The Europeanisation of local authorities: Challenges for rural areas

Jo~rrnrrl of Rurul Studies, Printed in Great Britain

Vol. 9. No. 2. pp. 153-161.

1993

0743~0167/93 $6.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Press Ltd

The Europeanisation of Local Authorities: Challenges for Rural Areas Steve Martin Aston

Business

School,

Aston

University,

Birmingham

B4 7ET, U.K.

Abstract -

The completion of the Single European Market, the availability to regions of EC assistance and the growing volume of EC legislation to be implemented at the local level have begun to lead to important changes in the roles and responsibilities of many U.K. local authorities. The power of sub-national government in most EC states is likely to be enhanced by the move towards a ‘Europe of the Regions’. However, there are constraints on British local authorities which may render them less able to respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by closer European integration than their counterparts in other parts of the Community. Authorities in rural areas face particular problems, not shared by metropolitan areas. However, some of the recent approaches which have been taken by rural authorities in the U.K. demonstrate ways of overcoming the difficulties they face in responding to Europeanisation. Similar strategies might usefully be adopted by other authorities which have not as yet been closely involved with EC initiatives and programmes.

Local authority

involvement

‘doing something about Europe’. The Cecchini Report (1988) forecast that the SEM would produce a stimulus for growth leading to a medium-term increase of 7% in Community GNP (at 1988 prices) and the creation of up to five million jobs. These predictions were made on the basis of a series of sectoral studies of the costs of ‘non Europe’, that is, not implementing the Single Market proposals. However, it now seems likely that they were overSeveral optimistic. subsequent studies have suggested that Cecchini’s calculations exaggerated the extent to which the abolition of legal barriers will actually lead to increased competition and overestimated both the likely rate of economic growth within the Community and the savings which will be derived from economies of scale (Bairnbridge and Burkitt, 1991).

in Europe

In recent years there has been a growing awareness among U.K. local authorities of the range of new challenges and opportunities which result from closer European integration. This realisation has come about partly because sub-national government has assumed greater responsibilities within the European Community for implementing a range of primary and secondary EC legislation on issues such as public procurement, environmental protection and health and safety standards. It is also a consequence of the fact that the European Community’s Structural Funds have become an important source of funding for many local economic development programmes. In addition, some local authorities have become increasingly aware of the economic implications for their areas of the completion of the Single European Market (SEM) and, in rural areas, of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). All of these pressures and incentives for local authorities to become more closely involved in European policy issues are likely to intensify.

The Single Agricultural

Market Policy

and

reform

of

the

There is also a growing recognition that even if the Single Market does produce the benefits anticipated by Cecchini, they will not be spread evenly across the Community. It is not yet clear what the precise impacts of the 282 Single European Market White Paper measures at the regional and local levels will be (Begg, 1989). However, it seems likely that they will have damaging effects on many of the Community’s peripheral regions. Cutler et al. (1989) argue that strong centripetal tendencies will ensure that the economies of the core areas will be the principal beneficiaries of freer trade and newly

Common

The completion of the Single Market is the area in which most local authorities feel they ought to be 153

