Current Challenges Peripheral Regions - Bulgaria

8/3/2019 Current Challenges Peripheral Regions - Bulgaria

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/current-challenges-peripheral-regions-bulgaria 1/8

SPATIUM International Review UDC 711.2(497.2)"2006/2010"No. 23, October 2010, pp. 1-8 Review paper1 DOI: 10.2298/SPAT1023001D

spatium 1

CURRENT CHALLENGES AND INNOVATIVE

APPROACHES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF

PERIPHERAL REGIONS IN BULGARIA (THE CASE

OF IVAYLOVGRAD MUNICIPALITY)

Elena Dimitrova 1, University of Architecture, Civil Engineering & Geodesy, Faculty of Architecture, Department ofUrban Planning, Sofia, Bulgaria

Angel Burov , University of Architecture, Civil Engineering & Geodesy, Faculty of Architecture, Department ofUrban Planning, Sofia, Bulgaria

The paper approaches territorial cohesion in SEE from the perspective of social equity with regard to the opportunity to choose

to live in one’s native place without compromising the quality of life. It is interested in border areas – both physical and

virtual; in real life situations as meeting points of theories and policies influencing human lives; and in the emerging

challenges there that often make us question once and again our concepts and actions as experts. Based on the Bulgarian

case-study analysis, the authors discuss the effectiveness and current challenges of real-life implementation of EU and

national policies aimed at sustainable development of peripheral regions. The rural peripheral municipality of Ivaylovgrad is an

indicative case study for the ongoing processes in the peripheral regions of Bulgaria and the efforts to overcome a continuing

loss of working places, services, markets and further isolation from the rest of the country since the early 1990s. The paper

presents a critical view of initiatives and projects undertaken by interest and local groups in the period 2006–2010. Possible

innovative approaches for regional revival are considered and conclusions are drawn about the importance of creating

development strategies sensitive to the existing and emerging socio-cultural patterns.

Key words: SEE, EU cohesion policy, sustainable regional development, socio-spatial networks.

INTRODUCTION1

In the context of an increasingly urbanizedworld with decreasing and scarce resources, a

question inevitably emerges that has to beanswered – whether we should considerperipheries a problem or an opportunity to finda better way for a balanced urban-ruralrelationship (RSA, 2009). The topic of ruralregions in Europe is nowadays beingresearched with a growing awareness about thecomplexity of issues and interacting factors.Recent research studies are increasinglyfocused on process-oriented aspects: (a) ruraldevelopment continuity (Vergunst et al, 2009);(b) co-operation between actors within rural

1 Hristo Smirnenski Blvd. 1, 1046 Sofia, [email protected]

development projects and emerging powerrelations (Csurgo et al, 2008); (c) the role ofknowledge in reconnecting social and naturalsystems and in the development of indicator

systems capable of supporting joint learningby resource users (Parkins et al, 2001; Reed etal, 2006; Bruckmeier and Tovey, 2008); (d)multiple factors influencing the dynamics ofsustaining activities (Pantic and Miljkovic,2010); (f) potential effects and challenges ofinteraction by socio-spatial networks in remoterural regions (Mulder et al, 2006).

The paper discusses regional policy issues astraced in the particular context of a Bulgarianperipheral municipality, but also situated at themeeting point of several broader topics:sustainable regional development and itspeculiar dimensions under the dynamicperipheral/border conditions in Europe, real-

life implementation and effectiveness of EUpre-accession and cohesion policies, as wellas broader issues of the ‘continuity-change’dichotomy in regional development and

the2

challenge of developing as a rural region inan increasingly globalized and urbanizedworld. The paper provides arguments statingthe need to formulate policies in a way morepersistently sensitive to ‘life on the ground’processes and in measuring and estimatingpolicy success and failure in the long term andfrom multiple perspectives. In accordance withEU cohesion policy priorities (Davoudi, 2010),it is focused on people and processes in space as determined by a particular cultural context;

2The paper is partially based on analyses undertaken

within a university research project (UACEG, contractBN 103/2009)



Dimitrova E., Burov A.: Current challenges and innovative approaches in the development of peripheral regions in Bulgaria...

2 spatium

on social equity with respect to opportunitiescreated in living places; and on the emergenceof value-based identities and communities inperipheral regions as an important factor forenhancing social capital – mentioned in allofficial documents on sustainable development

and territorial cohesion, but in many cases stillstrongly underestimated or misunderstood.

