Integrated Development of Agricultural and Rural Areas (IDARA QLRT-1999-1526)
Rurality, Rural classification
and Policy Modulation
IDARA Working Paper
(D3, Work Package 1)
Version: 30 April 2001
(to be revised and completed)
NUI, Galway
John McDonnagh (Dept. of Geography)
Sarah Callanan, Michael Cuddy, Frédéric Morand, (Dept. of Economics)
Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources
Key Action 5 - Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,
and Integrated Development of Rural Areas Including Mountain Areas
1
IDARA D2 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword – this is an incomplete version ......................................................................................... 3
1.
Introduction and background to the paper ....................................................................................... 4
1.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.
What is Rural? ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1
Changing Definitions and Approaches to the Rural ............................................................................ 5
3.
Rural Classification Methods ............................................................................................................. 7
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.4.1
4.5
5.
Rural areas and the EU ........................................................................................................................ 7
The pragmatic need to classify rural regions ....................................................................................... 8
OECD classification ............................................................................................................................ 9
Eurostat classification .......................................................................................................................... 9
EU policy on rural areas .................................................................................................................... 10
Policy Modulation and rural policy ................................................................................................. 11
What is policy modulation ................................................................................................................. 11
Why modulate policy ......................................................................................................................... 11
How is policy modulated – what are the necessary requirements ...................................................... 12
Examples of policy that has been modulated ..................................................................................... 12
EU policy modulation ........................................................................................................................ 12
Why modulate Rural Development Policy ........................................................................................ 13
Outline of the rest of Deliverable 3 in its forthcoming version ...................................................... 13
2
IDARA D2 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
Foreword – this is an incomplete version
This version of the IDARA Deliverable 3 is to be revised within the next months. The authors
apologise for the fact that the present version does not fully develop the link between the
classification of rural regions, on the one hand, and the specifications for the differentiation of
EU policies, on the other hand.
The logic of the presentation also has to be improved. Since the empirical data from the
regions (regional profiles, SWOT analysis, classifications for EU as well as for CEEC
regions) are still under process, they have not been included in this preliminary version.
Additionally, a discussion remains to be established with the concept of policy modulation
introduced hereafter and the policy evaluation exposed in the IDARA Deliverable 2.
The Galway team expects to revise, develop and release a second version of both Deliverable
2 and 3 before the end of September 2001.
3
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
1. Introduction and background to the paper
This working paper is among the first outcomes of the EU-funded IDARA1 project. The
overall aim of the IDARA project is to help the definition of policy measures suitable to the
integrated development of agriculture and rural areas in selected members of the first group
of CEEC to join the EU (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland).
“Sustainable rural development must be put at the top of the agenda of the
European Union, and become the fundamental principle which underpins all
rural policy in the immediate future and after enlargement” (European
Conference on Rural Development, 1996).
“Rural development policy must be multi-disciplinary in concept, and multisectoral in application, with a clear territorial dimension” (European
Conference on Rural Development, 1996).
1. Introduction
Rural areas are dynamic, with fundamental transformations taking place in rural space and
rural economies. Social, economic, environmental and political factors are combining to
quicken this pace of change. In this era of what is increasingly being referred to as a postagricultural society, there is however, a need to question the understandings of the term
‘rural’ and determine if there is a co-ordinated and strategic plan for the changing future of
rural areas. Rural areas are now increasingly recognised as not only areas of production,
but also areas of consumption. This dramatic change has demanded alternative uses of rural
space and a reconfiguring of rural employment to include alternative farm enterprises (e.g.
agri-tourism), pluri-activity and other methods of diversifying in order to generate off-farm
employment.
Consequently, policy-makers have to re-think strategies relating to rural space. The
diversification, characteristic of many rural areas in developed market economies, is
creating uneven spatial development within rural regions. One of the primary factors
which has contributed to this change in rural areas has been the decline and restructuring of
agriculture. Another is the social change associated with the increase in a non-farming
population. The social make-up of rural areas is now 'disproportionately biased towards
those who, in terms of their wealth, power and influence, are influential in deciding
national policy and public opinion' (Rogers, 1993, p.1) and who further exert a 'strong
influence over the social and physical nature of rural space' (Ilbery, 1998, p.5).