154

Steve Martin

generated competition. Research into the determinants of regional competitiveness highlights the vulnerability of local economies in peripheral regions that lack adequate infrastructure, business support and a sufficiently trained workforce (Narn et al., 1990; CEC, 1991a). Grahl and Teague (1990) argue that these deficiencies will continue to lead to relatively low rates of productivity in many peripheral regions which will negate the advantages of lower wage costs. Not all rural areas are peripheral to the SEM. As Keeble (1989) demonstrated, some rural areas in the core ‘sun-belt’ regions of Europe (including the ‘Mid? of southern France and central Italy) experienced rapid growth in the 1980s due to new firm formation and the proliferation of footloose, high tech companies and are likely to benefit from the completion of the SEM. However, most rural areas in the U.K. suffer from the dual disadvantages of Britain’s pcripherality within the SEM (compounded by its poor export performance) and their own remoteness within the U.K. itself. Whilst southern England lies within the EC’s prosperous core, rural areas in the remainder of the U.K. are likely to be at a disadvantage in terms of both transport costs and access to markets (especially as new opportunities in central and eastern Europe emerge). In spite of the growth of tertiary industries and potential for advanced telecommunications to ‘shrink the distance barrier’ there is considerable doubt about the extent to which entrepreneurship can provide a focus for economic development in many of the more sparsely populated rural areas (Martin, 1988). Huws (1991) highlights wide variations in the ‘resilience’ of U.K. regions to the economic changes associated with the completion of the SEM. Her analysis suggests that the industrial mix in many rural areas of Britain means that they are not well placed to take advantage of the new opportunities offered by the SEM. The comparative disadvantage of many rural areas within SEM will undoubtedly be compounded by the effects of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and any further reductions in farm subsidies which are incorporated into an eventual settlement of the GATT. The reduction in farm incomes, associated with CAP reform, will require most farmers to lower overheads by cutting the costs of labour and machinery. A study commissioned by North Yorkshire County Council suggests that average farm incomes in upland areas of the county may be reduced to less than flu0 per week (Askham Bryan, 1991). Stokes’ (1992) analysis of prospects for farms in the Welsh Borders reaches similarly gloomy conclusions, and a recent report prepared for the Borders Regional Council forecasts that CAP

reform will lead to a 6.6% reduction in regular farmbased employment within the region (Mordaunt, 1992). Income reductions and job losses of this magnitude, together with a decline in the use of machinery and other inputs, will inevitably have negative knock-on effects on employment in anciliary industries and the wider rural economy. Local authorities in rural areas within the U.K. have generally lagged behind their urban counterparts in responding to the economic problems which are likely to result from the implementation of the SEM. However, in recent months a growing number have become increasingly pro-active both in attempting to assist local employers to maximise the opportunities available to them in the SEM and in devising strategies to minimise the income vulnerability of local farmers to CAP reform. Some [for example, Cornwall (1992)] h ave undertaken local economic audits, which have examined the implications for their areas of closer European integration, and developed strategies to respond to these. Several authorities have held ‘1992 events’, to raise local awareness of the imminence of the SEM, and have started to act as an on-going channel of information about ‘Europe’ to employers. Others have undertaken studies of the scope for diversification of the rural economy to compensate for job losses in agriculture [for example, Shropshire and Hereford and Worcester County Councils (1993)], which have formed the basis of bids for resources from the European Commission’s various Structural Funds. EC financial

assistance

The EC’s Structural Funds are intended to enhance the Community’s economic cohesion by assisting in economic restructuring of regions. They include the Guidance section of FEOGA (the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund) designed to speed up the adjustment of agricultural structures and development of rural regions; the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) which provides support for infrastructure and business development; the European Social Fund (ESF) which encourages the expansion of job opportunities through the provision of vocational training; the European Investment Bank (EIB) and assistance available under the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) for areas that are adversely affected by over-dependence on the coal and steel industries. The active participation of local authorities is normally a pre-requisite for the receipt of assistance from all of these funds, although MAFF has traditionally been the main intermediary between farmers and the EC with respect to FEOGA finance.

The Europeanisation Approximately half of the U.K.‘s 5800 m ECU allocation from the Structural Funds for the period 1989-1993 was devoted to priority urban areas (sotailed ‘Objective 2 regions’) and much of Britain’s ESF funding was taken up by central government training schemes. Many rural authorities therefore took the view that EC financial assistance was largely irrelevant to them. Recently, however, a number have begun to lobby the EC for Objective 5b status (regions suffering from the restructuring of agriculture). Others have realised that there are elements of the Structural Funds which have ‘no maps attached’ and are, therefore, potentially available to areas outside priority regions, including some ESF assistance and a growing number of ‘Community Initiatives’ which provide finance for technical assistance and a range of pilot projects. EC policy-making