The case study discussed the municipality ofIvaylovgrad, located in a border region in thesouth-eastern periphery of Bulgaria. Varyingregional policies applied from the mid-1980sto the present day at different levels ofgovernance and under different politicalsystems have attempted with no significanteffect to stop and reverse the unfavourable andunsustainable trends of socio-economicdecline and depopulation of the region. Basedon an analysis of available scientific references

about the region and personal experiencegained through contacts with local authorities,educational and cultural institutions throughacademic research (1988–1989), NGO activity(2005–2010) and educational field trips(2008–2009), the paper discusses the need tore-conceptualize regional policy efforts with astronger focus on bottom-up processes, localcapacity-building and partnerships in long-term initiatives designed with the purpose ofachieving a higher level of regional and localindependence. The need for a new regionaldevelopment policy is asserted, which should

be based on integrated approaches, supportedby deeper interdisciplinary research andevaluated through specific sets of indicatorssensitive to the local and regional socio-cultural context. The role and potential of ruralperipheries are finally discussed in theperspective of more global spatial interactionsand environmental impacts.

BULGARIAN BORDER REGIONS:

REGIONAL POLICY CONTEXT

Regional policy under socialism (1970–1989)

Regional policy came into focus of theBulgarian national government in the 1970s,when the consequences of the broadindustrialization processes undertaken in thecountry since the early 1960s became clearlyvisible – fast urbanization changing the ratio ofurban-rural population in the country,population concentrated in large industrialcenters, and – despite the approved subsidiesfor agriculture–diminishing and agingpopulation, and settlements with fading

functions in rural and peripheral regions. TheIntegral National Plan for TerritorialDevelopment was adopted in 1979, the

problems of the south-eastern peripheralregion of the country being already clearlyvisible and addressed by state policy in theearly 1980s. In 1981 the region was alreadystrongly lagging behind the rest of the countryin both industry and agriculture, with resulting

serious demographic tendencies ofdepopulation. In the period 1965 ‐ 1985 theStrandzha-Sakar region lost about 45 000inhabitants, while at the same time thepopulation of large industrial centers in theregion increased. There were also considerableinner migrations inside municipalities, fromvillages to municipal an secondary centres.The key political document providing policymeasures for regenerating the Strandza-Sakarand Ivaylovgrad region23was adopted in 1982(Statement No. 22/12.05.1982 of the BulgarianCouncil of Ministers). The targeted region was

later on communicated and known as TheRepublic of Youth. The Statement prescribed aset of strategic measures to slow down andreverse the negative tendencies: support forsmall and medium size enterprises,development of agri-industrial complexes toprovide employment all year round, securingtechnical, transport and communicationinfrastructure, better housing and socialservices, upgrading social care andeducational infrastructure, promotion ofcultural heritage and tourism; and measures tostimulate people with secondary and higher

education from all over the country to settle inthe region.

A National Research Programme for theStrandzha-Sakar Region was funded and aseries of symposia were organized to discussits findings and policy implementation results.Although the region saw general developmenttendencies of depopulation, in 1985Ivaylovgrad was considered a region withcomparatively favourable conditions, and thedemographic structure was expected to bebalanced by the year 2000 through measuresthat were to be implemented. Part of a field

research, undertaken within the NationalResearch Programme, focused on the effectiveoperation of the educational network (primaryand secondary schools) and tried to outline theopportunities provided by integrated facilitiesfor education and culture in smallersettlements to increase investment efficiencyin social infrastructure (Dragiev et al, 1989).However, no effective action was undertaken bystate administration and a year later the overall

2Although not strictly belonging to the Strandzha-Sakargeographic region, the municipality of Ivaylovgrad was

included in the programme because of the similarproblems the municipality is facing

political changes brought additional challengesto the region and required completely differentapproaches to meet them.

Regional policy in the period 1990–2010

After the democratic changes in Central and

Eastern Europe during the 1990s, planningactivities were generally abandoned andneglected for almost a decade – partly becauseof the extreme shifts in social and economiclife and partly due to a generalmisunderstanding about the liberalization ofsociety after the shift from a centralizedeconomy. Planning practice was then restoredthanks to both external and internalencouragements and was based on adecentralized approach (Regional DevelopmentAct, 1999). The need for harmonizationbetween socio-economic and spatial planning

at all levels was confirmed.

A National Regional Development Plan anddistrict development plans were elaborated.According to the Spatial Planning Act (2001),a National Integrated Development Scheme isto be elaborated. Work has started bydeveloping a Methodology for the elaborationof the National Scheme (to be bound with theNational Regional Development Plan).