There is also a changing relationship emerging between society and space determined by
increased mobility of people, goods and information. This has changed rural communities
and has opened up the countryside to new uses. Consequently pressure on rural resources
has increased and in many rural regions it has forced a re-evaluation of rural policies in
favour of sustainability and environmental conservation (e.g. REPS; SACs).
All of these processes taking place in rural space create patterns of uneven spatial
development.
1
Integrated Development of Agriculture and Rural Areas in Central and Eastern European Countries.
4
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
2. What is Rural?
2.1 Changing Definitions and Approaches to the Rural
Within this context of change, it is difficult, if not foolhardy, to attempt to define either
rural or rurality. The easiest option of identifying "rural space" as "non-urban space" may
encompass, as good as any, the myriad activity and changes that govern this arena.
However, there is a great deal more to understanding the changing role of rural areas;
issues of economy, society, environment and development being significant controls. As
such, rural discourses cannot be separated from the political and social powers, which
create them. The constructs of rurality which mould rural development policy, process and
perception flounder in the less than clear zone between the often abstract level of
development theory and the more ‘straight-forward’ on the ground applications of rural
development. There is (has been) a lack of theoretical precision when it comes to dealing
with things rural. The complexities involved in developing a theoretical insight into rural
development processes should not however be understated. Hoggart et al. (1995:4) have
suggested that ‘socio-economic change in rural areas inevitably covers the whole gamut of
societal transformations that nations experience’ from depopulation to shared experiences
of what residents of a particular area ‘call’ rural. A theoretical grounding needs to be based
on the developing experiences of rural places and people due to changing regulations in
production, consumption and the new commodification of the countryside.
Developing a theoretical insight to rural development is therefore complex and requires an
interpretation of the different constructs of rurality (Cloke, 1995). Rurality is constructed
and deployed in a variety of contexts (Murdoch and Pratt, 1993) with the rural being a
construction made up of a whole set of meanings (political and socio-cultural) and a lived
experience rather than just a physical space. Conceptually, discourses of the rural have
often been much more comfortable in dealing with statistics, hard numeric facts and ‘policy
relevant’ information (on farm size, or farm outputs for example) than on any attempt to
heighten awareness of the social and cultural marginalisation and experiences of rural
lifestyles (McInerney, 1995). There is however a slow conceptual shift away from the
mechanistic and reductionist view, to interpreting different constructs of rurality ‘by
drawing together in different ways, elements of political economic theorisation with
elements of the symbolic importance of notions of rural idylls’ (Cloke, 1995:165).
The debate on rurality seems continuous. Nevertheless, in recent years a new emphasis on
the meaning of rural has resulted in the promotion of theoretical paradigms and conceptual
tools (see for example Buller and Wright, 1990; Shortall, 1994). This increased emphasis
on the (de)construction of the rural comes at a time when the issue of rural development is
very much central to the political and social arena. In attempting to make some “sense” of
the debate, it is fair to suggest that there have been at least two divergent views of the
‘rural’ expressed in recent literature. The first is that of the traditionalists. This view is
best represented in the works of Pacione (1985) and Gilg (1985), who have ‘eschewed any
contamination with theoretical developments in the other social sciences but have
maintained a strong applied component particularly in the area of land use planning’
(Boylan, 1992, p.16). In contrast, the literature of the late 1980s has sought to encompass
developments in other social sciences, espousing the idea that irrespective of whether urban
or rural conceptualisations are used, the same underlying processes and structures are
involved. As such, the use of the term rural may be a misleading theoretical concept
(Cloke, 1985; Cloke, 1987a; Cloke, 1987b; Cloke and Goodwin, 1993; Halfacree, 1993).