All local authorities need to be able to respond to an increasing volume of EC directives, declarations and regulations. The Local government International Bureau (1991) has pointed out that much current EC legislation is ‘of direct concern to them, not only as monitoring, enforcing and licensing bodies, but also as employers and property owners’. The European Commission President recently stated that within a few years ‘80% of national laws will be EC inspired’ and it is already the case that 85% of Trading Standards legislation (the implementation for which local authorities are responsible), has its origins in the commission. It is clear then that just to fulfil their statutory duties, local authorities will increasingly need to be aware of what is happening ‘in Europe’. In addition to new responsibilities, some local authorities see closer European integration as offering them the chance to influence the policy-making process. The Treaty on European Union (Maastricht) emphasises the ‘nearness principle’, whereby decisions are to be made as close to the citizen as possible, which was re-iterated in subsequent communiques from the Birmingham and Edinburgh summits. The Treaty proposes the formation of a Committee of the Regions of 1X9 members (24 of whom will be from the U.K.). This will have advisory status, giving sub-national government a formal role in Community decisions for the first time in areas as diverse as education, vocational training, economic and social cohesion, transEuropean networks, public health and crime. Progress in Europeanisation

The trends identified

above have already led to a

of Local Authorities

155

marked change in the perceptions, organisation and strategies of some local authorities in the U.K. which have begun to develop closer links with the European Commission and with local authorities in other parts of Europe. Nevertheless, there are authorities which still regard EC directives/regulations and policy initiatives as an added and unwelcome burden or are simply unaware of their full implications. However, the experiences of those U.K. local authorities which have been most active in responding to closer European integration suggest that sub-national government has a key role to play in developing a clear strategy for making the most of the new opportunities and alleviating the problems associated with closer European integration. This should enabIe them to clarify what it is that they wish to achieve through closer involvement in European issues and to balance the potentiat benefits against the level of investment needed to realise these. It should also lead to organisational structures that enable efficient information flows into and within the authority so that practitioners are able to keep abreast of, and respond to, current EC initiatives. Many local authorities already play an important part in facilitating local economic development using EC assistance. It is clear that, regardless of the outcome of the debates of the Social Chapter, they will need to continue to liaise and work with a broad range of ‘social partners’, including local employers, trades unions, Training and Enterprise Councils and Local Enterprise Councils, voluntary organisations, education institutions and a wide range of other public bodies. They will also frequently take the lead in co-ordinating applications for EC assistance and lobbying both national government and the Commission in order to influence decisions regarding legislation and future funding. Martin and Pearce (1992) identify a number of important factors which have enabled authorities to maximise their effectiveness in responding to European integration. They highlight the importance of the key individuals (usually senior officers) in leading to change. Other vital ingredients for success are seen as being a willingness to devote substantial staff and financial resources to European issues, the ability to develop good links with the Commission, networking with other authorities and securing support from central government departments. The importance of these factors has implications for many local authorities in rural areas. A recent survey of U.K. local authorities’ responses to closer European integration revealed considerable variations in the resources and effort devoted to dealing with ‘European issues’ (Audit Commission. 1992). As might be expected the most active authorities were those in metropolitan authorities and, to a

Stevie Martin

156

lesser extent, county councils. Many shire districts employed no European staff at all and, whilst 70% of metropolitan authorites and 63% of counties had undertaken a review of their readiness for the SEM, only 19% of shire districts had done so. These differences suggest that British local authorities based in rural areas face particular problems in responding to closer European integration. Some of the constraints upon them are common to all U.K. authorities regardless of their ruralilty. Many are, however, specific to small authorities in rural areas and work to their disadvantage, relative to metropolitan authorities in the U.K. and to sub-national government in other EC member states.

Constraints on the Euro~anisation authorities in rural areas

Two types of rural areas are designated

of U.K.

local

for priority

assistance under the Structural Funds: Objective 1 receiving the bulk of the (the poorest regions, available funding) and 5b areas (those suffering as a result of the restructuring of agriculture). Currently there is one Objective 1 region in the U.K. (Northern Ireland) and four 5b regions (Fig. 1). These have received substantial amounts of ERDF assistance. Some other rural areas in the U.K. have benefited from assistance from ESF (under Objectives 3 and 4) and RECHAR programmes (intended to help tackle problems associated with the decline of the coal industry). Nevertheless, most authorities in rural areas still seem ill-equipped to respond effectively to the dual onslaught on their economies of the reform of the CAP and their peripherality within the Single Market. After more than a decade of tight control of public spending and repeated attempts to diminish its powers, sub-national government in the U.K. may lack the political weight to play a full role in Europe.