The Spatial Planning Act envisages theelaboration of regional development schemes,yet work in this field has hardly begun. A

second generation of district developmentplans is in the implementation phase. It isrecommended that they should be coordinatedwith district development schemes, but therehas been no substantial evidence of suchharmonization yet.

The elaboration of municipal master plans wascontinually hampered by financial deficit,however, in the period 1999–2000 a number ofMunicipal Development Strategies and relevantAction Plans were prepared in all Bulgarianmunicipalities, the updating of which should

take into account future municipal masterplans, to define a territorial basis for economicand social planning.

Rural multisectoral policies in support ofagriculture were a typical approach in the1990s, although actual subsidies were very low(due to budget limitations) compared to thelevels agreed on with the WTO. There were alsoannual campaigns for targeted subsidizing ofproduction costs. Later on, through the supportof EU pre-accession instruments, an enhancedcorrespondence between the state, SAPARDand CAP measures was achieved.

Nevertheless, the implementation of thesemeasures was considered rather weak and



Dimitrova E., Burov A.: Current challenges and innovative approaches in the development of peripheral regions in Bulgaria ...

spatium 3

ineffective because of the general low qualityof projects, suspected/reported corruption andpatronage of intermediaries (UNDP, 2004). Theintegrated rural development policy with aterritorial emphasis on economicdiversification, provision of infrastructure and

services, and environmental protection wasintroduced though the National Plan for theDevelopment of Agriculture and Rural Regionsin the early 2000s, mostly supported bySAPARD programme.

Estimated policy results: impacts andshortcomings

The first policy steps were marked by rathercontradictory practices. There were some goodexamples and satisfactory results, but alsonumerous common shortcomings due to

misunderstanding the priorities, low quality ofproject concepts or their implementation, poorinstitutional capacity and a lack of experience.Although some municipalities prepared theirown local sustainable development strategies(Local Agenda 21), supported by internationaland national NGOs and UNDP in particular,these did not develop as practical instrumentsbeyond the provided time-limited grants, asobserved elsewhere (Petrakos, 2001).

It is important to mention the GEF/UNDPambitious and large-scale Rhodope Project(2004–2009), aimed at alternative livelihoods

related to the protection of the globallyimportant biodiversity in the RhodopeMountains. Along with numerous positiveresults in many of the target settlements, thepublished project SWOT analysis outlined theshortcomings of the process (Stavreva, 2007).The main strengths mentioned compriseexisting tourist traditions in some of thesettlements, local enthusiasm and successfullocal initiatives at the beginning of the project.The list of weaknesses is, however, muchlonger and includes the uneven distribution ofTourist Information Centres (TIC) in the region,

a lack of network approach and national co-ordination, poor motivation of TICs forcollaboration with other institutions, strongreliance on outer funding. Recommendationswere put forward to keep the initiative in thehands of local people, providing them withadditional qualification and organisationalcapacity, diversification of services andbuilding new partnerships.

The EU’s PHARE pre-accession programmefocused on various underdeveloped publicservices and assets in the country – itsupported the inventory and access to touristattractions, development of tourist products,etc. On-site observations confirm that once the

projects are completed, products are noteffectively utilized and the constructedinfrastructure is not properly maintained andused. Comparatively low interest by localproducers is visible in the reported projectsubmissions in the Rhodope Programme

(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2005).

A general estimate of the regional policyimplementation could be the following: that theprocess is slow and difficult, with insufficientcoordination and lacking truly effectiveindicators to support policy decisions. The top-down initiatives lack flexibility and sensitivity tothe particular local context and the bottom-upones most often demonstrate a lack of capacityand continuity. This raises the crucial issue ofenhancing social capital and inventingpossible ways to carry it out in order toguarantee sustainability in the region.

THE CASE STUDY OF IVAYLOVGRAD

MUNICIPALITY

Being one of the 263 municipalities in thecountry, with an area of 818 sq. km and thepopulation of 6 800 in December 2009 (13000in 1979), the municipality of Ivaylovgradbelongs to a region that can nowadays beclassified as border, mountainous,underdeveloped and rural one – the proportionof agricultural to forest to urbanised land use inthe municipality is 37:60:1 (compared to meannational values 59:34:5); population density is9 inhabitants per sq km (70 for the country);and the ratio of population over 65 years old tothe one under 14 years is 2 (1.3 for thecountry).