5
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
In more recent literature (for example Hoggart and Buller, 1987) the vigour of rural studies
has also been called into question. Boylan (1992) citing Hoggart and Buller (1987) raises
the notion that despite advances to the contrary, there is still the continuing influence of the
‘long and lingering adherence, to notions of a rural-urban continuum’ (p.15). While
recognising Pahl’s (1966) critique of this notion, Boylan (1992, p.15) further asserts that
for too long rural studies have ‘over-emphasised issues connected with the consumption (or
consequences) of socio-economic change’ without delving very deeply into the production
of the socio-economic or other changes in such rural areas.
A further weakness is the synonymous use of rural with agriculture. Up to and including
the 1990s, the majority of references in literature or policy proposals tend to use “rural”
and “agricultural” interchangeably. This reinforces a one-dimensional approach to
development rather than the more integrated and holistic approach now being favoured (see
ÓCinnéide, 1992; Walsh, 1996). Paradoxically, there is also a situation of ‘an overinsistence on separating agricultural issues from non-agricultural concerns’ (Boylan,
1992:16), with very few attempts to evaluate how such issues (farm structures, efficiency,
innovation) have affected rural areas. The criticism is that in attempting to dispense with
the coupling of agriculture with all things rural the other extreme can occur leaving behind
the necessary holistic view.
As such, for a term that ‘trips very easily off the tongue’ (Cloke, 1985), the meaning of
‘rural’ has proved elusive. Authors such as Cloke, 1985; Hoggart, 1990; Cloke and
Goodwin 1993, and Halfacree, 1993, have all sought (with only limited success), to in
some way either define the rural; to categorise the rural; to propose alternative definitions
as to its use, or to do away with the rural altogether. Newby (1986) argued the case that the
make-up of rurality was largely a matter of convenience, while Lowe et al., (1990) describe
rural as having ‘been used in a predominantly pragmatic manner, adjusting to different
social, political and economic circumstances as the need arises’, and although it is quite
difficult to define what a rural area is, those areas that do not look like ‘an overwhelmingly
urban environment’ must then be of a rural environment. Murdoch and Pratt (1993, p.423)
suggested that rather than trying to render one single definition, it would be more beneficial
to explore ‘the ways in which rurality is constructed and deployed in a variety of contexts’.
More recently, Pratt (1996, p.71) argued for the recognition of many rurals and for an
acceptance that there were a 'multiplicity of meanings of the term rurality'.
Defining this chaotic concept of rural is therefore problematic. Halfacree (1993) suggests
that there have been two conventional, if not misguided, approaches in attempting such
definition. These are the use of either descriptive or socio-cultural terminology. The
former approach describes the rural in relation to its socio-spatial characteristics,
concentrating on variables that are observable and measurable, as for example land-use,
employment and population. Halfacree (ibid., p.24) described these types of definitions as
‘better seen as research tools for the articulation of specific aspects of the rural rather that
as ways of defining the rural’. He further argued that these were merely attempts to fit a
definition to what we already ‘intuitively consider to be rural’, and that they did not define
it themselves. From a socio-cultural perspective, the emphasis is on the assumption of
varying socio-cultural characteristics in relation to the types of environment people live in.
That is, differences between behaviour and attitudes of people who live in small population
6
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
settlements, as for example in rural areas, and those in large settlements like urban areas.
The use of an ideal type of rural (notions of close-knit communities; homogeneity in social
traits, language, belief, patterns of behaviour, family ties, and the importance of religion
(see Bull et al., 1984)),. as opposed to urban, society is far too simple. It utilises all the
positive traits, disregarding the mounting problems and deprivation which face both rural
and urban areas equally (McLaughlin, 1986b). For the most part, rural communities
contain a variety of different social groups and the idea of close-knit, happy and contented
communities is no longer (if ever it was) viable. The reality is more likely to include
conflict, differentiation-based class division and social status.
There have also been further attempts to define "rural". One example has been an attempt
to define rural in terms of locality (which in itself is difficult to define), while another is
presented in the works of Halfacree (1993) where rural is viewed in terms of social
representation, linking lay discourses of rurality to 'the words and concepts understood and
used in everyday talk' (ibid., p.29).
