environmental protection and rationalization of energy consumption;
· efforts to enhance cooperation among research centres, technology transfer centres, universities, training centres and SMEs in R&D activities;
· access to new markets within and external to the EC;
· development of cooperation and networking among SMEs, large enterprises, sub-contractors and clients;
· reinforcement of professional skills in the SMEs; and
· better access of the SMEs to credit.
Programme RETEX
RETEX promotes the economic diversification of areas heavily dependent on the textile and clothing industry. Declining industrial zones are eligible under EU Objective Number 2, and rural areas are eligible under EU Objectives Number 1 and Number 5b. Young women and men in rural areas can benefit directly and indirectly from the following measures that promote technological transformations to generate employment for the highly skilled young cadres, such as fashion design and information technology:
· consulting and equipment to improve know-how;· support of local enterprise associations;
· networking market information aimed at developing know-how;
· rapid diffusion of new production and organization methods and establishing links between research and enterprises and between suppliers and clients, etc.;
· temporary support for the remuneration of highly skilled personnel contracted as part of modernization plans conceived with the help of external expertise; and
· training of the employed in enterprise or producer services.
Programme INTERREG
INTERREG, started in 1990, promotes and/or develops the integration of neighbouring areas (regions, counties, etc.) across international borders of the EU.
The following measures, directly or indirectly related to rural areas, are eligible for financing:
· development and support of SMEs, specifically through the creation of transborder economic networks;· agrotourism;
· local water, gas, electricity and telecommunications services, development of renewable energy sources, pollution prevention and control, rational use of energy, waste removal;
· rural development;
· improvement of agricultural productivity and support of transborder trade;
· improvement of basic infrastructure networks;
· educational and cultural cooperation, including universities; and
· support to employment and professional training, especially for unemployed women.
Cohesion Fund Measures
The EU Cohesion Fund measures support environmental protection projects and the Transeuropean Transport Network, which ultimately can contribute to an overall improvement of living conditions in the rural areas covered by EU Objective Number 1 (Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece are the only countries eligible for support from this fund).
EU STRUCTURAL FUNDS MECHANISMS AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Between 1986 and 1991, a slight increase in the per caput GDP (from 61 percent of the EU average in 1986 to 64 percent in 1991) was registered in the group of regions under the EU Objective Number 1. However, the economic performance of individual NUTS II was quite diverse in the 1980s and this entire group of lagging regions became more heterogeneous.
Some regions registered increases in productivity related to falling employment and rapidly rising unemployment. Unemployment has risen in regions under the EU Objective Number 1 as a whole, particularly from the mid-1980s, in southern Italy and Ireland. It seems that increased investment injections from economically stronger regions of the same Member State or from EU Structural Funds have not been sufficient to promote sustainable development, especially in rural areas.
Furthermore, in regions under the EU Objective Number 5b as a whole, there was a stagnation in the per caput GDP and a slight decrease in the rates of unemployment (below the EU average) from mid-1980s to the beginning of the 1990s.
The LEADER programme had considerable success in its first phase (1991-1994), creating a favourable environment for a variety of initiatives in the rural milieu, especially those promoted by the young. In regions under the EU Objective Number 1, more than one-third of the LEADER projects were directed to the creation and improvement of rural tourism, 16 percent to the valorization of agricultural products, 15 percent to training and assistance to development actions and 12 percent to the creation and development of small scale enterprises. In rural areas of regions under the EU Objective Number 5b, the distribution of LEADER projects was a more balanced 25 percent for tourism, 23 percent for training and assistance to development, 19 percent for agriculture and 21 percent for small-scale enterprises.
However, some difficulties were encountered in the implementation of LEADER. The dimensions of the targeted areas were not optimal - either too large for efficient management or too restricted in terms of their human resources potential. Also, the territories with LEADER projects rarely matched the administrative divisions. Some belonged to more than one administrative unit, which often caused difficulties in reaching the desired outcomes.
Of the 217 established LAGs, only 18 included training programmes specifically for women as part of the development strategies. This means that most LAGs generally had neither identified nor met the gender-specific needs of rural population (Braithwaite,1994: 56). Such findings have been reconfirmed by an analysis of development strategy documents of 16 LAGs in Ireland, which revealed a low level of sensibilization to gender-related problems and to women's needs and capacities. The gender issue also was not given due attention when the first phase of the LEADER programme was designed and evaluated at higher levels.