There are two main reasons for choosing thiscase study: (a) its location, natural and culturalcharacteristics, socio-economic developmenttendencies – both its current situation andlong-term development could be consideredindicative of the broader processes takingplace in the new EU south-eastern border

regions in the Balkans; and (b) a chance togain continual personal research experienceand establish contact with the changing localauthorities over a longer period of time, andfrom different positions and points of view –research, NGO activities, an educationalproject – which provided an opportunity for adeeper insight into the continuities anddiscontinuities in local traditions and culture,the local authorities' estimates of implementedregional policies in different periods and thelocal people’s attitude to life perspectives,governance and participation.

Location, natural characteristics andcultural heritage

The municipality of Ivaylovgrad is located inthe transitional zone between the western partof the Thracian Valley and the easternmostparts of the Rhodope Mountains, in south-eastern Bulgaria, which is now a south-easternborder region of the EU. The municipality is atthe Bulgarian-Greek border and close to theBulgarian-Turkish one, although the mainrailways and roads, part of the pan-EuropeanTransport Corridors 4 and 9, are bypassing it.

Fig 1. Regional agricultural (a,b)&

tourist potential (c,d)




4 spatium

The region has diverse natural features andresources. Various landscapes are spreadamong smooth weaving ridges, steep foots ofthe slopes and narrow river valleys in-between.Biodiversity is well preserved in its naturalmosaic pattern, with some of the topconcentrations for Europe, including plenty of

endemic and rare species (BSPB, 2002). Thisvariety has been enriched by pastoral andcultivation patterns, some of them maintainedfor several thousand years. The region is animportant part of the European Green Belt withits high natural conservation value of preservedand regenerated habitats due to almost 50years of political and military division along theIron Curtain. There is good potential fordiversified agricultural development due to thetransitional temperate Mediterranean agro-climatic conditions. There are considerablepossibilities for accommodating the demands

of cultural, rural and ecological tourism (Fig.1), provided by the unique cultural monumentsfrom a historical span of three thousand years,various agricultural traditions and localcelebrations and the preserved wilderness withits scenic setting. Along with these values andpotential, there are new troubling processeschallenging the present resource use practicesand culture – the patterns of drought and fires,intensive rainfalls in combination with fastsnow melting, soil erosion, acceleratedsuccession of abandoned agricultural land, thespread of invasive species, etc. (Fig. 2).

Historical development context

The territory could be considered a typicalexample of a periphery artificially createdthrough continual military confrontation andpolitical decisions, as observed in many otherplaces in Europe (Armstrong, 2004).

In the historical retrospective, despite thevarying ethnic composition and conflictsappearing all around, the Ivaylovgrad regionhas been prosperous and engaged in activeexchange with settlements downstream theMaritsa River (Hebros, Evros, Meric) forcenturies. It has been bound with today’sEdirne (Adrianopolis, Odrin), which hasremained a very important urban centre in thesouth-eastern Balkans from antiquity untiltoday. During the first half of the 20th century,after the Russian-Turkish War (1877–1878)

which brought independence to Bulgaria, theregion remained at the periphery of theOttoman Empire. The area joined the Bulgarianstate after the Balkan War (in 1912), while itsneighbouring regions were assigned to Greece,and the town of Edirne remained in Turkey.

The ethnic map of the region is a complexresult of the historical events from the early20th century, generating waves of refugees –settling down and moving away. Today’s mixedethnic composition includes mostly BulgarianOrthodox Christians and Muslims, theancestors of whom have lived here since

before the Balkan War, and the vast majority ofwhom came from Southern Thrace and Asia

Minor after the War. Some of these refugeescame in place of Greek communities movingout at the same time. There are also Turkish,Roma and old Albanian communities.

With the establishment of the new politicalorder in Europe after WWII (1945), the

permeability of the border strongly decreasedand the region practically remained a closedarea at the periphery of the Eastern Bloc forover four decades. More than ten years oftransition after the collapse of the 'Iron Curtain'in 1989 were marked by constraints in trans-border movements because of the EU’s stricterregulations (on border safety, trade and othertechnical standards) and the Greek nationalpolicy, while the border regime with Turkeyprovided better mobility of people and goods.