Key: W

Objective 1 areas

m

Objective5b areas

UDJ

Figure 1. Areas eligible for assistance under Re~ul~tian Objective

Sb (as of 1993).

3575190, Objective

1 and

The Europeanisation The growing importance of Training and Enterprise Councils (in England and Wales) and Local Enterprise Councils (in Scotland) and the steady loss of local authority control of education may further limit the capacity of U.K. authorities to respond effectively to Europeanisation. Moreover, a recent study by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (AMA, 1992) suggests that the creation of unitary authorities will place additional constraints on British local government. Whether that is the case will depend largely on the size and powers of the post-reform authorities. However, there is growing evidence that the continuing lack of a regional tier already hampers the efforts of U.K. authorities in their dealings with the Commission. Rural local authorities are, if anything, even less powerful than their metropolitan counterparts. Shire districts are too small to mount a serious challenge to the continued centralisation of power in Whitehall and, despite the fact that many are under Conservative control, county councils are apparently regarded by some ministers as a superfluous tier of local government. Many local authorities claim that the attitude of U.K. central government to closer European integration has imposed further constraints upon them. An issue of particular concern has been the extent to which ERDF grants to U.K. local authorities have been genuinely ‘additional’ to national spending (Armstrong, 1989). The original ERDF regulations stated that ‘the Fund’s assistance should not lead Member States to reduce their own regional development efforts but should complement these efforts’ (CEC, 1975). However, national governments consistently failed to demonstrate what would have been spent on regions in their countries had ERDF not existed, thereby making it impossible to assess the degree of additionality (Comfort, 1987). In 1988 the Commission therefore re-iterated the principle that ERDF should be seen to have a ‘genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned’ (CEC, 1991b). Critics claim that the British government has failed to comply with this and has deducted from local authorities’ approved borrowing programmes equivalent amounts to that which they have received from the ERDF. This has meant that local authorities have been unable to increase the total amount of spending on infrastructure programmes because, even if they received ERDF, they could not exceed their borrowing limits imposed by central government. As a result, ERDF sponsored projects have led to few, if any, additional benefits to their localities and although ERDF assistance has enabled authorities to reduce their loan charges on borrowing, the effect has been on current expenditure and not on capital spending programmes (Thomas, 1992).

of Local Authorities

157

Despite some signs of re-thinking in Whitehall regarding the additionality issue, central government attitudes seem to be changing only very slowly. There is continued uncertainty about the ability of local authorities to make use of ERDF funding because of the Treasury’s reluctance to grant supplementary credit approvals which enable them to raise the necessary ‘matching funds’ which are a pre-condition of EC assistance. Some authorities believe that the Commission has actually blocked their bids for EC funding because of disputes with central government over additionality and several claim that their chances of being designated Objective Sb status at the time of the last review of EC assisted areas in 1988 were jeopardised by a lack of support from the U.K. government departments. Areas that are currently bidding for Objective 5b designation (below) report difficulties gaining central government acceptance of the true levels of unemployment and GDP (key qualifying criteria for Objective .5b status) in their regions. This will be particularly important because, in the absence of EUROSTAT data which the Commission intended to use to determine levels of need, the post-1993 assisted areas will have to be designated on the basis of surrogate measures, many of which will be supplied by national government. Many local authorities regard the U.K. government’s initial proposal that ministers, or Whitehall officials, should provide British representation on the Committee of the Regions as further evidence of its ‘obstructive attitude to Europe’ and of a continuing desire on the part of central government departments to maintain their position as the only formal channel of communication between the U.K. regions and the Commission. Another constraint upon rural areas in the U.K. is that even if they receive Objective 5b status the scale of assistance available to them is relatively small. In 1991 the total ERDF funding available to Britain’s four Objective 5b areas was about one-fifth of that set aside for its Objective 2 regions. As a result Objective 5b status is often seen as a poor relation of the other Structural Funds - the ‘bronze medal’ of the EC funding competition (Morris, 1992). The Maastricht Treaty acknowledges the need for specific policies to address the needs of the rural areas and the Delors II proposals envisage an increase in the overall size of the Structural Funds and a larger share for rural regions (CEC, 1992). Such moves are, however, unlikely to benefit U.K. rural areas since most of the additional resources which will be made available will be targeted upon Objective 1 regions (areas with less than 75% of the EC average GDP) mostly in Southern Europe. Whilst Northern Ireland will probably retain its Objective 1 status it seems that only Merseyside and