3. Rural Classification Methods
3.1 Rural areas and the EU
In the EU, rural areas are the home of a quarter of the population and account for more than
80% of the territory of the European Union. These areas are characterised by their rich
diversity of countryside, culture and tradition (European Conference on Rural
Development, 1996). The European rural world has, for many years, undergone a process
of radical transformation in which increasing pressures are being placed on an already
fragile equilibrium. The decline in traditional agricultural activities, the exodus from rural
areas and resulting ageing populations, the remoteness of some areas, the weakness of
infrastructure and basic services are some of the major problems that the rural areas are
facing (DG VI, 1997a). Labour-displacing productivity growth in primary sectors, along
with higher rates of growth in competitive urban-centred sectors, has also widened the
historic urban-rural gap.
The EU has however shown a concern with the implementation of rural development
policy and, addressing problems within rural areas, has become a central focus of EU rural
development policy. This policy can be divided into two groups, namely:
Direct measures which are specifically designed to address rural ‘problems’ and rural
‘problem areas’, and
Indirect measures which are measures from all EU policy which has an impact on rural
areas, but are not necessarily designed to combat rural ‘problems’.
Further, for the most part, modern rural development policy has the aim/goal of:
 enhancing the competitiveness of rural regions so that they can contribute
appropriately to achieving national economic development goals;
7
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)


NUI, Galway
providing opportunities to rural citizens to share a standard of living generally
comparable to national norms, and
identifying development and/or protection of key national elements of the built
environment in rural areas, especially where it can’t be reasonably expected that
private market transaction alone will secure a future socially optimal level (OECD,
1993).
In 1988, the EU set up a specific framework devoted to rural areas along with the
encouragement of integrated rural development under the reform of the structural funds. In
1993 rural areas received further political recognition within the EU through a specific
citation in article 130A of the Maastricht Treaty, which identified rural areas as a priority
for assistance under the EU policy for economic and social cohesion. Embedded in the EU
rural development concept is the overall objective of maintaining viable rural communities
(DG VI, 1997a).
The four main aims of EU rural development policy are:
 To promote economic and social cohesion, by maintaining and creating jobs;
 To overcome barriers to development by encouraging diversification and improving
infrastructure and giving facilitating access to new technologies;
 To increase the quality of life (by preserving the environment, giving access to
basic services….);
 To maintain viable communities whilst preserving their culture and traditions.
3.2 The pragmatic need to classify rural regions
That there is concern for rural areas in EU policy is beyond debate. However, the way in
which EU rural policy can be applied provides a different set of considerations. The ruralurban divide is no longer (if ever it was) a realistic dichotomy, and the acceptance that
there is a more general gradation in terms of a rural-urban continuum, makes the
classification of rural regions a difficult (if not impossible) task. Despite this problematic of
defining rural and rurality, and the argument that rigid typologies of the rural fail to capture
the constantly changing dynamics of role communities, it is also clear that circumstances in
different regions can have a great degree of commonality or can be quite different. Since it
is difficult to talk about rural development in an all encompassing way, it is useful for
policy-makers and practitioners alike to provide a synthesis of issues from which certain
types of regions can be discerned (Sumelius, 2000). Within this synthesis it is also useful to
reflect not only on differences but also commonalties of problems within rural regions. As
such the pragmatic need to define and monitor the changing nature of rural areas increases,
not only due to the inherent changes in agricultural systems, changing populations etc., but
also because of the need to create strategies for future rural sustainability. In fact there is
now a greater recognition on the part of policy makers for the 'need to distinguish between
different categories of rural environment, in order that areas of greatest need can be
successfully targeted', (Harrington and O'Donoghue, 1998). This has, for example, been
evidenced in the creation of Objective 6 regions by the EU for areas with a population
density threshold of 8 persons per square kilometre. As such rural classification can be
useful for understanding different rural policy approaches, and the kind of rural policy
concerns may differ from country to country depending on where most people live (i.e.