In many rural areas of the EU countries and regions, important experiences have been gained in implementing mechanisms for increasing the involvement of young women and men in rural development. Conceptual, methodological and/or practical aspects of this experience could be applied in the ECTs.
In assessing the potential to transfer these experiences with EU mechanisms that promote the social and economic integration of rural youth, the following characteristics inherent to the process of change in the ECT's have to be kept in mind.
· In most ECTs, the process of (re)privatization of the agricultural sector is being completed (FAO, 1996). However, the structure of farm holdings varies among and within these countries. The same holds for the whole morphology and social structure of the rural areas, partly due to the decades of centrally-planned economy but also from earlier times.· The characteristics of today's rural youth in the ECTs are varied quantitatively and in terms of their socio-economic structure. The process of rural exodus, population ageing and related depopulation is very intensive in some countries (e.g. Croatia). In others, the young still comprise an important segment of rural population. At the same time, unemployment and marginalization among the youth are at critically high levels (e.g. Poland, Romania).
· An increasing social cleavage between landowners and landless rural people has been recorded as a common tendency in the ECTs. Young women and men have been in a particularly negative situation. There has been conflict between the landowners (largely urbanites and retired people) whose priority is to maximize real estate rent and the landless rural population wishing to maintain existing or ensure new employment in the agricultural sector (Sivignon, 1996).
· An urgent need has been recorded to reduce the agricultural labour force in the ECTs as a precondition to approach levels of labour productivity comparable to those in the EU (FAO, 1996). In addition to the modernization of agriculture, this requires introduction or intensification of non-agricultural activities in rural areas that will create new employment opportunities, particularly for the youth. Such activities should be environmentally sound. Rational use should be made of the considerably undervalued potential of the natural and cultural landscape and resources in these countries.
· In many cases, rural youth do not have access to, or lack the possibility for, vocational training which would prepare them for agribusiness or new non-agricultural employment opportunities that could appear in parallel with structural changes in rural areas (FAO, 1996).
· On the other hand, necessary changes in the rural sector of the economy are sometimes difficult to implement because of the lack of modern physical and social infrastructures. Existing infrastructure even tends to deteriorate in the process of transition towards market economy (European Commission, 1996).
· A major negative consequence of the Communist era for today's rural youth in all ECTs, except Poland and countries of former Yugoslavia, has been that collectivization of agriculture actually meant the loss of a bond to the land for large segments of the rural population. This now makes the viability of family farming as small-scale enterprises very difficult. Many old people, but also the young, are not prepared to accept economic risks and actually prefer to remain employees in large state or already privatized enterprises (Maurel, 1996).
· Another problem is the lack of confidence in cooperatives or associations, which are still considered symbols of forced collectivization, low productivity, etc. (Maurel, 1996).
· The prospects for admission to the EU have been a differentiation factor among the ECTs. Most of the ECTs have applied for admission, but only five candidates have been accepted so far. When the candidates become Member States, they will be able to make use of the measures available through the Structural Funds, especially those envisaged under the EU Objectives Number 1, Number 5a and Number 5b. In the transitional period, prior to their full EU membership, these countries have been granted financial support to prepare for admission. On the other hand, the remaining ECTs also need to prepare for future admission to the EU by implementing measures that will enable approximation of their economy and society to those of the Member States.
In view of the above, the following four groups of mechanisms presently available in the EU Member States can be considered suitable for implementation in the ECTs, as part of their efforts to increase the involvement of young women and men in rural development.
Mechanisms related to financial and technical support of the process of modernization of agriculture, with the aim of making it more competitive and encouraging young women and men to take over small and medium-scale farming enterprises:
· CAP Reform measures, especially the ones envisaged under the EU Objective Number 5a, financed by EAGGF:· measures envisaged under the EU Objective Number 1, directed to support the adaptation of agricultural structures and products with the designation of quality; and
· measures within LEADER, related to the valorization and commercialization of local agriculture and forestry products (p. 23).
