Urban-Rural Linkages in Poland

2. Making the most of urban-rural partnerships in Poland

Abstract

This chapter explores the mechanisms and partnerships to make the most of urban-rural linkages, with a focus on improving sustainability and well-being in Poland. It begins with an overview of the relevance of urban-rural partnerships for regional well-being in Poland, then examines how the current national and subnational policy framework in Poland fosters urban-rural partnerships. The largest section examines how urban-rural partnerships can improve economic, social and environmental dimensions of well-being in Poland, with case studies from across the country as well as international examples. Recommendations are provided at the end for a more strategic approach to urban-rural partnerships in Poland.

Key messages

• Urban and rural municipalities can best address key challenges, such as demographic decline, by forming partnerships to actively manage existing linkages between them, attain economies of scale and unlock synergies between their respective strengths.

• Poland’s policy frameworks already include several elements that could foster more urban-rural partnerships. The national regional development policy framework offers guidelines and strategic support to conduct inter-municipal co-operation, complemented by laws and regulations that allow for different kinds of associations. Ongoing updates of key policies, such as the National Urban Policy 2030, provide opportunities to further incentivise partnerships.

• EU policy instruments such as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) are the main tools driving urban-rural partnerships. The funded projects are providing valuable experience and showing the benefits of co-operation. However, they are often narrowly focused on securing EU funds, hampering long-term co-operation. The administrative burdens can also be substantial, especially for smaller municipalities.

• Regional governments (voivodeships) play a strategic role in identifying functional links in their regional development strategies and encouraging a culture of co-operation among urban and rural municipalities. At the local level, counties (powiats) can undertake actions to reduce disparities between urban and rural municipalities and promote joint actions for the benefit of the region. Local development strategies also provide tools for inter-municipal co-ordination.

• Existing urban-rural partnerships in Poland cover a wide range of activities that promote well-being, and often involve businesses and non-governmental organisations. Relevant projects from existing partnerships supported by EU funds include transport, tourism and business attraction. Some partnerships have emerged from bottom-up initiatives, such as on waste and water management. There has been less mobilisation around building business capacity, labour market efficiency, education, housing, or the circular economy.

• Further actions are needed to ensure that policies and strategies at the national, regional and local levels incentivise and facilitate urban-rural partnerships. A key first step is gather and share better information on urban-rural linkages in Poland, as well as best practices from existing partnerships. National financial and institutional incentives are also needed to promote co‑operation, including between FUAs and rural municipalities outside FUAs.

• To be effective, urban-rural partnerships in Poland should start by agreeing on a common goal and specifically identifying how the partnership can help attain it. Effective leadership can mobilise other municipalities to join and help establish a long-term vision. It is also crucial to build trust by ensuring that all voices are heard and planning for some quick wins. For long-term sustainability, it is crucial to plan for future trends, such as increased digitalisation. Partnerships should also be evaluated not only on their outputs, but also on their impact on well-being.

Introduction

Poland’s urban and rural areas are linked together in many different ways: through commuting flows, the provision of services, shared natural resources, social and cultural connections and, increasingly, digital connections. As laid out in Chapter 1, Poland is highly suburbanised, with only 28% of people living in cities, compared with an OECD average of 50%. As of 2020, 55.8% of the population lived in Poland’s 58 functional urban areas (FUAs) – urban cores and their commuting zones – but more than one-third of FUA residents live in municipalities that can be classified as towns and semi-dense areas or rural areas. A key take-away of Chapter 1 was that Poland’s polycentric structure offers untapped potential to use urban-rural linkages to foster inclusive, sustainable development across Poland, improving well-being across entire regions.

Urban and rural areas have complementary strengths, and they already benefit, at least to some extent, from existing linkages. Without active co-ordination and partnerships, however, beneficial interactions may not be sustained over time, and resources may not be used as efficiently as they could be. Moreover, while some municipalities are closely linked and interdependent, such as through commuting flows and exchanged services, and can identify and pursue common goals, others may only be loosely connected.