1.58

Steve Martin

the Highlands and Islands have a realistic chance of designation as Objective 1 regions from 1994. Few, if any, other parts of Britain will be eligibie for increased assistance. The availability of substantial EC funding is vital because in its absence it is often difficult for elected members (and, indeed, officers) to see the need to become involved in Europe. Winning internal political backing for Europeanisation is sometimes made even more difficuIt in rural authorities because of members’ antipathy to both Europe and to economic intervention. Such attitudes are not exclusive to rural councillors. However, metropolitan authorities generally have a much longer tradition of local economic intervention and large, well-funded, local economic development units staffed by officers with considerable experience of obtaining central government and EC assistance. On the whole, members and officers in these areas are therefore more knowledgeable and inclined to be more pro-active in lobbying policy-makers and formulating funding applications than their rural counterparts who tend to be less ‘political’ and have less clear poiicy agendas. The relative obscurity of most rural areas presents additional problems. When large metropolitan areas in the U.K. started to lobby the Commission for assistance they encountered widespread ignorance of their problems and even their location. These difficuIties are even greater for rural authorities since few Brussels officials will know of particular shire district councils. Many of the image-enhancing strategies employed by large city councils will be beyond the budgets of rural authorities. Few will, for example, be able to afford to open offices in Brussels. They may not even be able to meet the costs of the salaries now commanded by Ihe rapidly increasing numbers of European Officers. Given the pace at which EC policy is developing it is virtually impossible for the non-specialist to keep in touch and, without European staff, authorities will find it difficult to draw together a coherent European strategy and, having done so, to keep it up to date. In order to raise their profiles in Europe, districts will therefore have to collaborate with each other and with county councils. Although many have experience of doing this in the past, for example in drawing up Rural Development Programmes, cooperation between authorities, which have similar problems and are therefore competing for assistance from the same EC funds, invariably involves uneasy alliances. Because of the need for full consultation between authorities operating in partnerships, it is also difficult for them to make the sorts of rapid, flexible responses to EC initiatives which some metropolitan authorities have managed to achieve.

Finally, rural areas in the U.K. face considerable obstacles in getting issues onto policy-makers’ agendas, This is partly due to the fact that rural problems in the U.K. differ in some important respects from those in many other EC member states (for example, the size of agriculture units and the scale of rural depopulation) (Bryden, 1992). It is also the case that, even in predominantly rural counties and districts, the concentration of population in towns frequently means that urban interests outweigh those of rural constituencies. As a result, authorities may prioritise urban-based needs rather than rural problems and find it easier to attract support to address the former. Thus, even an active county council such as Shropshire, which covers a predominantly rural area and has been able to secure Objective 2 status for the urban area around Telford, has not so far managed to obtain Objective Sb designation to address the severe economic difficulties in some rural parts of the county.

Existing areas

responses

by U.K. local authorities

in rural

In spite of the problems identified above, some rural authorities have been very active in responding to European integration and their experiences provide important lessons for other rural areas which have yet to develop close European links.

Designation as 5b regions has opened up access to a range of funds for a variety of projects in Highlands and Islands, Dumfries and Galloway, Mid Wales and Devon and Cornwall. The HighIands and Islands have received large amounts of investment in ‘hard’ infrastructure including roads and harbours. Similarly, Dumfries and Galloway was granted more than 13 m ECU in 1989 for a wide range of schemes including harbour improvements, workshop construction, tourism initiatives, sewerage projects and improvements to minor roads in order to open up areas for timber extraction. The rationale for such infrastructure projects has been broadly economic. However, employment creation is often only an indirect outcome and the Commission’s appraisal of projects has, until now, been less demanding than U.K. central government’s scrutiny of similar proposals put to it. The experiences of the authorities in all four 5b regions demonstrate the importance of cultivating links with the Commission and building up a detailed knowledge of how EC policy-making operates. The Highlands and Islands authorities have, for example, been actively in-