Mechanisms designed to prevent or to combat rural youth unemployment, particularly through vocational/professional training programmes on the use of new technologies and acquisition of new skills, such as:
· measures conceived under the EU Objective Number 3, financed by the ESF, which provide young women and men with high skills, adapted to their own capacities and to the needs of the market;· measures conceived under the EU Objective Number 1, supporting vocational training, most needed in the lagging regions;
· EU innovative measures, supported by ERDF such as cooperation aimed at integrating the concept of information society, cooperation directed toward technological innovation and transfer, and cooperation based on new employment opportunities;
· EU measures supported by the guidance sector of the EAGGF; and
· the EU initiatives, such as Programme YOUTHSTART, Programme NOW, Programme SME, Programme RETEX and Programme LEADER.
Mechanisms for encouraging diversification of rural activities, particularly those that could offer new job opportunities to the young who have the propensity to accept new techniques and technologies as well as to engage in environmentally sound activities such as:
· measures envisaged under the EU Objective Number 1 and LEADER, particularly those intended to provide physical and social infrastructure required for economic development and environmental protection;· measures envisaged under the EU Objective Number 1 and LEADER, comprising technical assistance to services for SMEs based on making the best use of local and regional potentials; and
· measures envisaged under the EU Objectives Number 1 and Number 5b and LEADER, primarily intended to promote alternative activities in rural areas, including investments and training in R&D.
Mechanisms could also be introduced to encourage creation of new forms of cooperatives and associations that favour local and regional development, based on the experiences gained with EU initiative LEADER, where the basic model for associations are local agents and other development stakeholders (LAGs). This type of collective endeavour focused on development interventions should be given particular attention and support in the ECTs because their creation embodies the decentralized, bottom-up, participatory and democratic approach to development, which is the opposite of the formerly centralized, top-down orientation of state-controlled agricultural cooperatives and associations.
Arriaga e Cunha, I. 1997. Reforma radical na PAC. Público, 17 (Julho): p.4.
Braithwaite, M. 1994. O Papel Económico e a Situação da Mulher nas Zonas Rurais. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
Bryden, J. 1992. Mudanças e Políticas Rurais. Leader Magazine, 2: pp. 7-10.
Descheemaekere, F. 1993. Compreender Melhor a P.A.C. e o Futuro do Mundo Rural. Lisboa, EdiPrisma - Edições Em Gestão Lda.
Eizner, N. 1996. Postface; In M. Jollivet & N. Eizner, eds. L'Europe et ses campagnes. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
ENSR. 1996. Third Annual Report. Report submitted to the D-G XXIII (Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives) of the Commission of the EC (European Network for SME Research), Brussels, 1995.
European Commission. 1991. Europa Social - O Fundo Social Europeu. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1992. O Mundo Rural. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Brussels, Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1993. Our Farming Future. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1993a. The Single Market. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1994. The Uruguay Round - Acordo Global, Vantagens Gerais. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1994a. Competitividade e Coesão: Tendências Verficadas nas Regiões. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1994b. Estudo Prospectivo das Regiões Atlânticas. Estudos de Desenvolvimento Regional, No.8. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1994c. Guia para as Iniciativas Comunitárias 1994-1999. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1994d. European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1995. Europe 2000+: Cooperação para o Ordenamento do Território Europeu. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1995a. Políticas de Juventude na União Europeia. Bruxelas: Direcção Geral Educação, Formação, Juventude DG XXVII.
European Commission. 1995b. Guia das Acções Inovadoras do Desenvolvimento Regional. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1995e. Evolution prospective des régions de la Méditerranée-Ouest. Etudes de Développement Régional, No. 11. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1995d. Etude prospective des régions de l'arc alpin et périalpin. Etudes de Développement Régional, No. 17. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1995e. Cohesion and the Development Challenge Facing the Lagging Regions. Regional Development Studies, No.24. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1995f. Development Prospects of the Central Mediterranean Regions (Mezzogiorno - Greece). Regional Development Studies, No.14. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Brussels, Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1996. Evolución Prospectiva de las Regiones Interiores (y de los Espacios Rurales de Baja Densidad de Población en la Comunidad). Estudios de Desarrollo Regional, N° 20. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1996a. Os Jovens Agricultores e o Problema da Retomada das Explorações na Agricultura Europeia. Relatório da Comissão. Bruxelas, 04.09.1996.
European Commission. 1996b. The Impact of the Development of the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe on the Community Territory. Regional Development Studies, No. 16. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
European Commission. 1997. Primeiro Relatório sobre a Coesão Económica e Social. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
Eurostat. 1996. Regioni: Annuario Statistico 1996. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
Eurostat. 1997. Le Chômage dans les régions de l'Union Européenne en 1996. Statistiques en bref -Régions, No.3. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.