This chapter examines how urban-rural partnerships can be used to manage urban-rural linkages more effectively to achieve shared objectives, improve well-being, and ensure sustainable relationships. Urban-rural partnerships are formal mechanisms for co-operation, either for a single purpose (e.g. management of shared water resources), or across multiple sectors and initiatives (e.g. a package of economic policies), which can be linked to broader regional or local strategies (OECD, 2013[1]). A distinctive characteristic of partnerships is that stakeholders from both urban and rural places are directly involved in the process to define the common set of objectives.

Urban-rural partnerships start from existing linkages between urban and rural areas, but can reveal existing and potential complementarities that had not yet been recognised. This can enable the partners to achieve more together than they could have in isolation. In order to succeed, partnerships need a structure or organisation, which can take different forms – from new institutions, to more informal groupings. The actors involved can all be in the public or the private sector, or include a mix of public, private and other actors.

As discussed in Chapter 1, Poland faces several important challenges, including demographic decline, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for a just transition to a decarbonised economy and, due to Russia’s war on Ukraine, a massive influx of refugees which, by late May 2022, had effectively increased Poland’s population by 10% (UNHCR, 2022[2]), straining cities in particular. Urban-rural partnerships can help municipalities develop joint solutions that reduce the cost of interventions and increase their impact. Some partnerships are already bringing benefits, but overall, across Poland, there is far less co-operation among subnational governments than there could be.

The chapter delves deeper into why it is important to move from urban-rural linkages to partnerships across Poland. Then, it then examines the role of national and subnational policy frameworks in fostering urban-rural partnerships – including gaps that need to be addressed. The chapter also analyses the strengths and challenges of existing urban-rural partnerships in Poland across economic, social and environmental dimensions. Finally, it concludes with recommendations for a more strategic approach to urban-rural partnerships in Poland.

From urban-rural linkages to partnerships in Poland

The analysis in Chapter 1 showed that Poland’s population is more dispersed than in most OECD countries, andthat large numbers of workers commute into Polish cities not only from within the 58 FUAs, but also from surrounding areas that are overwhelmingly rural. Workers also commute within suburban areas and, to a small extent, into rural areas.

However, there are large differences in the attractiveness of FUAs to commuters. While 90% of larger FUAs have positive commuting balances, two-thirds of Poland’s 37 FUAs with fewer than 250 000 residents have negative commuting balances. The Polish government has also identified 139 medium-sized cities, mainly outside of FUAs, that are losing their socio-economic functions (Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, n.d.[3]). In 2018, Poland ranked fifth in the OECD for the level of income disparities across regions (OECD, 2021[4]).

Urban-rural partnerships can help reduce regional disparities and boost overall well-being. Promoting them could have broad benefits for Poland, as about 80% of the population lives either in an FUA or in an FUA catchment area. The large commuting flows across urban and rural areas and the many other interactions that already occur – such as the exchange or shared provision of services – provide a natural foundation for deeper and more organised co-operation that leverages the strengths of different municipalities.

Urban-rural partnerships are essential to help Polish communities grapple with major trends, such as climate change, digitalisation, globalisation, and the ageing and decline of the country’s population. In an increasingly interconnected world, actions in isolation rarely succeed in overcoming structural challenges, as those challenges transcend administrative boundaries. Collaboration across territories is therefore crucial, in order to co-ordinate policy actions, achieve cost-effective solutions and help implement national and supranational development agendas. For example, accelerating the transition to a net-zero carbon economy is only possible through co-operation between the rural municipalities that have the bulk of natural resources and the urban municipalities process and consume a majority of those resources.

Partnerships can lead to greater income and well-being, so they can help local governments attain desirable futures (OECD, 2013[1]). In general, places where rural and urban areas are integrated, such as through good transport services, and where institutions are more cohesive, perform better than others in terms of population growth and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Urban and rural municipalities that co-ordinate their labour markets can improve the matching between labour supply and demand and create exchanges of information, which boost innovation processes and unlock new job opportunities.