8
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
rural or urban areas). Within the rural regions of the EU, population density is extremely
variable, ranging from fewer than 20 inhabitants/km2 in many areas of Finland and Sweden
(where forests cover a large part of the territory), several areas of Scotland, the centres of
France, Spain and Greece, to more than 100 inhabitants/km2 in many regions with strong
rural features (e.g. southern Germany, the south of Italy). The categorising of the rural is
therefore a very significant issue as it can have direct implications for the dispersal of
scarce resources and as such must be based on a fair and equitable methodology. Among
the methodologies of greatest use are those of the OECD, Eurostat and the EU more
generally.
3.2.1 OECD classification
The OECD developed a simple definition of rural areas for the purpose of making
international comparisons of rural conditions and trends (EC, 1997). The definition
distinguishes two hierarchical levels of territorial unit: local and regional2. At local
community level (NUTS 5), the OECD identifies rural areas as communities with a
population density below 150 inhabitants per square kilometre.
At regional level (mainly NUTS 3), the OECD distinguishes larger functional or
administrative units by their degree of rurality, depending on what share of the region’ s
population lives in rural communities. To facilitate analysis, regions are then grouped into
three types:
 predominantly rural regions: over 50% of the population living in rural
communities;
 significantly rural regions: 15 to 50% of the population living in rural
communities;
 predominantly urban regions: less than 15% of the population living in rural
communities (see EC, 1997).
3.2.2 Eurostat classification
The Eurostat classification is based on the degree of urbanisation. An algorithm was
developed to classify every European region according to one of three classes (EC, 1997):
 Densely populated zones: these are groups of contiguous municipalities, each with
a population density superior to 500 inhabitants/km², and a total population for the
zone of at least 50,000 inhabitants.
 Intermediate zones: these are groups of municipalities, each with a density
superior to 100 inhabitants/km², not belonging to a densely populated zone. The
zone’s total population must be at least 50,000 inhabitants, or it must be adjacent to
a densely populated zone.
2
Regional data are based on the NUTS (Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques) classification.
Level 0 of this Classification is the Member States (15 units). The NUTS 1 level comprises 77 regions like
the “Régions” in Belgium or the “Länder” in Germany. The NUTS 2 level comprises 206 regions equivalent
to, for instance, the “Regioni” in Italy or the “Comunidades autonomas” in Spain. At NUTS 3 level the
French “départements” and the Swedish “Län” make up part of the total of 1031 regions. Finally, NUTS 5
arrives at the level of local municipalities or communes.
9
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)

NUI, Galway
Sparsely populated zones: these are groups of municipalities not classified as
either densely populated or intermediate.
A municipality or a continuous group of municipalities not reaching the required density
level, but fully contained in a densely populated or intermediate zone, is considered to be
part of that zone. If located between a densely populated and an intermediate zone, it is
considered to be intermediate. For this to apply, the group of municipalities concerned must
have an area of less than 100 km² (EC, 1997).
3.2.3 EU policy on rural areas
In addition to this regional classification based on demographic indicators, it is useful to
consider more qualitative systems. Within this classification there is however a tendency to
over-generalise about rural areas. For example, the EU recognises three ‘standard problem
areas’:
 areas suffering from the pressures of modern life, (modern agriculture and new
residential areas);
 areas suffering from rural decline (out-migration and marginal farming; and
 very remote areas (geographically marginal, sparse population).
According to their degree of integration with the national economy, rural areas can further
be distinguished as:
 integrated rural areas, with a growing population, an employment basis in the
secondary and tertiary sectors, but with farming still being a key use of land. Facing
potential threats to their environmental, social and cultural heritage, some of these
areas, relatively close to big cities, risk becoming dwelling areas only and not
working areas ("rurbanization"); others are developing in their own right;
 intermediate rural areas, relatively distant from urban centres, with a varying mix
of primary and secondary sectors; in many countries, larger scale farming
operations are found in these areas;
 remote rural areas, with the lowest population densities, often the lowest incomes,
and an older population which depends heavily on agricultural employment. These
areas generally provide the least adequate basic services; isolating features are often
topographic characteristics, like mountains, or their remoteness from transport
networks (EC, 1997).