FAO. 1996. The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome.
Fielding, A.J. 1994. Contra-urbanização: Ameaça ou Benção? In D. Pinder, ed. Europa Ocidental -Desafios e Mudanças, pp. 295-313. Oeiras, Celta Editora.
Ilbery, B. W. 1994. O Desafio do Abandono das Terras. In D. Pinder, ed. Europa Ocidental - Desafios e Mudanças, pp. 275-294. Oeiras, Celta Editora.
Knox, P. L. 1984. The Geography of Western Europe - A Socio-Economic Survey. London &: Sydney, Croom Helm; Totowa (New Jersey), Barnes & Noble.
Labasse, J. 1994. Que Regiões para a Europa? Lisboa, Instituto Piaget - Biblioteca Básica de Ciência e Cultura.
Lintner, V. 1994. National Economic Sovereignty and European Integration. In Frank Brouwer et al., eds. Economic Policy Making & the European Union, pp. 9-18. London, Federal Trust.
Lorenzi, F. 1996. Politiques agricoles, politiques régionales, politiques rurales: autonomie ou dependence? In M. Jollivet & N. Eizner, eds. L'Europe et ses campagnes, pp.317-322. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Maurel, M. 1996. Forces sociales et acteurs de la décollectivisation en Europe Centrale. In M. Jollivet & N. Eizner, eds. L'Europe et ses campagnes. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Mingione, E. &: Pugliese, E. 1987. A Difícil Delimitação do "Urbano" e do "Rural": Alguns Exemplos e Implicações Teóricas. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 22: pp. 83-99.
OECD. 1996. Better Policies for Rural Development. Paris.
Perraud, D. & Bonnet, A. 1996. Entre les contraints des marchés et les hétérogénéités structurelles des agricultures nationales: le pari impossible ou les prémisses d'une inévitable réforme de la PAC, pp.295-306. In M. Jollivet & N. Eizner, eds. L'Europe et ses campagnes. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Sivignon, M. 1996. Les systèmes agraires européens héritages, mutations, frontières. In M. Jollivet & N. Eizner, eds. L'Europe et ses campagnes. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Wiehler, F. & Stumm, T. 1995. Os Poderes das Autoridades Regionais e Locais e o Seu Papel na União Europeia. Inforgeo, 9/10: pp.77-106.
Selected EC Regions and NUTS II
Atlantic Arc
Ireland
Poitou - Charntes (France)
Norte (Portugal)
Centro (Portugal)
Alentejo (Portugal)
Algarve (Portugal)
Açores (Portugal)
Madeira (Portugal)
Galicia (Spain)
Asturias (Spain)
Cantabria (Spain)
Western Mediterranean (Latin Arc)
Andalucia (Spain)
Murcia (Spain)
Corse (France)
Sardegna (Italy)
Continental Diagonal
Aragón (Spain)
Castilla y Léon (Spain)
Castilla - La Mancha (Spain)
Extremadura (Spain)
Limousin (France)
Auvergne (France)
Central Mediterranean
Molise (Italy)
Campania (Italy)
Puglia (Italy)
Basilicata (Italy)
Calabria (Italy)
Sicilia (Italy)
Anatokili Makedonia Thraki (Greece)
Kentriki Makedonia (Greece)
Dytiki Makedonia (Greece)
Thessalia (Greece)
Ipeiros (Greece)
Ionia Nisia (Greece)
Dytiki Ellada (Greece)
Sterea Ellada (Greece)
Peloponnisos (Greece)
Voreio Aigaio (Greece)
Kriti (Greece)
Alpine and Perialpine
Burgenland (Austria)
Steimark (Austria)
Nordic Region
Ita-Soumi (Finland)
Vali-Suomi (Finland)
N.B.: All NUTS II are eligible under the EC Objective N°1, except Aragon, Poitou-Charantes, Limousin, Auvergene, Steiemark, Ita-Soumi, and Vali-Suomi.