The Europeanisation volved in Europe for more than 20 years as a result of negotiations over the fishing industry and are key participants in a wide range of other EC programmes. Their familiarity with the Brussels machine enabled them to make a successful opportunist bid for funding just prior to the 1988 reforms of the Structural Funds in a manner which was very similar to the methods employed by some large metropolitan authorities. As noted above, the Highlands and Islands authorities are currently lobbying for designation as an Objective 1 region from 1994 onwards. Authorities in at least seven regions which do not currently have Objective 5b status are also bidding for designation as such from 1994. However, although the EC Regional Policy Directorate (DG16) is broadly supportive, the scope for an increase in the number of Objective 1 or 5b regions in the U.K. is severely limited by regulations regarding competition policy enforced by DG4, and by the demands placed on the Structural Funds by southern Mediterranean countries and the new lander of eastern Germany. Nevertheless, it is possible for areas without Objective 1 or 5b status to gain access to funding for a variety of pilot projects and other one-off schemes. Examples include support for business development schemes received by Shropshire County Council from an underspent FEOGA budget; Staffordshire’s extensive use of HORIZON funds and the 400 m ECU LEADER programme which aims to promote innovative approaches to agricultural diversification, tourism and small business development at the local level and currently supports 13 U.K. projects.

European

strategies

A number of county councils have prepared European strategies and strategy documents. Cornwall has developed a four-year strategy for 1992-1996 which examines the likely future trends at the EC, national and regional level and their impacts upon the county’s economy (Cornwall County Council, 1992). Other examples include Avon County Council, Shropshire and traditionally less active authorities like Northamptonshire. The main benefit of preparing a strategy is usually that the process of doing so leads to increased awareness of, and commitment to, European issues among key elected members and in departments which have not previously been actively involved. In some authorities the process of strategy preparation has also led to increases in the level of internal resources devoted to European issues. Given the importance of maintaining an up-to-date knowledge of EC policies this may be an important step towards eventually securing EC funding, especially in authorities which currently

of Local Authorities have very small staff at all.

159 European

units

or no ‘European’

Networking

Some local authorities have, until recently, pursued European strategies which involved few other agencies or authorities. However, ‘going it alone’ is likely to be increasingly difficult and many local authorities have begun to realise that linking with their counterparts both within the U.K. and in other parts of Europe and also with local ‘social partners’ can lead to substantial benefits. Indeed, in spite of the potential for intra-regional competition between neighbouring rural areas, collaboration may be the only really effective method of working in Europe. Some rural authorities have already found that pooling resources and information through national local authority networks has helped them to overcome the problems associated with their lack of individual political ‘clout’. The U.K.‘s 5b regions have formed a national grouping in order to liaise with central government departments. Other authorities have worked together through informal regional fora in order to counteract the problems associated with the lack of a regional tier of government in England and Wales. Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Avon, Wiltshire and Dorset have joined together for some of their Europe-related activities. The Highlands and Islands authorities cite their close co-operation as a key ingredient in their success at securing EC funding. In the West Midlands neighbouring authorities support each others’ bids to the Commission through a ‘regional forum’ (Martin and Pearce, 1993). Four Scottish regional councils (Tayside, Central, Fife and Lothian) have helped to set up the ‘Scottish Europa’ office in Brussels and the five county councils in the East Midlands have formed the Federation of East Midlands Local Authorities which funds a Brussels office, thereby sharing the costs of establishing contacts and influence with the Commission. Intraregional co-operation of this sort has received tacit support from the Commission through its encouragement of agreed regional strategies as a framework for Structural Fund applications. Links with authorities in other parts of Europe are also becoming increasingly important. There are two reasons for this. Trans-national networks provide a means of sharing experiences and learning from each other. They may also give U.K. authorities access to funds which would not be available to them if they operated alone. Many rural authorities have undertaken joint studies with partners in other EC states using financial assistance from the Commission.

