Ian Smith Cities Research Centre Rural-Urban linkages: do they foster cohesion?

Discussion points Can we foster social cohesion through rural- urban linkages? Are rural-urban linkages special? Should we attempt to measure social/territorial cohesion derived from rural-urban linkages and if so how? Is there merit in considering social cohesion separately from the territorial agenda?

Vignettes – illustration How will we illustrate the issues? Seven vignettes in paper: –Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå, Sweden. –NGO-driven work with disadvantaged urban youth –Combined Universities in Cornwall –Tackling out-migration by young people in the Pays Berry Saint Amandois –Counteracting digital exclusion through broadband in Kuyavia- Pomerania –Joining up public transport in the Prague metropolitan area –Realignment of family protection and child-welfare service in Pécs ‘micro-region’ (Hungary).

Case vignettes Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå Imayla (NGO-led) social cohesion & youth – SW England Combined Universities in Cornwall Tackling issues for young people: Pays Berry Saint-Amandois Implementing a Broadband Network in Kuyavia- Pomerania Prague Integrated Transit System Realignment of family protection and child- welfare services, Pécs Source of base map: Wikipedia reproduced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation LicenseGNU Free Documentation License Social farming: Netherlands

What was being done? Infrastructure building Improving public services Training and employment Tackling social problems

Creating social cohesion through experience Imayla creates learning environments for disadvantaged young people Young people from disadvantaged urban areas taken to experience rural environments (cohesion within group) Also social farming – later Are rural-urban linkages special?

Cohesion through improving public services Improving family support services in Pécs (Hungary) Re-organisation of service at city-region level Improved access, specialist service and quality control Are rural-urban linkages special?

Propositions Proposition 1: cohesion outcomes of rural-urban linkages need to benefit both rural and urban communities Proposition 2: cohesion can be the unintended or secondary outcome of linkages Proposition 3: territorial and social cohesion are generally linked but they do not have to be Proposition 4: linkages are good for dealing with service deficits, migration issues, shared experiences

Some thoughts from our case vignettes Cities Research Centre Rural-Urban linkages: do they foster cohesion?

Ian Smith Cities Research Centre Rural-Urban linkages: how do you create them?

Making rural-urban linkages Outline some key ideas What have we learnt from EU initiatives Vignette illustrations What you think

Rural-Urban Partnerships Benefits/opportunities Reduced polarisation Ability to address regional issues Intelligence of local concerns at strategic level Inclusion of multiple stakeholders Increased global competitiveness Increased capacity to provide fiscal relief for revitalisation Challenges/constraints Political and cultural differences Difficulties in cross- collaboration and building trust Lack of regional policy frameworks and ambiguous structures Operational complexity of process Lack of resources Competition between local authorities

Partnerships: EU initiative experience Partnerships are important for problem identification and project delivery Partnership programmes need to be integrated and area-based Transfer of lessons at EU level important Partnerships need to be encouraged to be innovative

Case vignettes Inter-municipal partnership in Umeå Imayla (NGO-led) social cohesion & youth – SW England Combined Universities in Cornwall Tackling issues for young people: Pays Berry Saint-Amandois Implementing a Broadband Network in Kuyavia- Pomerania Prague Integrated Transit System Realignment of family protection and child- welfare services, Pécs Source of base map: Wikipedia reproduced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation LicenseGNU Free Documentation License Social farming: Netherlands

Institutional structures in vignettes Voluntary local government associations (with and without incentives) Regional partnerships Non-governmental partnerships Partnerships for identifying priorities and partnerships for delivering projects

Voluntary associations of municipalities Giving small ‘rural’ authorities a voice: the city- region of Umeå Umeå – city region of 143,000 residents Voluntary association brings together 6 municipalities to pool some resources – this partnership identifies priorities Project partnerships take forward projects calling on EU co-finance Transferability? Probably good if have strong local government

Non-governmental public partnership Providing HE for Cornwall – Combined Universities in Cornwall 500,000 population of which 92% ‘rural’ and small towns Partnership of 6 universities (independent public sector) comes together around accessing EU co- finance Provides HE courses Transferability? Depends on capacity of non- governmental sector

Propositions Proposition 1: partnership is crucial in the delivery of rural-urban linkages – both in terms of issue identification and project delivery Proposition 2: partnerships will probably mostly depend on local government but is not the only form of partnership Proposition 3: EU co-finance/support has been important in facilitating rural-urban linkage Proposition 4: lessons on partnership can be transferred across Europe

Some thoughts from our case vignettes Cities Research Centre Rural-Urban linkages: how do you create them?