Table l. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Selected Regions of the EC
|
NUTS II |
Population density |
Population increase |
Migration balance |
% males aged 15-24 in total male population |
% females aged 15-24 in total female population |
|
EUR15 |
116 |
0.3 |
2.5 |
14.9 |
13.4 |
|
FINLAND |
15 |
0.4 |
9.1 |
13.2 |
11.8 |
|
Ita-Suomi |
8 |
0.0 |
-0.3 |
13.0 |
11.8 |
|
Vali-Suomi |
15 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
13.8 |
12.3 |
|
IRELAND |
52 |
0.2 |
-8.1 |
17.7 |
16.6 |
|
FRANCE |
106 |
0.5 |
1.2 |
15.0 |
13.8 |
|
Poitou-Charentes |
63 |
0.3 |
5.2 |
14.2 |
13.0 |
|
Limousin |
42 |
-0.3 |
4.8 |
13.4 |
11.9 |
|
Auvergne |
51 |
-0.2 |
1.2 |
14.5 |
13.2 |
|
Corse |
29 |
0.4 |
2.7 |
18.9 |
11.5 |
|
PORTUGAL |
107 |
-0.1 |
1.5 |
17.4 |
15.8 |
|
Norte |
164 |
0.1 |
1.4 |
18.9 |
17.3 |
|
Centro |
72 |
-0.4 |
2.1 |
16.7 |
15.0 |
|
Alentejo |
20 |
-0.8 |
-2.9 |
14.7 |
13.4 |
|
Algarve |
69 |
0.5 |
5.8 |
14.9 |
14.0 |
|
Açores |
102 |
-0.4 |
2.0 |
18.0 |
14.9 |
|
Madeira |
327 |
-0.1 |
3.3 |
20.1 |
17.8 |
|
SPAIN |
77 |
0.2 |
-1.0 |
17.3 |
15.9 |
|
Galicia |
93 |
-0.4 |
-19.2 |
15.8 |
14.8 |
|
Asturias |
103 |
-0.4 |
-25.0 |
15.3 |
14.4 |
|
Cantabria |
99 |
0.1 |
2.4 |
16.8 |
15.0 |
|
Aragon |
25 |
-0.2 |
-15.1 |
14.8 |
14.0 |
|
Castilla y León |
27 |
-0.3 |
-34.1 |
14.4 |
14.2 |
|
CastilIa - La Mancha |
21 |
0.0 |
-25.9 |
15.0 |
15.0 |
|
Extremadura |
25 |
-0.2 |
-61.7 |
14.2 |
14.9 |
|
Andalucia |
80 |
0.7 |
2.9 |
18.4 |
17.1 |
|
Murcia |
94 |
0.8 |
20.2 |
19.0 |
17.0 |
|
ITALY |
190 |
0.1 |
3.2 |
15.9 |
14.5 |
|
Molise |
75 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
15.0 |
14.0 |
|
Campania |
420 |
0.3 |
1.3 |
18.5 |
17.5 |
|
Puglia |
210 |
0.3 |
-0.4 |
18.1 |
16.9 |
|
Basilicata |
61 |
0.0 |
-1.7 |
16.6 |
15.7 |
|
Calabria |
138 |
0.0 |
-1.4 |
17.5 |
16.6 |
|
Sicilia |
195 |
0.1 |
2.0 |
17.2 |
15.4 |
|
Sardegna |
69 |
0.3 |
2.3 |
17.8 |
16.7 |
|
GREECE |
79 |
0.5 |
5.4 |
15.6 |
14.5 |
|
Anatokili Makedonia, Thraki |
40 |
0.0 |
1.8 |
14.1 |
13.7 |
|
Kentriki Makedonia |
93 |
0.8 |
7.2 |
16.5 |
15.5 |
|
Dytiki Makedonia |
32 |
0.4 |
8.8 |
15.0 |
13.7 |
|
Thessalia |
53 |
0.4 |
2.9 |
14.8 |
13.5 |
|
Ipeiros |
39 |
0.9 |
20.9 |
. 15.1 |
14.3 |
|
Ionia Nisia |
85 |
0.6 |
13.2 |
13.5 |
12.6 |
|
Dytiki Ellada |
64 |
0.7 |
7.6 |
16.1 |
15.3 |
|
Sterea Ellada |
40 |
1.3 |
30.3 |
14.7 |
13.8 |
|
Peloponnisos |
41 |
0.9 |
24.9 |
13.7 |
13.0 |
|
Voreio Aigaio |
49 |
-0.3 |
-1.1 |
12.9 |
12.2 |
|
Kriti |
66 |
0.7 |
4.8 |
15.9 |
15.1 |
|
AUSTRIA |
95 |
0.5 |
5.0 |
14.7 |
13.2 |
|
Burgenland |
69 |
0.1 |
1.6 |
14.5 |
12.9 |
|
Steiemark |
73 |
0.1 |
0.8 |
15.2 |
13.5 |
Source: Eurostat (1996).