160

Steve Martin

Examples include Shropshire County Council’s study of the needs of rural businesses for information technology, undertaken jointly with peripheral areas in Spain, Denmark, France and Greece, and the Shetlands Islands’ Experience Exchange Programme and collaborative feasibility studies funded by SAPIC (the Special Action Programme for Inter-regional Co-operation). Other networks involving rural authorities include Cornwall’s participation in the FINATLANTIC project (aimed at developing risk capital funds), a Viking and Norman tourism project involving Dorset, Dyfed and Preseli and a ;letwork linking small islands in the Highlands and Islands and the Irish Republic. All of these are short-term projects lasting for up to 30 months and funded under Article 10. More permanent arrangements for inter-regional cooperation have beeen established by Kent County Council with its partners in Trans-manche - the first ‘Euro-region’. This provides an example of the imaginative use of Commission assistance by a county that has pursued a very active interest in European issues since the mid 1980s but, because of its location in the relatively prosperous South East, had no chance of securing large-scale ERDF resources. It therefore linked up with less prosperous areas in France and Belgium (notably the Nord-Pas de Calais region) and has been able to gain access to fS.5 million of funding from the EC. Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset and Devon County Councils are all members of the Conference of Maritime Regions which includes 23 local and regional authorities from Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal. These groupings have short-term pay-offs in terms of exchange of good practice and funding for joint projects, and provide the longer-term benefit of being able to lobby the Commission as a trans-national group on matters of common interest. Other emerging forms of trans-national collaboration include the promotion by local authorities of joint ventures between companies in different parts of the Community. A good example is the link which has recently been established by Welsh authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales with the ‘Four Motors’ regions of Rhone-Alps, Catalunya, Lombardy and Baden Wiirttenberg to encourage pan-European investment in high tech industries. A third, and increasingly important, type of network is those involving local authorities and a broad range of other local agencies. This new emphasis is clearly reflected in recent bids to the Commission for Objective 5b status by Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester and North Yorkshire County Councils which list a wide range of local organisations as

participants. Many local authorities have sought to foster contacts with the private sector through awareness-raising events such as ‘Europe Weeks’ and longer-running exercises like Suffolk County Council’s ‘Suffolk in Europe’ initiative in 1990/1991. Experience suggests, however, that direct approaches to key individuals are often more productive although this may be difficult to achieve in rural areas where there are often relatively large numbers of small and medium-sized businesses (including farms) and few larger companies.

Conclusions

The examples given above illustrate that, given sufficient commitment, it is possible for local authorities in rural areas of the U.K. to respond effectively to the challenges and opportunities associated with Europeanisation in spite of the obstacles which they face. It seems clear that the conclusions reached in previous studies which have examined the ways in which metropolitan authorities have been able to respond to Europeanisation are equally applicable to rural authorities. In particular, there is a premium on developing an explicit European strategy and obtaining detailed and up-todate information regarding Community policies and their implications for individual authorities. The experiences in areas which have received assistance from the Structural Funds have demonstrated the importance of active lobbying of the European Commission even by regions not currently eligible for Objective 1, 2 or 5b status. The Structural Funds are subject to regular review and EC officials welcome consultation and liaison with local authorities regarding eligibility for assistance. There are, therefore, opportunities for local authorities to maximise the chances that their areas will benefit in the future. In addition, the existing criteria for some forms of assistance are more flexible than might be expected and contacts with the Commission can, therefore, sometimes lead to more immediate returns for authorities which are willing to be imaginative and flexible. This is likely to become all the more important in the future as a larger proportion of the ESF funds will be devoted to ‘exemplary and innovatory projects’. Many authorities in rural areas continue to be unclear about the financial and political pay-backs to be gained from closer involvement in Europe and can point, with some justification, to current confusion about the future of European Union as a reason for inaction on their part. However, even if the Maastricht Treaty is not ratified it is clear that local authorities will inevitably become increasingly

The Europeanisation involved in Europe, Many will wish to continue to attract funding from the EC and to lobby the Commission on policy matters and even those which do not want to gain influence or financial assistance will have to respond to EC legislation. The major challenge currently facing local authorities in rural areas is to find constructive ways of joining with neighbouring authorities and other private and public agencies in their regions, in order to influence the Commission, thus ensuring that rural concerns are not crowded out by urban issues and problems. I am grateful to my colleague Acknowledgement Graham Pearce and to an anonymous referee for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Armstrong.