In Poland, however, urban-rural partnerships are still a relatively new phenomenon, and their uptake remains slow. Jańczuk (2020[5]) analysed a sample of 147 municipalities (81 rural and 66 urban) in 2019 and found that collaborations or partnerships among them were not common. Less than half the municipalities surveyed shared tasks to avoid overlap or achieve efficiencies. Partnering with the private sector to provide public services was even rarer (just 8 out 147). Two-thirds of the municipalities that did report co-operating did so around transport and/or water and sewage management projects.

Similarly, a European Investment Bank study on infrastructure investment found that only 7 of 30 Polish municipalities surveyed (23%) co-ordinated their investment projects with neighbouring municipalities (compared with 37% on average in the EU), and only 17% co-ordinated with a network of municipalities – the smallest share among EU countries covered by the study (EIB, 2017[6]).

Nevertheless, many Polish counties and municipalities surveyed for this report already see urban-rural partnerships as key to boosting development and quality of life around a wide range of areas (Table 2.1). The most common reason to form urban-rural partnerships reported by local governments is to address specific problems through joint actions that help attain economies of scale and cost-effective solutions. Most common targets for co-operation are transport connectivity, provision of high-quality services, increasing attractiveness for tourism and business, and managing environmental amenities.

Table 2.1. Targets of urban-rural partnerships for selected local governments in Poland

Dimension of well-being	Key purpose of co-operation and examples of interdependencies	Local-governments that mentioned the topic as important
Economic development	Tourism	Jelenia Góra, Zamość,
	Functional transport infrastructure	Lublin, Bydgoszcz, Wrocław, Wałbrzych Agglomeration, Nakielski county
	Food production and consumption	Zamość,
	Entrepreneurship and the labour market	Bydgoszcz, Wrocław
	Boost regional attractiveness and reduce territorial inequalities	Zamość, Grudziadz, Lublin
Service provision and social dimension	Social assistance and exclusion	Grudziadz- Kujawsko-Pomorskie voivodeship
	Culture (support for cultural institutions and strengthening the offer of activities)	Zamość, Grudziadz
	Education (support for pre-school, general and vocational education)	Wrocław, Wałbrzych Agglomeration, Nakielski county, Wałbrzych agglomeration
	Health care provision	Grudziadz
Environmental management	Spatial planning to manage urban sprawl	Wałbrzych Agglomeration, Lublin, Bydgoszcz, Wrocław
	Environmental protection	Wrocław, Wałbrzych agglomeration, Nakielski county.
	Waste and water management	Wrocław, Wałbrzych agglomeration, Nakielski county, Bydgoszcz

Note: Based on interviews with Jelenia Góra agglomeration, Lublin, Bydgoszcz Functional Area, Zamość, Grudziądz Functional Area, Wrocław, Wałbrzych agglomeration, Nakło country.

Source: Answers from Poland to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages.

Some expected benefits from urban-rural partnerships identified during OECD interviews and questionnaires to local governments in Poland include:

• Increasing growth opportunities thanks to better co-ordination among economic agents and efficiencies from a greater scale.

• Enhancing well-being of local communities thanks to better access to quality services.

• Improving regional governance and social cohesion.

• Building regional resilience.

• Boosting access to national and international funding.

Moving away from an isolated territorial policy approach – one that pursues urban or rural policies without taking into account interlinkages – is not an easy task. In Poland, as in other OECD countries, it requires political will, a clear framework for action, and time, human and financial resources. This, in turn, is only possible if local stakeholders understand the benefits of co-operation. Local actors in Poland can benefit from the fact that urban-rural partnerships are drawing growing attention on global agendas and from international organisations and governments at different levels (Box 2.1). The insights and guidance that they are generating can facilitate the development of urban-rural partnerships in Poland.

Box 2.1. Urban-rural partnerships on global agendas

Both the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the United Nations’ New Urban Agenda (NUA) highlighted the importance of enhanced synergies between urban and rural communities to attain the Sustainable Development Goals. SDG 11, “Sustainable Cities and Communities”, emphasises the relevance of the National Urban Policies and Regional Development Plans to achieve positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas.