The pre-accession process and Bulgaria’s EUaccession in 2007 gradually improved the

trans-border movement of people and goodsbetween Bulgaria and Greece; however, therestrictions were now relocated to theBulgarian-Turkish border. During this periodthere was a growing number of active trans-border co-operation programmes and availablefunds with both neighbouring countries (EUpre-accession instruments and a regionaldevelopment fund). The municipality ofIvaylovgrad participated in a number of jointinitiatives, projects and actions mainly withGreek partner municipalities. In addition to theexisting two border crossings between the two

countries, five more were planned and abilateral memorandum was signed in 1995

Fig 2. Drougth (a) & fires (b), flooding (c) & erosion (d), land abandonment (e) & succession (f)




spatium 5

which was included in the agenda on severaloccasions. There was, however, a considerabletime lag in the implementation of all projectsdue to underlying political inertia and mistrust,among other technical and financial reasons.Three new border crossings are now in use in

the region, the first from 2005 and the othertwo from this year. The one between the townsof Ivaylovgrad and Kyprinos opened inSeptember 2010.

Demographic, socio - economic andcultural processes

The demographic development in the regionhas a lot in common with other rural areas inEastern Europe. It is defined by speedytransformation and migration patterns in lessthan 50 years from the agriculture-based,

predominantly rural society before WWII intoan industrialized and urbanized one, structuredaround the capital city of Sofia and 26 largerand medium-sized administrative andeconomic centres. The intensive depopulationin the Ivaylovgrad municipality, like in otherborder regions in South-eastern Bulgaria in the1950s–1970s, took place alongside a naturalpopulation growth observed at the nationallevel. There was an additional peak of outwardmigration in the 1990s, at the expense of smallvillages and neighbourhoods in themunicipality. The population in the municipalcentre diminished at a lower pace and the townstill accommodates mechanical immigrationfrom the adjacent parts of the region – wellillustrated by the density map of themunicipality (Fig. 3).

The political shift and the subsequent national

socio-economic crises of the 1990s,unfavourable geographic position, sloweconomic restructuring and low productivity,complicated land ownership issues andshrinking military presence in the regionaltogether resulted in the closure of major state

enterprises and co-operative farms, loss ofmarkets and income sources, long-termunemployment and further isolation of themunicipality from the rest of the country.During the last five years, the municipality –especially its eastern part (including themunicipal centre and a few more villages) –experienced increased inner and outerinvestment interest. Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises appeared in traditional andnew sectors and branches (building materialsextraction, farming, winery, light industries,tourist services, photovoltaic energy parks,

etc.). However, most of these were seriouslyaffected by the global economic recession andpositive expectations of stabilization were verysoon replaced by anxiety over a possible nextwave of labour and poverty-driven migration.Poor access to education (only one secondaryschool in the town and three primary schoolson fifty villages) and health care (ongoingdiscussions for closing down small municipalhospitals in the whole of the country, the onein Ivaylovgrad being on top of the list),ineffective organization of utility services(waste collection available only in the

municipal town and three nearby villages) andinsufficient maintenance of infrastructure andthe built environment are the result of a lack ofa critical mass of users, inadequate statesupport and very limited local financialresources. A number of settlements have been

abandoned over the last 20 years, while onehalf of 48 villages in all are rapidly diminishingand are at the point of disappearing, with fewelderly people left and no residents ofreproductive age.

All of these factors have led to a lack ofcommunity spirit and cohesion, wherefragmented individual efforts and separatelivelihood strategies come in place. Thestrength and value of the regional culturalidentity (various forms of heritage andrelations, local knowledge and collectivememory) are nowadays jeopardized because ofthe negative trends of depopulation, aging,intergenerational discontinuity, marginalization,poverty and social exclusion in vast parts of theregion. At the beginning of the transition periodthere were certain optimistic expectationsabout the benefits of openness, but now thereis only widespread mistrust and scepticismaccumulated among citizens living in povertyand downcast entrepreneurs in themunicipalities which suffer from the stillongoing isolation (results of an inquiry,interviews, discussions and content analysis oflocal published materials during aneducational project will be discussed later on).

A Municipal Development Plan was adopted in2006 and a number of measures and projectswere undertaken – predominantly the onesrepresenting fragmented physical rehabilitation

of buildings and infrastructure. One of these isthe local TIC, accommodated in a restoredbuilding (a listed heritage site) – unfortunatelywith no financial or organisational resourcecommitted. The next challenge is theimplementation of the Local Development

Fig 3. Population density of Ivaylovgrad municipality (based on data from 2009) Fig 4. Depopulated villages in Ivaylovgrad




6 spatium

Strategy – to be prepared and managed bythe Local Action Group “Zaedno”, organizedafter the regulations of the Leader+ approachin co-operation with administration, thebusiness and civil sectors in the threemunicipalities – Ivaylovgrad, Madzharovo and

Stambolovo.At this stage of development, the region isexposed to the utmost level of vulnerability.The future role and contribution of therecently opened and long awaited bordercrossing need to be observed. The challengesof the proper management of local resourcesneed to be adequately met and the localpotential well utilized. Therefore, urgentinitiatives for revitalization have to include anambitious enhancement of the local capacityfor maintenance and development on the onehand, and on the other an encouragement for

the colonization of disappearing settlements.(Fig. 4).