Table 2. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Selected Regions of the EC
|
NUTS II |
GNP per capita (EUR15:100) |
% farms on less than 20 ha |
% farmers aged less than 35 years |
% employed population in agriculture |
% employed population in industry |
% employed population in services |
% employed males aged 15-24 |
% employed females aged 15-24 |
% unemployed aged 15-24 |
|
EUR15 |
100 |
|
|
5.3 |
30.2 |
64.5 |
50.4 |
44,0 |
21.4 |
|
FINLAND |
91 |
- |
- |
7.8 |
27.6 |
64.4 |
51.1 |
481 |
39.5 |
|
Ita-Suomi |
72 |
- |
- |
14.1 |
26.1 |
59.9 |
45.1 |
43.5 |
47.6 |
|
Vali-Suomi |
79 |
- |
- |
16.1 |
29.5 |
54.4 |
46.6 |
46.1 |
43.9 |
|
IRELAND |
81 |
41.5 |
16.3 |
12.0 |
27.8 |
60.2 |
68.4 |
41.4 |
18.8 |
|
FRANCE |
110 |
45.7 |
13.5 |
4.9 |
27.0 |
68.1 |
37.6 |
34.0 |
26.1 |
|
Poitou - Charentes |
90 |
34.9 |
11.6 |
9.6 |
27,3 |
63.1 |
39.2 |
27.2 |
29.4 |
|
Limousin |
88 |
34.8 |
13.4 |
11.7 |
24.1 |
64.2 |
46.8 |
32.2 |
23.8 |
|
Auvergne |
90 |
30.6 |
16.7 |
9,9 |
25.9 |
64.1 |
37.9 |
29.7 |
29.1 |
|
Corse |
78 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
14.0 |
12.9 |
73.1 |
33.2 |
26.3 |
27.9 |
|
PORTUGAL |
69 |
93.7 |
4.9 |
11.5 |
32.2 |
56.3 |
47.2 |
38.9 |
17.2 |
|
Norte |
62 |
95.0 |
6.1 |
11.4 |
41.9 |
46.7 |
51.8 |
46.4 |
13,1 |
|
Centro |
49 |
96.6 |
3.4 |
23.9 |
31.1 |
45.0 |
46.5 |
36.4 |
16.8 |
|
Alentejo |
42 |
70.3 |
5,4 |
17.2 |
22.9 |
60.0 |
54.2 |
35.0 |
24.4 |
|
Algarve |
59 |
95.0 |
0.0 |
10.8 |
15.9 |
73.3 |
39.7 |
25.7 |
22.2 |
|
Açores |
42 |
90.9 |
9.1 |
21.0 |
23.3 |
55.6 |
55.4 |
33.0 |
23.0 |
|
Madeira |
45 |
100,0 |
4.8 |
13.8 |
31.6 |
54.7 |
44.3 |
32.6 |
14.2 |
|
SPAIN |
78 |
82.1 |
8.2 |
9.3 |
30.2 |
60.5 |
44.6 |
38.0 |
41.9 |
|
Galicia |
60 |
96.4 |
6.5 |
29.1 |
25.0 |
46,0 |
36.3 |
28.6 |
39.3 |
|
Asturias |
75 |
93.2 |
6.8 |
11.8 |
29.2 |
56.0 |
32.9 |
23.9 |
51.9 |
|
Cantabria |
75 |
85.0 |
10.0 |
10.5 |
33.6 |
55,9 |
38.2 |
27.1 |
51.7 |
|
Aragon |
88 |
64.8 |
9.8 |
11.4 |
33.3 |
55.3 |
43.8 |
36.6 |
32.2 |
|
Castilla y León |
74 |
57.9 |
9.6 |
15.6 |
28.4 |
55.9 |
39.7 |
28.7 |
44.6 |
|
Castilla - La Mancha |
67 |
70.4 |
9.2 |
13.6 |
35.1 |
51.3 |
48.8 |
40.6 |
34.5 |
|
Extremadura |
