Date post: | 01-Apr-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | maverick-marvin |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
The Case of Kainuu
Development situation of a remote and sparsely populated region
20.2.2003
Director Pentti MalinenResearch and Development Centre of Kajaani
The Case of Kainuu
Development situation of a remote and sparsely populated region
20.2.2003
Director Pentti MalinenResearch and Development Centre of Kajaani
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
My backgroundMy background
• Director of the Research and Development Centre of Kajaani, University of Oulu (2000-)
• Researcher of Finnish rural and regional policy (1990-1999)– Finnish Rural Typology (1993 and 2000)– Rural policy and Northern Dimension of EU Policies (1999)
• Evaluator of EU Programmes and Projects (1994-)– Interim evaluations of Finnish 5b, LEADER Programs 1995-99– Ex ante evaluations of Finnish 1,2 and & INTERREG (2000)– Interim evaluations of Finnish Rural Dev. Programme and
LEADER
• Expert, in international projects (1994-)– Best-practices in Local Development in the Northern Periphery– EU/COST A12 ”Rural Innovation”/ Evaluation
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
THE CASE: Kainuu, Finland
• The region of Kainuu is one of the most sparsely populated areas of the EU with its 88 000 inhabitants
• The area of Kainuu is 24 452 km2
– Compared with Belgium 30 500 km2
• population density of 4 inh./km2
– In Belgium 326 inh./km2
• 260 km common border with Russia
• The population density varies in Finland so that it is lowest in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
POPULATION DENSITY BY MUNICIPALITIES
Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 1998
Pop. Density by municipalities, pop./km2
0.25 - 4.99 (92)5.00 - 9.99 (126)
10.00 - 19.99 (111)20.00 - 2 874.69 (123)
W hole country
Towns and cities
Econ. Integrated mun.
Intermediate mun.
Island mun.
Remote mun.
0 300 600
Pop./km2
Pop. density by rural areas
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
Kainuu in European context
The Northern Dimension became a topical issue when Finland and Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, which meant that it included for the first time
• a broad, sparsely-populated region of a rural character that was
• climatically different from its core area and • had a substantial border with Russia. EU responded this situation by the Objective 6
based on population density criterion (8 inh./km2)
Northern Periphery– Is area consisting the northernmost parts of Nordic
Countries (Obj. 1 areas) and Highlands and Island in Scotland
– Has its own specific Interreg development programme in EU
• Common characteristics & Challenges– rurality of the North– cold climate (long winter, short growing season) – peripherality limits but also include strengths for
development– sparse population and ”thinning-out”– fast pace of structural change -> loss of endogenous
potential
• The most powerful national and EU regional policy measures were implemented in Kainuu region in 1995-99
– Objective 6
– Karelian Interreg II; Northern Periphery
– LEADERII/ two LAGs
– national rural and urban policy and
– Centre of Expertice programme
• Each policy is based on slightly different principles behind their implementation, but all programmes share a general aim to strengthen the local economy.
• Ex Post evaluations confirm the benefits of these policies despite the development gaps within the country have not converged
Objectives 1995-99
Obj. 2obj. 5bObj. 6Others
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
REGIONAL POLICY MEASURES 1995 - 1999
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
OBJECTIVE 1 PROGRAMMES 2000 -2006
Data: Statistics Finland
GDP/capita 2000Finland = 100
40 - 59 (21)60 - 74 (27)75 - 99 (22)
100 - 178 (15) Tavo ite 1 -a lueTavo ite 2 -a lueSiir tymäkauden a lue
Maakunta raja
Seuk untaraja
S u om e n E U -a lu eo hje lm ientav o itea lu ee t 20 00 - 2 00 6
L ä h d e: T K/ S is ä as ia in m i nist er i ö
< 30
30 – 50
50 – 75
75 – 100
100 – 125
> = 125
MT:1999
Source: Eurostat
Index: EU-25 = 100
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
GDP per head by region (PPS) 2000
• Unemployment rate in Kainuu has remained on the highest level in Finland (see also next slide)
• The core of the problem is the long-term character of umployment on the regional level
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
Data: Ministry of Labour, Finland
National average = 10.8 %
Unemployment rate, %in october 2002
0.9 - 7.4 (88)7.5 - 9.9 (99)
10.0 - 12.4 (112)12.5 - 14.9 (71)15.0 - 26.4 (78)
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY MUNICIPALITIES 10/2002, %.
0
5
10
15
20
25
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
%
Non eligible areas
Objective 1
Objective 2
Transition period areas
Finland as a whole
Data: Ministry of Labour© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY OBJECTIVES 1991-2002, %.