BUILDING NEW PARTNERSHIPS

The NGO sector–activities and concepts

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) havebeen emerging all over the country since theearly 1990s with a lot of EU, international andnational support. Recent regional policydocuments have great expectations from them.The Ivaylovgrad region with its distinctive

values is a suitable field for comprehensiveexploration. Acquisition of proficiency in life'on the edge' and entering into deeperinteractions has stimulated a lot of NGOs withvarious scales of work and declared priorities.Some of them are active on the national scale;others are regionally based or focused. Thereare already numerous examples oforganizations which undertook important firststeps and innovations for the region, trying toreconnect the regional potential throughnetworking and supplementing efforts –sometimes functioning in real synergy and

continuity.The Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation promotes the 'Green Belt' concept on a nationalscale and organizes events to raise awarenessabout conservation opportunities andchallenges in the border regions of Bulgaria. Ithas conducted biodiversity investigations inthe region within the Rhodope project and actsstrategically by purchasing land of high naturalvalue. Together with the BSPB it organizes theKartali annual training in field investigations,monitoring and practical activities.

The ARK Nature and Avalon Foundation (Dutchorganizations) initiated the region-focused NewThracian Gold Project with an accent on

education, consultation and project preparationrelated to natural grazing, organic agricultureand eco-tourism.

The Bikearea Association is on a mission tobring people closer to nature, continuallydeveloping responsible and sustainable

tourism and recreation across the RhodopeMountains, by organising education andconsultation for local guides and small scaleaccommodation alongside the promotion ofsustainable forest use (Rhudopia product).

The Green School Village (GSV) Association isa youth value-based community of people fromdifferent places, with varied experience andprofessional interests. The Association activelysearches contacts with local communities, themunicipality and the region. The GSV hasfocused on the revival of the shrinking

Kostilkovo village in the municipality, one of itsmain projects being the development of a Non-

formal Education Centre, planned to be amultifunctional and self-sustaining centrewhich will become a local enterprise, aresearch and culture centre developingcommercial and non-commercial services.Several youth exchange initiatives wereorganised with a special emphasis onspreading the knowledge about natural buildingand permaculture. A number of projects (someof which were supported by the Municipalityand the Cultural Centre) were very beneficial in

terms of valuable experience and networking.

Estimation of the NGO driven process

Despite often not fully reaching their genuineobjectives while adapting to grantrequirements and failing to attract additionalresources, NGOs in the region havesucceeded in initiating a truly innovativeprocess of enhancing and integrating socialcapital to support a re-conceptualization oflife in the border area. Several aspects of theiractivity can be considered as being ofparticular importance:

• The enthusiasm of young people involved in various value-based activities;

• The synergy created by linking differentlevels – from international through nationaland regional to local;

• The active search for and initiation ofpartnerships with a large variety of actorsfrom both the public and private sectors;

• The impressive variety of ideas,priorities and practices coming intocontact and mutually fertilizing each other;

• The capacity to link into a trulyholistic way all the aspects of life

(natural to technological to cultural andagricultural) by placing the focus on lifevalues and respect for nature, and searchingfor alternative ways of life.

NGOs have thus been acting as effectiveagents of change and, being sensitive to real

life on the ground, they have initiated theevelopment of micro communities andnetworks of a new identity and culture.

Fig 5. Communication, dialogue and co-operation

with local communities (For one shared spaceProject, 2009)




spatium 7

The University as a partner in theprocess

A partnership officially established between theUACG and GSV Association on the occasion ofthe For One Common Space and a Better Place

for LivingProject provided a chance to explorethe development opportunities for both actors,

as well as for the capacity-building process atthe local level in the municipality ofIvaylovgrad. In accordance with its educationalconcept (Dimitrova, 2009), the university teamsearched for a real-life case-study to focus onwithin the Sustainable Development teachingmodule of the BSc in Urbanism Programme(winter semester 2009/2010). The NGO was inneed of potential allies and partners, but alsomethodological support to carry out a publicdialogue with the local people on the issues ofmobility, waste management and local culturalidentity. Throughout the teaching processstudents were actively involved in analyses oflocal potential and best practices, in preparingquestionnaires and carrying out a surveyenvisaged by the Project, in presenting bothgood practices and their own developmentideas to the local community, and organizing acreative art workshop with local children.

