Anna Soci

1

• Anna Soci
• Overview of the state of the Project progress so
  far and steps forward
• Archanes (Crete)
• October 13th/14th, 2006

2
Progress so far.

• Objective 1
• Identifying and analysing the main economic
  factors which influence the creation and the
  survival of enterprises in peripheral rural areas
  of Europe, and measuring the degree of their
  influence

3
TASKSDivided into groups

• First group (WP1)
• To specify criteria for the selection of the
  projects study areas
• To identify these study areas
• To complete reports on the socioeconomic and
  development characteristics of the study areas
• To complete a comparative analysis of the
  development characteristics of the study areas

4
Accomplishment and evaluation

• The tasks have been accomplished
• The methodological research about the areas led
  to an enlargement of the indicators to be
  considered in order to define the specific
  remote rural areas suitable for TERA.
• The comparison of the study areas from the point
  of view of the TERA objectives enlightened two
  criteria the level of remoteness and the
  best strategy for a future development. The two
  criteria do not lead to the same ranking of
  countries.

5
As far as WP1 where the first group of tasks is
nested is concerned..

• Presentations (outside)
• Partners participated or are going to participate
  in International Conferences with scholarly
  audience (P1 Rimini, August 2006 P5 Vilnius,
  December 2005 P6 Cesky Krumlov, March 2006
  Halle, Germany, June/July 2006 Prague, September
  2006)

6
Publications

• P6 is going to publish three papers
• Bednarikova, Z. et al. (2006) Territorial
  Aspects of Enterprise Development in Remote Rural
  Areas of Europe in a Collection of papers from
  the Conference Countryside our world, Prague,
  March 2006
• Bednarikova, Z. Rural Development in Terms of
  Model Design, in Proceedings of the International
  Conference on Agrarian Perspectives, Czech
  Agricultural University in Prague, September 2006

7

• Bednarikova, Z. and T. Doucha, Territorial
  aspects of enterprise development in remote rural
  areas of Europe, in Agriculture in the face of
  changing markets, institutions and policies.
  Halle (Salle) Leibniz-Institut fur
  Agrarentwicklung in Mittel-und Osteuropa (IAMO
  Forum 2006), pp. 513-527

8
Publications

• P1 Dallari-Grandi-Mariotti-Zabbini submitted
  their paper for publication to the (refereed
  journal) Rivista Geografica Italiana.
• Zabbini submitted also a brief note for
  publication to the same journal.

9
Dissemination

• Partners performed an intense activity of
  diffusion of TERA tasks and work in progress in
  their own countries (P1 press-releases,
  briefings with local authorities, articles on
  local newspapers P3 Press-releases on regional
  and national newspapers and interviews on
  regional radio news P5 articles in regional and
  national newspapers and interviews on study
  results and next tasks P6 dissemination meeting
  in Kristanovice).

10
Overall evaluation

• WP1
• Correspondence between the expected objectives
  and results and the actual objective and
  results
• ?
• ALL THE EXPECTED OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN
  REACHED SUCCESSFULLY and ALL THE MILESTONES HAVE
  BEEN REACHED WITHIN THE SCHEDULED TIME
• Correspondence between the expected and the
  actual Deliverables
• ?
• THE FINAL DELIVERABLES MIRROR PERFECTLY THE
  EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

11
TASKSDivided into groups

• Second group (WP2 and WP3)
• To develop a theoretical and conceptual framework
  on the territorial factors that influence
  enterprises and local development
• To design the structure of CGE and NEG models,
  which will be applied to the study areas of the
  project.

12
Accomplishment and evaluation

• Both tasks have been accomplished
• WP2
• The conceptual framework envisaged was wide and
  updated to the most recent contributions of the
  literature on localization, agglomeration, and
  agriculture the territorial factors that are
  important to both enterprises and rural
  development in remote rural areas were clearly
  indicated. Specific suggestions for the research
  in the TERA context were provided

13

• WP3
• The theoretical setting has taken the form of
  more than one model, in order to enrich TERA from
  different theoretical perspectives.
• The attempt is to update the work on rural
  development issues and to propose a new
  analytical framework that gives particular
  attention remoteness, low density of population,
  dependence on natural resources, dispersion of
  economic activity and externalities such as
  technology or knowledge transfers.