• From the point of development sparse population restricts economic development – expensive to maintain economic
activity (transport costs)– higher per capita costs for
education, infrastructure and other public services
• The aim of economic and social cohesion acquires a special content in the case Kainuu and similar regions:
• to maintain settlement and the regional structure in long term1 0 05 0
k ilo m e tre s
0
P o p u la tio n c h a n g e b y m u n ic ip a lit ie s1 9 9 8 -2 0 3 0 , %
-3 7.8 - -9 .9 (1 7 0 )-1 0.0 - -0 .1 (1 4 0 )
0 .0 - 9 .9 (9 6 )1 0 .0 - 3 9 .4 (4 6 )
M u n ic ip a lity b o rd e r
R e g io n b o rd e r
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
1a Remote
1b Islands
Intermediate
Econ.Integrated
Towns andcities
Wholecountry
%
Population change by rural areas, %
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
POPULATION CHANGE BY MUNICIPALITIES AND RURAL AREAS 1998-2030, %
• Kainuu and most of the rural Finland is losing their population due to out-migration and low birth rates
• These problems are share by many areas in Europe
• but in our case the risks are much higher since the population density is already extremely low
Square km2 grid cells, %
4,1 - 11,9 (24)12,0 - 15,9 (21)16,0 - 18,9 (19)19,0 - 29,4 (24)
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
SHARE OF GRID CELLS UNDER THREAT TO BE UNOCCUPIED BY DISTRICT UNITS, %
1980
5000 3000 1000 1000 3000 5000
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90-
Miehet Naiset
2000
5000 3000 1000 1000 3000 5000
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90-
Miehet Naiset
2020
5000 3000 1000 1000 3000 5000
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90-
Miehet Naiset
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
AGE STRUCTURE OF KAINUU 1980 - 2000 AND PROGNOS TO THE YEAR 2020
Men Women Men WomenMen Women
• The population structure is ageing all over the Europe
• In Finland population trends show that the dependency rate in the future will be the worst in the Northern and Eastern Finland
• this means that a greater number of people have to be supported by fewer people
• in the long run this causes economic crisis in the small municipalities
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
DEPEDENCY RATE BY MUNICIPALITIES IN 2030
Pop. (0-14 & 65-)/ pop.15-64
Data: Statistics Finland
National average = 0.71
Depedency rate 2030
0.51 - 0.79 (120)0.80 - 0.88 (113)0.89 - 0.99 (107)1.00 - 1.26 (108)
• Dependency rate is substantially changing over the next twenty year and this change is evitable
• Furthermore, this the rate of change is fastest in the Northern and Eastern Finland
• My question is: – should we include
dependency rate as a new eligibility criteria for Objective 1?
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
CHANGE OF DEPEDENCY RATE BY MUNICIPALITIES 2002 – 2030, %.
Data: Statistics Finland
National average = 43 %
Chance of dependencyrate 2002 - 2030, %
5 - 40 (123)40 - 50 (107)50 - 62 (106)62 - 163 (112)
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
LONG DISTANCES WITHIN THE REGIONS
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
Distance (km) to the nearest population centre by roadnet
• Kainuu includes ten municipalities (the local administrative units)
• Only the closest centres to Kajaani form a commuting area (labour market area)
• The remote municipalities must keep their endogenous development in order to survive
• and because their are small (2000 – 12 000 inhabitants) this task is challenging
PERIPHERALITY IN EUROPEAN SCALE
• The development situation caused by low population density and long distances is possible to operationalise also by a consept of peripherality
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
• As a special measure for new regional policy in Finland we have introduced the policy for centres of expertise.
• It is a Finnish version of capacity building policy.
• At the moment we have two fields of expertice selected in the Programme of Kainuu
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERTICE
• The idea of the Center of Expertise Programme is to utilise top level knowledge and expertise as a resource for business operations, job creation and regional development.
• The Programmes are selected by competition and external evaluation of applications.The Programme seeks to identify regional strengths and create economic growth; – to increase the number of competitive products, services,
enterprises and jobs based on the highest standard of expertise; – to attract international investment and leading experts; and – to continually reinforce and regenerate regional expertise.
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
Centre of Expertice Programme
• The most fragile including the extremely sparse populated areas need strong cohesion-oriented regional development policy on EU level supported by national integrated policy approach
• The most peripheral and lagging regions need capacity building - policy measures that aim at developing these regions as base for their own expertise
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
MY CONCLUSIONSMY CONCLUSIONS
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
MY CONCLUSIONSMY CONCLUSIONS
• Problems connected with remoteness are best experienced and understood at the local level, and as the will to develop the region is embodied in the local people, any attempt at development can be best implemented through an administrative structure in which maxinum resources and responsbility are assigned to local administrative authorities and development actors.
© Research and Development Centre of Kajaani 2003
MORE INFORMATION
gsm: +358-40-5552878
tel: +358-8-6324800