H. (1989) community regional policy. In The Community und the Chullenge of the Ftlture. Lodge, J. (ed.). Pinter, London. Askham Bryan Agriculture College (1991) Survey ofFurn? Incomes in North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire County Council, North Alierton. Association of Metropolitan Authorities (1992) The New Europe: Implicutions for Local Government. HMSO. London. Audit Commission (1992) A Rough Guide to Europe. HMSO, London. Baimbridge. M. and Burkitt. B. (1991) The Cecchini Report and the impact of 1992. European Research (September 1991). Begg, 1. (1989) The regional dimensions of the 1992 proposals. Regional Studies 23, 368-375. Etcropearz

Bryden, J. (1990) Rural change in Europe: research on farm structures and pluriactivity. programme Arkleton Trust, Enstone, Oxfordshire. Cecchini, P. (1988) The European ChnUenge 1992: the

Benefits of a Single European Market. Commission of the European Communities. Luxembourg. Comfort, A. (1987) The principle of ‘additionality’ in regard to the ERDF arid its application in some member states. in European Parliument Research and Documentation Papers, Regional and Transport Series No. 15. European Parliament, Strasbourg. Commission of the European Communities (1975) Regulation (EEC) No. 724175. Official Journal L 7311, 21 March 1975. Commission of

the

European

Communities

(1991a)

Europe 2000: Outlook for the ~e~e~opment of Community’s Territory. DGXVI. Luxembourg. Commission

of

the

European

Communities

(1991b)

161

of Local Authorities

Annual Report on the lmp~eme~ltation of the Reform of the Structural Funds. Office for the Publication of the European Commission

Communities, Luxembourg. of the European Communities

(1992) From the Single Act to M~~stric~lt and Beyond: the Means to Match our Ambitions. COM (29) 2000 final, 11

February 1992. Cornwall County Council (1992) A Strategy for Europe. Cornwall County Council, Truro.

Cutler, C., Haslam, C.. Williams, J. and Willams, K. (1989) 1992 - the Struggle for Europe: LI Critical Evaluation of the European Community. Berg, New York. Grahl. J. and Teague,

P. (1990) 1992 - the Big ~urket~ the Future of the European Commt~nity. Lawrence and Wishart, London. Huws, U. (1941) The industrial impact of the Single European Market at the local level. Local Gover~lme~t Policy Making 17, 21-28.

Keeble, D. (1989) Core-periphery disparities, recession and the new regional dynamics in the European Community. Geography 74, l-10. Local Government International Bureau (1991) Re~~ponding to the Ch~il~~ngeof EC Law (Paper No. 9). LGIB, London. Martin, R. (1988) Industrial capitalism in transition: the contemporary organisation of the British Space economy. In Uneven development: Cities and Regions in Transition. Massey, D. and Allen, J. (eds). Hodder and Stoughton, London. Martin, S.J. and Pearce, G. (1992) The Europeanisation of local authority economic development strategies: Birmingham in the 1980s. Regional Studies 26,499~503. Martin, S.J. and Pearce, G. (1993) European regional development strategies and the Europeanisation of subnational government. Regional Studies 27, (forthcoming). McEldowney, J.J. (1991) Evaluation and European regional policy. Regional Studies 25, 261-266. Mordaunt, F. (1992) CAP reform update. Briefing Note to Rural Voice (23 September). Morris, KM. (1992) New beginnings? Rural development in Europe. European Information Service 132, 3-6. Narn, W., Nerb, G. and Russ, H. (1990) An Empirical

Assessment of Factors Shaping Regionai Competitiveness in Problem Regions. commission of the European Communities. Luxembourg. Shropshire and Hereford and Worcester County Councils (1993) The Marches: England’s Border with Wales - a

Bid for

EC Assistance

Under Objective

5b Status.

Shropshire and Hereford and Worcester County Councils, Shrewsbury. Stokes, I.H.P. (1992) The Impact of Economic Charge on Agriculture in Shropshire. ADAS, Wolverhampton. Thomas, I.C. (1992) Additionality in the distribution of ERDF grants to local authorities. Local Economy 6. 292-310.