UN-Habitat has also produced 10 Guiding Principles for Urban-Rural Linkages to guide governments in building an enabling environment for more inclusive and functional urban-rural partnerships. Many countries have also recognised the relevance of this area for development. A survey of 64 countries found that 54 had paid extensive or moderate attention in their National Urban Policies to the theme Recognise urban-rural interdependency and promote connectivity between urban and rural areas”.

Source: UN-Habitat (2019[7]), Urban-Rural Linkages: Guiding Principles, https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/03/url-gp-1.pdf; OECD/UN-Habitat/UNOPS (2021[8]), Global State of National Urban Policy 2021: Achieving Sustainable Development Goals and Delivering Climate Action, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/96eee083-en.

How national and subnational policy frameworks can foster urban-rural partnerships

Urban-rural partnerships are likelier to happen – and to be successful – if they are incentivised and supported by national and regional policy frameworks. Across the European Union, supranational policies and incentives play a major role in shaping regional development policies (OECD, 2018[9]). That is true in Poland as well, where a combination of strategic documents at the EU, national, regional (voivodeship) and municipal levels guides the implementation of development plans. This means that there are four entry points for incentivising urban-rural partnerships: i) supranational (EU) policies, ii) national urban and rural strategies, iii) regional development plans and iv) municipal development plans.

Europe and Poland’s regional policy frameworks both envision integrated regional development that goes beyond the urban-rural dichotomy and favours a functional approach to investment and development. This means recognising that communities across the urban-rural continuum are interlinked, each playing different, complementary roles: residential, employment hubs, public service hubs, food producers, providers of environmental services, recreational areas, etc. Both EU and national policies also include targeted support to mobilise local assets and boost growth in lagging regions or marginalised areas.

Urban-rural partnerships in Poland have mainly been triggered by the EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and its place-based approach. As discussed further in Chapter 3, this EU policy – particularly its implementing instruments, such as the Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) – is recognised as the strongest driver of integrated planning and management in Poland’s FUAs. It has also led to joint projects across urban and rural municipalities in Poland. ITIs have played a particularly large role due, because they offer important financial support to joint projects.

Poland’s policy framework recognises the importance of inter-municipal co-operation

Poland’s national policy framework on regional development recognises local co-operation as a necessary mechanism to implement and achieve national policy objectives, though it does not explicitly mention urban-rural partnerships. All the key national policies in Poland that support regional development include a goal on local co-operation or integrated local development to mobilise development strategies. Moreover, most of these policies identify horizontal co-operation among local actors (e.g. local self-governments and associations) as a relevant action to improve efficiency and achieve economies of scale, as well as to improve the performance of public services (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2. How key strategies on regional development in Poland address urban-rural partnerships