These generalisations indicate that rural areas are in some way homogeneous, and not the
complex entities that we think they are. It is easily argued that within an area of decline
there may also be pockets of growth, and vice versa. Such a disposition focuses on ‘space,
not people, and thereby overlooks the obvious truism that it is people not places who have
problems and that different people in the same place can have different problems’ (Cloke
and Goodwin, 1993, p.23). It is therefore becoming increasingly promoted that through
combining lay, academic and policy discourse, it is no longer possible to look at ‘rural’ as
merely a physical space; but a more appropriate model is of a multiplicity of social spaces
which overlap the same geographical area, with each social space having ‘its own logic, its
10
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
own institutions, as well as its own network of actors - users, administrators - which are
specific and not local’ (Mormont, 1990, p.34).
It must therefore be pointed out that using a different criterion may result in territories
being described differently and as such, a common methodology must be used.
4. Policy Modulation and rural policy
In the previous sections the diverse nature of rural regions has been exposed and examined.
This is clearly evident with regard to difficulties in developing rural classifications or rural
typologies. Given that the strengths, weakness, threats and opportunities in particular
regions can be quite varied, an homogenous rural development policy designed to reinforce
strengths, overcome the weaknesses, abate threats and exploit opportunities will be
ineffective in the heterogeneous reality of the local level 3. Although the suggestion of a
universal policy is not appropriate, neither is it realistic to suggest that all policy can be
formulated at the local level. Thus there is a tension between the achievement of a broad
policy consistency across regions, and the tailoring of policies appropriately at local level.
One solution to this is the formulation of universal policy goals at the central level (whether
it be regional, national or supra-national), while leaving some discretion at local level to
interpret or adapt the goals to the local situation. The term ‘policy modulation’ can be used
to describe this process, and it suggests itself as an extremely relevant concept for Rural
Development Policy.
4.1 What is policy modulation
The fact that both EU and National governments appear to be pursuing forms of modulated
policy in recent policy developments is noteworthy, and suggests that within policy process
circles there is recognition of the value of developing policy that can be modulated.
Policy modulation can be described positively as any mechanism which allows/enables
local actors to gear/adapt supra-local policy to the local reality, i.e. allows local
interpretation/adaptation of universal goals to the local situation. However, it must also be
recognised policy modulation is extremely complex in terms of co-ordination. It requires
administrative bodies at sub-national level, and further there needs to be safeguards to
minimise the risk of local groups pursuing local issue at the expense of, or without the
consideration of, the national well-being.
4.2 Why modulate policy
As already highlighted, the heterogeneous nature of rural areas dictates that
homogeneously designed policy will be largely ineffective. As a result the main reasoning
for policy modulation is:
 Efficiency – public funds spent on the most relevant local issues; avoids public
expenditure on issues not considered relevant at the local level; avoids
3
Local in this context is defined as any designated level below the central level.
11
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)


NUI, Galway
inefficiencies related to the policy process as a result of centre-local information
gaps i.e. reduces some policy process transaction costs. This is all rooted in the
premise that the best information about the local level is held by local actors, who
are also in the best position to exploit this information if given the resources to do
so.
Economic benefits – benefits the national level as public expenditure is more
efficient; benefits the local level as, in theory, the most effective policies for local
development are support; therefore benefiting the national level as the local
economy can contribute more to national production and requires less resources to
compensate for it’s lagging positions.
Local empowerment and institution building/strengthening – the ability to carry out
policy modulation at the local level requires the development of local institutions
(whether government/administrative, voluntary/community, or private). Can also
lead to the strengthening of local democracy
It must also be noted that issues of democratic legitimacy, accountability and suitable
levels of governance are very much reflective of the degree to which a policy can be
modulated. Without legitimate institutional levels and appropriate tiers of governance,
policy modulation is of little benefit. That policy modulation may to some extent force the
creation of these institutions or tiers of governance is also worth considering.