14
Presentations (outside) and publicationsWP2

• No presentation outside
• P1 submitted the only Final Deliverable of WP2 to
  the (refereed journal) Journal of Economic
  Surveys.

15
Presentations (outside)WP3

• Participation in Conferences or Workshops
• P1 Coimbra, March 2006 Rimini, August 2006
  Vienna, September 2006 Copenhagen, September 2006

16
PublicationsWP3

• P1 submitted the
• Final Deliverable 5a) No taxation
  withoutinfrastructure to (the refereed journal)
  Regional Science and Urban Economics
• Final Deliverable 5b) To migrate or to commute
  to (the refereed journal) Economica

17
Overall evaluation

• WP2
• Correspondence between the expected objectives
  and results and the actual objective and
  results
• ?
• THE EXPECTED OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN
  REACHED SUCCESSFULLY and THE MILESTONE HAS BEEN
  REACHED WITHIN THE SCHEDULED TIME
• Correspondence between the expected and the
  actual Deliverable
• ?
• THE CONTENT OF THE FINAL DELIVERABLE MIRRORS
  PERFECTLY THE EXPECTED DELIVERABLES ONE.

18
Overall evaluation

• WP3
• Correspondence between the expected objectives
  and results and the actual objective and
  results
• ?
• ALL THE EXPECTED OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN
  REACHED SUCCESSFULLY and THE MILESTONE HAS BEEN
  REACHED WITH A MINIMUM DELAY
• Correspondence between the expected and the
  actual Deliverables
• ?
• THE FINAL DELIVERABLES MIRROR PERFECTLY THE
  EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

19
TASKSDivided into groups

• Third group (WP4)
• To identify information-collection sources for
  the CGE and NEG models
• To collect information (surveys, etc.) for the
  CGE and NEG models

20

• Data collection should have been made also for
  the sectoral shift hypothesis
• (Pellonis line of research).
• This topic would be discussed in the Governing
  Body meeting

21

• WP4 is the subject of our meeting, and its full
  assessment would be possible only after the
  meeting.
• As far as 2/3 of the time span of WP4 is
  concerned (as much as covered by the
  reporting-period), the assessment of the
  activities leads towards a positive evaluation

22

• The exchange of information has been efficient
  and full collaboration among the partners has
  been present.
• The quality of the internal scientific debate was
  good and stimulating
• The timing of the duties was substantially
  respected

23
MILESTONES for WP4

• Month 8 (end of February 2006)
• Milestone No. 1 for WP4
• Sample design for data collection for CGE model
• Deliverable month 15 (end of September)
• Identification of information-collection sources
  for the NEG and job reallocation econometric
  models
• Deliverable month 15 (end of September)
• DONE Workshop in Joensuu

24

• Month 13 (end of July 2006)
• Milestone No. 2 for WP4
• Finalisation of surveys for the collection of
  data for CGE model
• Deliverable see month month 15 (end of
  September)
• Finalisation of data collection for the NEG/job
  reallocation models
• Deliverable see month 15 (end of September)
• Some delay part of the collection is still
  ongoing

25

• Month 15 (end of September 2006)
• Milestone No. 3 for WP4
• Deliverable one relevant research paper for the
  CGE model
• Deliverable one relevant research paper for the
  NEG/job reallocation models
• NOT DONE YET
• (However, the draft-papers presented in the
  Archanes-meeting are the substantial contents of
  the two Deliverables)

26

• Month 16 (end of October 2006)
• Milestone No. 4 for WP4
• Meeting of partners to assess work-progress and
  to analyse work-procedures for WP5
• DONE on time the ongoing meeting in Archanes
  (Crete, Greece)

27
List of deliverables All the due deliverables
have been given and they are available on-line

• WP0  Project Presentation
• Deliverable No. 0 Project Presentation
• WP1
• Deliverable No. 1 Methodological Paper
• Deliverable No. 2 Comparative Analysis

28

• WP2
• Deliverable No. 3 
• Agglomeration, Agriculture and the  Perspective
  of the Periphery
•  

29

• WP3
• Deliverable No. 4 
• CGE Example Model
• Additional Final Deliverable No. 4a)  
• Modelling Agriculture, Tourism and Policy  in a
  CGE Environment

30
WP3

• Deliverable No. 5 
• What is NEG? The Basic Framework and Two
  Theoretical Extensions for the TERA Project
• Additional Final Deliverable No. 5a) 
• No Taxation WithoutInfrastructure
• Additional Final Deliverable No. 5b)
• To Migrate or to Commute?