Strategy	Lead ministry	Description and objective	Urban-rural partnerships in strategy	Support provided (selected)
Strategy for Responsible Development for the period up to 2020 (including the perspective up to 2030)	Ministry of Funds and Regional Development	Sets basic conditions, objectives and directions for development in social, economic, environmental and spatial terms. Main objective: To create conditions for boosting Polish citizens’ incomes and increase cohesion in the social, economic, environmental and territorial dimensions.	Supports development through integrated sets of interventions financed from public and private sources, appropriately tailored to individual territories. Sets a special role for local authorities to lead development processes, with co-operation as a vital axis. Outlines a package for medium-sized cities losing economic functions, focused on improving functional economic linkages.	Enhancing competences of the administration of the local government Enhancing the effectiveness of public fund spending Creating social capital and a feeling of ownership for the development of each territory Regional Social Dialogue Councils
National Regional Development Strategy (NRDS) 2030*	Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy	Main document shaping regional policy in Poland until 2030, identifying regional development challenges, policy objectives and actions. Main goal: To promote effective use of territories’ endogenous potential and specialisations to achieve sustainable development.	Emphasizes the importance of better co-ordination of projects implemented in urban centres and areas functionally related to them. Sets urban-rural municipal co-operation as a tool to strengthen regional competitive advantages. Defines urban-rural municipal co-operation as instrumental to improving the quality of management and implementation of regionally oriented policies. Indicates the need to support functional connections between small towns and rural municipalities as local growth centres.	Supporting functional connections through integrated infrastructure projects Supporting the development and modernisation of information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure Strengthening co-operation and integrated approach to development at the local, regional and supraregional levels Building capacity of local governments to implement policies and embrace co-operation (e.g. the Advisory Support Centre)
National Urban Policy 2030**	Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy	Lays out actions to address development challenges in cities and functional urban areas and strengthen capacities for sustainable development and quality-of-life improvements.	Defines the need for urban areas to unlock the benefits of co-operation with neighbouring and functionally related municipalities. Adopts an integrated territorial approach, where urban policy affects cities with county rights, urban municipalities, and the urban-rural and rural municipalities that interact with them. Designs optimal mechanisms of co-operation between and within local governments in urban functional areas.	Introduction of flexible mechanisms of co-operation within FUAs, following basic principles (e.g. voluntary co-operation) Disseminate existing instruments of supralocal co-operation. Strengthen the co-ordinating role of voivodeship self-governments and the competences of regional assemblies and voivodeship boards Develop systematic regulation of metropolitan areas (including rules for creating a metropolitan area)
Strategy for Sustainable Development of Rural Areas, Agriculture and Fisheries 2030	Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development	The basic document shaping agricultural policy and rural development	One of the objectives until 2030 is the dynamic development of rural areas in co-operation with cities, which will result in stable and balanced economic growth. Sets community-led local development as an important tool for increasing social capital Emphasizes the need for co-operation among local governments when planning and implementing investment projects, as well as territorial co-operation and integrated planning.	Adapting agro-food products to changing consumption patterns, including those in urban areas. Promoting of community-led local development as an instrument for co-operation. Supporting capacity-building of local governments.

Note:

* A new National Strategic Framework until 2050 is under development, and no documents by the present government refer to the 2030 strategy.

** This policy will replace the National Urban Policy 2023; information was obtained from a draft provided by the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy.

The different national development strategies adopt an integrated approach for regional development that recognises the relevance of inter-municipal collaboration as a means to attaining greater well-being. In line with the OECD Principles on Urban and Rural Policy, Poland’s national policy framework recognises the need to leverage the spatial continuity and functional relationships between rural and urban areas to adapt public investment and programme design. These sets of policies have a number of factors that could facilitate the formation of urban-rural partnerships.

National policies also recognise the value of co-operation at the local level. For example, principle 3 of the the Strategy for Responsible Development for the period up to 2020 was “Poland’s strength to be based on co-operation” – among government entities, with businesses, as well as with citizens (Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, 2017[10]). Poland’s government has also recognised the relevance of co-operation for improving the management capacities of local governments. For instance, the National Regional Development Strategy 2030 emphasised local co-operation for that purpose, as well as for implementing regionally oriented policies. This policy called for taking into account the functional links across administrative boundaries of local governments in planning processes and improving instruments that enable the policy territorialisation to support an efficient policy management in local governments.

The Strategy for Sustainable Rural Development, Agriculture and Fisheries 2030, meanwhile, aims to foster stable and balanced economic growth by, among other things, promoting dynamic development of rural areas in co-operation with cities.

The proposed National Urban Policy 2030, set to be published in 2022, calling for an integrated territorial approach (Box 2.2). It stresses the relevance of inter-municipal co-ordination as a necessary condition to increase development potential, build competitive advantages and minimise costs through economies of scale and a more efficient use of available resources (Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, 2022[11]).

The new urban policy also find that lack of co-operation within FUAs hinders the ability to deal with development issues. This problem is partly due to local governments’ limited experience with intergovernmental co-operation. Legal instruments to support such co-operation are also weak, and there is little trust both in social relations and between citizens and public institutions. The policy further notes that lack of clarity on systems for co-operation within FUAs, even with regard to the implementation of the ITIs, is another barrier.