55 |
75.6 |
6.4 |
18.4 |
23.4 |
58.2 |
47.1 |
38.1 |
44.4 |
|
Andalucia |
58 |
85.9 |
9.7 |
12.0 |
22.7 |
65.3 |
47.1 |
38.8 |
49.4 |
|
Murcia |
69 |
89.3 |
10,7 |
16.3 |
29.4 |
54.3 |
50.2 |
45.4 |
40.9 |
|
ITALY |
102 |
93.0 |
5.6 |
7.5 |
32.1 |
60.4 |
43.8 |
33.9 |
33.9 |
|
Molise |
78 |
92.1 |
7.9 |
15.5 |
27.8 |
56,7 |
34.6 |
34.7 |
53.6 |
|
Campania |
69 |
98.3 |
3.0 |
10.2 |
23.3 |
66.6 |
35.9 |
26.8 |
66.6 |
|
Puglia |
74 |
94.4 |
4.9 |
14.5 |
24.8 |
60.7 |
37.1 |
24.8 |
45.8 |
|
Basilicata |
66 |
88.9 |
4.2 |
18.2 |
28.6 |
53.2 |
34.9 |
29.4 |
53.5 |
|
Calabria |
60 |
95.9 |
5.8 |
17.2 |
18.2 |
64.6 |
35.5 |
31.2 |
65.5 |
|
Sicilia |
71 |
94.6 |
10,5 |
13.2 |
18.4 |
68.4 |
42.7 |
24.0 |
60.1 |
|
Sardegna |
77 |
80.2 |
4.9 |
15.3 |
24.6 |
60.1 |
41.8 |
28.1 |
49.3 |
|
GREECE |
63 |
95.7 |
7.2 |
20.4 |
23.2 |
56.4 |
41.3 |
32.5 |
27.9 |
|
Anatokili Maked., Thraki |
59 |
94.2 |
10.1 |
43.1 |
17.9 |
39.1 |
51.3 |
38.6 |
22.8 |
|
Kentriki Makedonia |
60 |
95.3 |
8.6 |
20.8 |
26.0 |
53.2 |
38.1 |
28.3 |
28.4 |
|
Dytiki Makedonia |
61 |
91.2 |
8.8 |
25.7 |
31.8 |
42.5 |
40.9 |
29.6 |
44.4 |
|
Thessalia |
57 |
92,9 |
7.0 |
39.0 |
17.1 |
43.9 |
46.3 |
33.4 |
28.7 |
|
Ipeiros |
46 |
97.8 |
4.4 |
32.9 |
17.9 |
49.2 |
39.1 |
22.5 |
31.3 |
|
Ionia Nisia |
55 |
96.4 |
3.6 |
29.3 |
16.1 |
54.6 |
60.3 |
41.1 |
21.2 |
|
Dytiki Ellada |
53 |
96.6 |
6.8 |
41.9 |
17.0 |
41.2 |
42.3 |
30.4 |
24.3 |
|
Sterea Ellada |
72 |
95.0 |
6.3 |
31.1 |
29.5 |
39.4 |
44.4 |
30.7 |
32.1 |
|
Peloponnisos |
60 |
98.0 |
5.9 |
45.6 |
16.4 |
38.0 |
49.6 |
30.0 |
27.0 |
|
Voreio Aigaio |
49 |
97,0 |
6.1 |
27.5 |
20.2 |
52,4 |
50.8 |
26.2 |
21.4 |
|
Kriti |
56 |
96.4 |
9.6 |
34.7 |
14.5 |
50.8 |
48.0 |
28.5 |
16.4 |
|
AUSTRIA |
112 |
- |
- |
7.3 |
32.1 |
60.6 |
64.6 |
56.9 |
6.4 |
|
Burgenland |
71 |
- |
- |
10.9 |
35.3 |
53.9 |
69.5 |
64.1 |
5.0 |
|
Steiemark |
88 |
- |
- |
11.2 |
34.1 |
54.6 |
67.8 |
55.6 |
7.3 |
Source: Eurostat (1996); Eurostat (1997)
*For Greece: 1995
Table 3. Socio-Cultural Characteristics of Selected Regions of the EC
|
COUNTRY/REGION |
Medical doctors per 1000 population |
% aged 15-24 enrolled in secondary or higher education |
% homes constructed before 19945/50e |