The analysis of the outcome proved theexistence of considerable benefits for allpartners in the project. From an academicstandpoint, the process was valuable with

regard to creating an expert point of viewsensitive to local processes and challengesand stimulating the students’ personal andprofessional responsibilities to real-life peopleand institutions.

At the same time, the involvement of studentsand teachers in the process helped tointroduce awareness about a broader scale ofconsiderations and points of view in the localdebate; situating the municipality within aregional and EU context of current dynamicchanges and emerging challenges; stimulatingthe search for alternatives, questioning thestatus quo, looking for innovative solutions. Itgave rise to an important impetus for openingan intergenerational dialogue with a broaderhorizon and a long-term perspective, linkingpast to present to future, respecting continuity(Fig. 5).

CONCLUSION: A NEED TORE-CONCEPTUALIZE REGIONAL

POLICY

Having in mind the complexity of the processand the context in SEE rural peripheries withina broader framework of upcoming challengesand regional development challenges (SEC,

2008), there is an obvious need for furtherprofessional debate on the strategies to provideand communicate at both the EU and nationallevels. There is also an urgency to counteractthe negative tendencies of depopulation andmarginalization in SEE peripheral regions,

which requires innovative approaches sensitiveto local institutional capacity, as well as to thepeculiar needs and life-styles, priorities andculture of the people – those who have stayedand those who would be interested ininhabiting and reviving peripheries. Severalconsiderations resulting from the analysis ofreal-life processes in the Ivaylovgradmunicipality could be particularly relevant andhelpful on the way:

Despite numerous reported results and manypositive changes, a general loweffectiveness of current practices andactivities has been observed andcommunicated up to the present day. Themajor shortcoming clearly visible in manysituations is the discontinuity of initiatives (dueto a lack of financial support, adequatemaintenance of products and results, trainingservices), which results in the disappearanceof public trust in the possibility to change thestatus quo.

A shift in the focus of capacity building seems necessary. Most of the efforts havebeen aimed at the administrative and expert

project management capacity. Capacity ishowever equally needed in the real-lifemanagement of local and shared regionalresources where local people have their stakes– seemingly small but very important in thelong run. Capacity building should address amuch broader variety of actors at a communitylevel.

Creating flexible socio-spatial networks could be considered an effective way to attainlong-term sustainability in peripheral regions.These are networks providing synergy at workbetween the outside and local groups, and thelocal administration; broader opportunities forinteraction inside the Local Action Groups (LAG)and parallel initiatives based on coordinationand cooperation between adherent actors withthe help of voluntary activities. There are threatsto take into consideration in this process(overlapping interests, personal conflicts), but itis a chance for balanced integration of theseregions with a relative level of social andeconomic autonomy in the national economyand for the conservation and/or maintenance ofnatural and cultural resources. Synergiesbetween the diverse actors could be built oncommon priorities and understanding of sharedvalues and targets.

Developing process-based strategies should be strongly focused on in continuity.The Strategic Choice Approach could beparticularly useful (Friend and Hickling, 2005).It is important within the process-orientedframework to provide monitoring and

evaluation with a time scope beyond theframework of a particular project. Transparencyof processes requires indicator systems thathave to be scientifically based, but alsotransparently communicable and designed withall groups active at the local level.Comprehensible demonstrations andeducational efforts explaining alternativeapproaches and their expected results couldinduce change in activities and practices, anintensified exchange and a common learningprocess. Stimulating measures should beclearly aimed at key actors and aspects of the

processes.

A long list of policy research issues shouldsurely include critical preconditions for settinginto motion gradual social interaction,innovative entrepreneurship, balancedcommodification and successful assessmentmethods of development and transformationprovided by top-down and bottom-upapproaches. Co-ordinated research willguarantee the effectiveness of efforts.

To conclude, it seems vital to a successfulregional policy in a period of a dynamically

evolving world and uncertainty of futuredevelopment challenges to continually keep inmind that all people matter.