31
All the draft papers given during the meetings
are available on-lineList of Material for
deliverables
32
WPs - Materials for deliverables (MfD)

• 9 draft-papers for WP1
• 3 draft papers for WP2
• 4 draft papers for WP3
• 3 draft papers for WP4
• Plus 20 .ppt presentations at the meetings

33
Steps forward

• More on the steps forward would be told in the
  co-ordination meeting.
• Some urgent issues

34
1. Second Financing

• NO OFFICIAL REPLY YET
• Financial officers objections to our global
  outlays we did not spend the 70 of the
  pre-financing (art. 180 of the General Rules of
  the EU)
• In fact, we spent the 66,66666 of it (2/3 of
  the pre-financing, as much as the reporting
  period over the entire period of the
  prefinancing)
• Useless to say that we did not know it (in fact,
  it is neither written in the 6th FP rules nor in
  our specific contract)

35

• The financial officer wrote also that as soon as
  we will reach the amount of the 70 of the
  pre-financing the funding procedure will start
  again.
• No positive scientific evaluation can
  counterbalance this shortcoming.
• In fact, I have not yet received any evaluation
  of the Periodic Activity Report sent to our
  scientific officer

36

• For this reason I asked all partners to let me
  know informally their outlays in July, August and
  September, in order to check whether we would be
  able to reach the required amount.
• After this checking we knew that we could do it
  with the only expenses for July and August.
• Thus we asked you for filling new C Forms, and
  write a new short PMR. I will then write a new
  global PMR and send it to Brussels.

37

• We received some C Forms, and PMRs
• Some of the C Forms were not correctly filled
• In the co-ordination meeting dr. Capacci will
  explain you the correct way of doing this task
  (some problems in doing this task were also
  present in July/August)
• We hope that at the end of next week everything
  is done
• DEADLINE for sending correct C Forms and
  relative PMRs is
• Monday, October 23rd

38
2. Timing of the deliverables for WP4

• REMIND 2 Deliverables
• One paper assembling the individual data
  collection for the CGE model
• (P2 or P4)
• One paper assembling the individual data
  collection for the NEG model(s)
• (P1)
• Both should present the procedures followed in
  each study area in order to collect the data.

39
REMIND

• We are already 15 days late with the Final
  Deliverables for WP4.
• Deadline for the individual papers
• (one paper for all the data collected)
• October 31
• Deadline for the two Final Deliverables November
  15th

40
3. Activity in 2007WP5

• Milestone No. 2 for WP5 in Month 23 (end of May
  2007)
• (Milestone No. 1 in Month 19 end of January
  2007 - is a false milestone, being just a
  deadline for the analysis of data)
• ?
• Obtain results from CGE analysis
• Obtain results from NEG analysis

41
3. Activity in 2007WP5

• Month 25 (end of July 2007)
• Milestone No. 3 for WP5
• Deliverable one relevant research paper on the
  application and results of CGE analysis
• Deliverable one relevant research paper on the
  application and results of NEG

42
3. Activity in 2007WP5

• Month 26 (end of August 2007)
• Milestone No. 4 for WP5
• Deliverable one relevant comparative research
  paper on the application and results of CGE
  analysis
• Deliverable one relevant comparative research
  paper on the application and results of NEG

43
4. Activity in 2007 MEETING in Riga

• Month 27 (September 2007)
• Milestone No. 4 for WP5
• Meeting of partners to assess the work in
  progress and to specify work for WP6
  identification of structural policies and
  evaluation of their relevance to territorial
  factors

44
WHICH IS THE BEST MOMENT FOR THE RIGA-MEETING?

• Results end of MAY
• ? June?
• First two deliverables end of July
• ? August?
• Second two deliverables end of August
• ? September

45
The Mid-Project Conference in Ferrara

• End of May (and before the Riga-meeting, in the
  original plan)
• My proposal and strong preference is
• The Conference after the Riga-meeting
• (WE NEED RESULTS)
• Moreover, some time should elapse between the
  Riga-meeting and the Conference (to modify
  something, to add something)

46
THUS.

• PROPOSAL
• The Riga-meeting in the very beginning of
  September (6/7)
• The Ferrara Conference at the very end of October
  (25/26)