% homes equipped bath tub or shower |
Private automobiles per 1000 population |
|
EUR 15 |
- |
59.4 |
- |
- |
- |
|
FINLAND |
2.6 |
71.0 |
14 |
89 |
370 |
|
Ita-Suomi |
2.2 |
64.7 |
11 |
88 |
361 |
|
Vali-Suomi |
1.8 |
65.1 |
15 |
88 |
393 |
|
IRELAND |
1.7 |
48.5 |
33 |
94 |
270* |
|
FRANCE |
2.8 |
55.5 |
39 |
77 |
413 |
|
Poitou-Charntes |
2.5 |
52.4 |
45 |
74 |
479 |
|
Limousin |
2.8 |
57.1 |
49 |
69 |
474 |
|
Auvergne |
2.3 |
54.0 |
49 |
68 |
464 |
|
Corse |
3.9 |
42.9 |
35 |
57 |
479 |
|
PORTUGAL |
2.9 |
43.6 |
25 |
82 |
340* |
|
Norte |
2.5 |
- |
26 |
77 |
- |
|
Centro |
2.7 |
- |
26 |
78 |
- |
|
Alentejo |
1.1 |
- |
39 |
71 |
- |
|
Algarve |
1.7 |
- |
26 |
82 |
- |
|
Açores |
1.3 |
- |
40 |
80 |
- |
|
Madeira |
1.2 |
- |
31 |
75 |
- |
|
SPAIN |
4.1 |
68.6 |
21 |
96 |
359 |
|
Galicia |
3.4 |
68.4 |
28 |
91 |
331 |
|
Asturias |
4.4 |
58.5 |
26 |
96 |
322 |
|
Cantabria |
4.1 |
71.8 |
30 |
94 |
311 |
|
Aragon |
5.3 |
76.5 |
25 |
95 |
315 |
|
Castilla y León |
4.3 |
79.5 |
32 |
93 |
309 |
|
CastilIa - La Mancha |
3.1 |
52.8 |
27 |
92 |
290 |
|
Extremadura |
3.2 |
55.2 |
34 |
86 |
279 |
|
Andalucia |
3.6 |
60.4 |
17 |
94 |
283 |
|
Murcia |
3.5 |
45.4 |
18 |
98 |
335 |
|
ITALY |
1.8 |
54.6 |
22 |
76 |
520* |
|
Molise |
3.0 |
45.7 |
30 |
65 |
- |
|
Campania |
1.6 |
46.5 |
22 |
79 |
|
|
Puglia |
1.2 |
48.8 |
17 |
68 |
- |
|
Basilicata |
1.6 |
42.6 |
24 |
67 |
- |
|
Calabria |
2.4 |
41.2 |
20 |
59 |
- |
|
Sicilia |
1.6 |
51.8 |
17 |
65 |
- |
|
Sardegna |
1.8 |
55.3 |
16 |
72 |
- |
|
GREECE |
3.9 |
46.6 |
- |
90 |
189 |
|
Anatokili Maked. Thraki |
1.8 |
- |
- |
81 |
139 |
|
Kentriki Makedonia |
4.8 |
- |
- |
93 |
170 |
|
Dytiki Makedonia |
3.3 |
- |
- |
85 |
134 |
|
Thessalia |
2.7 |
- |
- |
85 |
126 |
|
Ipeiros |
2.8 |
- |
- |
79 |
101 |
|
Ionia Nisia |
0.0 |
- |
- |
86 |
143 |
|
Dytiki Ellada |
2.8 |
- |
- |
86 |
100 |
|
Sterea Ellada |
1.6 |
- |
- |
87 |
90 |
|
Peloponnisos |
1.6 |
- |
- |
84 |
87 |
|
Voreio Aigaio |
0.0 |
- |
- |
72 |
132 |
|
Kriti |
3.6 |
|
- |
78 |
55 |
|
AUSTRIA |
3.3 |
56.1 |
34 |
82 |
421 |
|
Burgenland |
2.3 |
37.4 |
23 |
88 |
448 |
|
Steiemark |
3.0 |
62.2 |
31 |
83 |
433 |
Source: Eurostat (1996)
* 1989-90