The National Urban Policy 2030 proposes four solutions to address those issues: First, leveraging the co-ordinating role of regional governments and regional assemblies to raise awareness among local governments. Second, creating systemic solutions for areas requiring close co-operation, in particular metropolitan areas – for example, with a statutory systemic regulation for metropolitan area. Third, developing legal solutions adjusted to the specifics of smaller urban areas, outside metropolitan areas. Fourth, clarifying the role of the county in creating joint development strategies.

Box 2.2. The updated National Urban Policy 2030

Poland has drafted a new National Urban Policy to guide sectoral policies related to cities and their functional areas, integrating actions across different levels of government. It lays out a vision for Polish cities with six traits, which can be summarised as:

• Compact: Striving for urban areas to be structurally compact, developed sustainably and responsibly, with rational use of space and other available resources.

• Green: Mitigating and adapting to climate change and restoring ecosystems in and around urban areas.

• Productive: Building a diversified economy that provides residents with jobs, creating a solid investment basis for sustainable urban development.

• Smart: Using digital technologies to strengthen relations between urban area managers, residents and entrepreneurs in order to effectively manage urban development.

• Accessible: Guaranteeing equal opportunities to all residents and their full participation in the life of the community and in access to public services, regardless of the size and location in the settlement structure.

• City: Ensuring that cities are well managed and use their own resources effectively, while fostering co-operation among all participants in urban development processes (partnership co-operation between institutions, social and economic organisations, residents, etc. – not only within cities, but also across FUAs).

Co-operation and partnerships are seen as key to effective and efficient urban operations. Working in partnership gives a greater chance of success in achieving development goals. Partnerships can be created in various configurations, including different levels of government, non-governmental organisations, and a variety of private, social and economic partners. The policy also emphasises the benefits of co-operation with surrounding municipalities (neighbouring and functionally related) to increase the overall competitiveness of urban areas.

Source: Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (2022[12]), “Draft proposal of the National Urban Policy of Poland 2030”.

Poland’s policy framework also acknowledges that co-operation outside large FUAs is the area that requires more attention. The Strategy for Responsible Development (SRD) highlights that deficits in supporting development policies through the involvement of various public and private actors “are revealed both at the national and local level, but are especially present in rural areas and small towns” (Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, 2017[10]). This deficit is associated with several factors, including limited budgets that are largely dependent on EU funds, insufficient complementarity across policies, low social participation in the creation of a strategic vision, as well as shortages of specialised staff. Improving co-operation in these areas is particularly needed to revitalise the areas at risk of marginalisation, which are of particular importance among the actions for the rural development and small cities.

The different national policies propose a number of actions to promote inter-municipal co-operation, which could lead to urban-rural partnerships. The SDR highlights the need to reinforce co-ordination mechanisms between levels of government to foster inter-municipal partnerships, through, for instance, territorial contracts, Regional Social Dialogue Councils, or a Joint Committee of National Government and Local Self-Government. The NSDR promotes the inclusion of local governments’ in decision-making processes at the regional level as a way to foster co-operation. It also proposes the use of an advisory project to support local governments’ in implementing their tasks (e.g. the Advisory Support Centre), as well as the revision of the municipal tasks to adjust responsibilities for income generation.

Overall, these policies include several points that are aligned with the OECD framework:

• Clear identification of the potential of inter-municipal co-operation for national goals and different dimensions of well-being, including greater economies of scale, efficiency in service delivery and environmental management.

• Identification of factors that hinder inter-municipal co-operation, including financial incentives, human and organisational capacity, and lack of complementarities among local strategies.

• Recognition of the relevance of partnerships for efficient interdependencies within FUAs.

Institutional and organisational barriers still hinder urban-rural partnerships.

National strategies related to regional development refer to municipal co-operation in general terms, without explicitly mentioning urban-rural partnerships. A clearer recognition of the barriers to and benefits of unlocking synergies between urban and rural areas could promote more co-operation and help solve regional challenges.