4.3 How is policy modulated – what are the necessary requirements




centre capable of developing and monitoring the implementation of policy that can
be modulated at a lower level.
a local level capable of modulating the policy appropriately and implementing
programmes that will best achieve the policy goals
centre that will support the development of the critical mass necessary at the local
level to modulate policy if it does not already exist (i.e. training, networking
systems, etc).
monitoring and evaluation functions at all levels.
4.4 Examples of policy that has been modulated
4.4.1 EU policy modulation
The EU has engaged in forms of policy modulation on a number of occasions –
understandably so given the diverse nature of the member states. One such example is that
of LEADER. This is a form of modulation in that the LEADER Community Initiative
established universal goals of local development in rural areas, and then assisted in the
development of critical mass at these local levels to carry out this work, and helped fund
the programmes developed by the groups.
A second example relates to the EU Agri-environmental Council Regulation 2078/92. This
regulation seeks to make agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements
12
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
NUI, Galway
of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside. This was
modulated/interpreted by each member state. In Ireland, for example, the regulation
resulted in the development of the REPS programme – a nation-wide programme that
farmers voluntarily participate in and receive payments for complying with
environmentally friendly farming practices. In other states the same regulation has resulted
in very different agri-environmental policies.
A further example of policy modulation is demonstrated in a Irish national policy context.
In the year 2000, for example, “The Interdepartemental Task Force on the Integration of
Local Government and Local Development Systems” produced guidelines for the CDBs
(County Development Boards) for drafting their strategies for Economic, Social and
Cultural Development. The aim of the guidelines is to provide the appropriate level of
direction to ensure the necessary degree of comparability and consistency in the strategies,
and the flexibility to cater for the particular situation of each county and city.
4.5 Why modulate Rural Development Policy
In view of these discussions the reasons for modulation of rural development policy are
strong. These include:
 large regions of a diverse EU classified as rural
 dynamic nature of rural regions mean homogenous policy is not appropriate
 diverse nature of rural regions mean homogenous policy is not appropriate
(to be continued)
5. Outline of the rest of Deliverable 3 in its forthcoming version
4.6
How rural policy could be modulated
5.
5.1.
5.2
Case Studies: 3 EU Rural Regions
How these ‘rural regions’ were classified
Oeste, Portugal
5.2.1 Regional Profile
5.2.2 SWOT analysis
Uckermark, Germany
5.3.1 Regional Profile
5.3.2 SWOT analysis
Mayo, Ireland
5.4.1 Regional Profile
5.4.2 SWOT analysis
Possibilities for modulation in these regions
5.3
5.4
5.5
13
IDARA D3 (Version 30 April 2001)
6.
6.1.
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1.
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
NUI, Galway
Case Studies: 3 Czech Rural Regions
How these ‘rural regions’ were classified
Znojmo
6.2.1 Regional Profile
6.2.2 SWOT analysis
Zdar nad Sazavou
6.3.1 Regional Profile
6.3.2 SWOT analysis
Trebic
6.4.1 Regional Profile
6.4.2 SWOT analysis
Possibilities for modulation in these regions
Case Studies: 3 Hungarian Rural Regions
How these ‘rural regions’ were classified
Kunszentmiklós
7.2.1 Regional Profile
7.2.2 SWOT analysis
Tapolca
7.3.1 Regional Profile
7.3.2 SWOT analysis
Nyírbátor
7.4.1 Regional Profile
7.4.2 SWOT analysis
Possibilities for modulation in these regions
8.
8.1.
8.2.
Case Studies: 3 Polish Rural Regions
How these ‘rural regions’ were classified
Hajuowka County
8.2.1 Regional Profile
8.2.2 SWOT analysis
8.3
Doline Strugu
8.3.1 Regional Profile
8.3.2 SWOT analysis
8.4
Klodzko County
8.4.1 Regional Profile
8.4.2 SWOT analysis
8.5 Possibilities for modulation in these regions
9. Conclusion. The “modulatability” of rural policies
14