Anna Soci Overview of the state of the Project: progress so far and steps forward Archanes (Crete)

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

2. 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 Progress so far…….

3. First group (WP1) To specify criteria for the selection of the project’s 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 TASKSDivided into groups

4. 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. Accomplishment and evaluation

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

6. 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 Publications:

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. 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. Publications:

9. 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). Dissemination

10. 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 Overall evaluation

11. 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. TASKSDivided into groups

12. 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 Accomplishment and evaluation

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. No presentation outside P1 submitted the only Final Deliverable of WP2 to the (refereed journal) Journal of Economic Surveys. Presentations (outside) and publicationsWP2

15. Participation in Conferences or Workshops P1: Coimbra, March 2006; Rimini, August 2006; Vienna, September 2006; Copenhagen, September 2006 Presentations (outside)WP3

16. P1 submitted the Final Deliverable 5a) [No taxation without…infrastructure] to (the refereed journal) Regional Science and Urban Economics Final Deliverable 5b) [To migrate or to commute] to (the refereed journal) Economica PublicationsWP3

17. 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 DELIVERABLE’S ONE. Overall evaluation

18. 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 Overall evaluation

19. 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 TASKSDivided into groups

20. Data collection should have been made also for the sectoral shift hypothesis (Pelloni’s 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. 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 MILESTONES for WP4

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. WP0:  Project Presentation Deliverable No. 0: Project Presentation WP1: Deliverable No. 1: Methodological Paper Deliverable No. 2: Comparative Analysis List of deliverablesAll the due deliverables have been given and they are available on-line

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. Deliverable No. 5:  What is NEG? – The Basic Framework and Two Theoretical Extensions for the TERA Project Additional Final Deliverable No. 5a):  No Taxation Without…Infrastructure Additional Final Deliverable No. 5b): To Migrate or to Commute? WP3

31. All the draft papers given during the meetings are available on-lineList of “Material for deliverables”

32. 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 WPs - Materials for deliverables (MfD)

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

34. NO OFFICIAL REPLY YET Financial officer’s 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) 1. Second Financing

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. 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. 2. Timing of the deliverables for WP4

39. 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 REMIND:

40. 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 3. Activity in 2007WP5

41. 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 3. Activity in 2007WP5

42. 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 3. Activity in 2007WP5

43. 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 4. Activity in 2007 MEETING in Riga

44. Results: end of MAY → June? First two deliverables: end of July → August? Second two deliverables: end of August → September WHICH IS THE BEST MOMENT FOR THE RIGA-MEETING?

45. End of May (and beforethe 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…) The Mid-Project Conference in Ferrara

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