References

Armstrong, W. (2004). Borderlands, borderlinesand Beyond: Global Strategies, Inequality andlocal aspirations at the EU borders. InZimmermann, F., S. Janschitz (eds.) Regional

Policies in Europe. Soft features for Innovative

Cross-Border Cooperation. Institute of Geography and Regional Studies, Graz, Leycam.

Bruckmeier, K., H Tovey (2008). Knowledge inSustainable Rural Development: From Forms of Knowledge to Knowledge Processes. InSociologia Ruralis , Vol. 48, Number 3, pp.313–329.

BSPB (2002). Evaluation of the existinginformation on the biological diversity inEastern Rodopes. Sub report 1 . UNDP-GEFRhodope Project, UNDP (In Bulgarian)

Csurgó, B., I. Kovách and E. Kučerová (2008).Knowledge, Power and Sustainability inContemporary Rural Europe. In Sociologia

Ruralis , Vol. 48, Number 3, pp. 292–312.

Davoudi, S. (2010). Why territory matters forcompetitiveness and cohesion? Presentation,SPACE-NET Conference 2010: Territorial




8 spatium

cohesion in Central and South-Eastern Europe– Challenges ahead for strategic planning andurban-regional governance, Belgrade, 22–24September 2010

Dimitrova, E. (2009). Urban Planning Educationfor Sustainable Development: Building

Partnerships to Last. In Proceedings , EcocityWorld Summit 2009, Istanbul

Dragiev Iv. et al (1989). School architecture inthe Strandzha-Sakar Region: Concept for theschool and the integrated facilities foreducation and culture. Ministry of culture,Science and Education, Higher Institute forArchitecture and Construction, Sofia (In

Bulgarian).

Durzhaven vestnik (State Gazette) (2008). RegionalDevelopment Act. Promulgated on 31.08.2008,last amended on 24. November 2009, Issue 50,Sofia, http://www.mrrb.government.bg (inBulgarian)

Friend, J., A. Hickling (eds) (2005). Planningunder Pressure: the Strategic ChoiceApproach. 3rd edition, Elsevier.

Ivailovgrad Municipality Development Plan(2005). Available at the Municipality

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2005)Information Bulletin for Agricultural Producersfrom Smolyan District, issue 8 (In Bulgarian).

Mulder, K., R. Costanza, J. Erickson (2006). Thecontribution of built, human, social and naturalcapital to quality of life in intentional andunintentional communities. In Ecological

Economics , Vol. 59, Issue 1, pp. 13–23.National Statistical Institute (NSI) (2005).

Regions, districts and municipalities inBulgaria.

Pantic, M., Miljkovic, J.Z. (2010) Regionaldifferences between Rural Areas of Serbia inpopulation aging and agricultural activities:Case studies of the Indzhia and KnjazhevacMunicipalities. In SPATIUM International

Review, No. 22, pp.29–37

Parkins J., R. Stedman, J. Varghese (2001).Moving towards local-level indicators of sustainability in forest-based communities: A

mixed method approach. In Social Indicators Research; Vol. 56, No.1, pp. 43–72.

Petrakos, G. (2001). Patterns of RegionalInequality in Transition Economies. In European

Planning Studies , Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 359–383.

Reed, M., E. Fraser, A. Dougill (2006). Anadaptive learning process for developing andapplying sustainability indicators with localcommunities. In Ecological Economics , Vol. 59,Issue 4, pp. 406–418.

RSA (2009). Final Report from the First Meetingof the RSA Research Network on'Regionalisation and marginalisation: Bridging

old and new divisions in regional governance',Malmo/Oresund, 23–25 April 2009; http:// www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/ research-

networks/current/bondrg/report-April2009.pdf , last assessed on October 18,2010.

SEC (2008). Regions 2020. An Assessment of Future Challenges for EU Regions. CommissionStaff Working Document, Brussels;

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/regions2020/pdf/regions2020_en.pdf, last assessed on October 18, 2010.

Stavreva, Z. (2007). Sustainability analysis of tourist information centres in the EasternPhodope Mountain, Phodope Project, UNDP-GEF. (In Bulgarian)

Vergunst, J., A. Árnason, M. Shucksmith (eds.)(2009). Comparing Rural Development.Continuity and Change in the Countryside of Western Europe. Perspectives on Rural Policyand Planning Series. Ashgate.

UNDP (2004) National Human Development

Report 2003. Rural regions: Overcomingdevelopment disparities, Sofia.

4

4Received October 2010; accepted in revised formOctober 2010

Documents

Current Challenges Peripheral Regions - Bulgaria