Moreover, Poland’s regional policy framework does not map or identify urban-rural linkages at the local level across the different dimensions of well-being (economic, social and environmental). National policies related to regional development have scope to improve the understanding of urban-rural linkages across the country. Identifying urban-rural linkages and how municipalities complement one another can help adapt support policies to mobilise partnerships. The main indicator of functionality remains commuting flows, but other interactions are less explored (e.g. business interactions, management of natural resources). On top of this, linkages among FUAs and municipalities within their catchment area seem under-explored. A better identification of the interactions of these municipalities with functional areas can lead to potential partnerships – for instance, in service delivery or environmental management.

Other OECD countries, such as Spain, have explicitly set urban-rural partnerships as one of the main guiding objectives to attain national goals (Box 2.3). Japan explicitly identifies urban-rural linkages as a tool to achieve the objectives of its national environmental plan (Mitra et al., 2021[13]).

Box 2.3. Rural-urban partnerships an objective in the Spain’s Recovery, Transformation and Resilience national strategy

Spain’s Recovery, Transformation and Resilience national strategy, designed to guide the recovery from COVID-19 and address demographic challenges over the period 2021-2023, includes strengthening urban-rural linkages as one of its five main objectives. It sees those linkages as key to improving territorial cohesion and includes several relevant actions.

For example, in the strategic axis number 6 ''Promotion of entrepreneurship and business activity'', action 6.5 seeks to support investors located in peripheral areas, both private and public, and through a small but strategic participation that provides them knowledge of the ecosystem. The overall objective is to take advantage of nearby agglomeration economies to help attract venture capital, as a necessary element for the creation and growth of business in both urban and rural areas.

Source: MITECO (2021[14]), Plan de Recuperación: 130 Medidas frente al reto demográfico, www.miteco.gob.es/es/reto-demografico/temas/medidas-reto-demografico/plan_recuperacion_130_medidas_tcm30-524369.pdf.

Turkey has sought to better identify and understand urban-rural linkages. The 2021 project “Linkages of Rural and Urban Economies in Turkey” aimed to develop a conceptual framework on rural-urban linkages to facilitate identification and incentives to move from urban-rural interactions to partnerships (Box 2.4). Poland, too, could benefit from a deeper understanding of urban-rural linkages. A key need in this regard is to produce better data at the appropriate spatial level to map different urban-rural dynamics and the extent of their interdependencies. Presenting a country map of urban-rural linkages can also help increase awareness of territorial opportunities and the potential benefits of co-operation.

Box 2.4. Urban-rural partnerships framework in Turkey’s national development policy

Turkey’s Sustainable and Integrated Development strategy recognises that the lines between rural and urban areas are increasingly blurred due to the effects of globalisation. The demography, labour market, goods and services markets, public services, and environmental externalities of rural and urban areas reveal mutual dependencies. The strategy considers those linkages from the perspective of geography or functional region, independent of administrative boundaries. It envisages development that starts by recognising the interdependence of rural and urban areas and moves towards partnerships and, ultimately, rural-urban integration.

Along these lines, Turkey’s Urban and Rural Settlement Systems Research Project revealed an important finding when the structure of integrated rural service centres is evaluated together with the structure of integrated urban service centres. In areas where there is a high degree of agglomeration of urban settlements, there are also numerous rural settlements. In other words, strong urban systems are usually supported by strong rural systems, and vice-versa. In terms of settlements, this indicates that rural and urban areas are not rivals or alternatives to each other, but rather complement each other.

The project identified five main categories of interactions: demography (commuting); economy (labour, goods and service markets); delivery of public services; access to natural resources and environmental externalities (climate change, landscape, etc.), and governance (multilevel).

Good governance means promoting rural and urban development by bringing together different actors, such as central, provincial and local governments, regional institutions, civil society organisations and the private sector. Instead of focusing only on cities, this aspect requires accepting that all settlements have potential, without distinguishing between villages, towns, districts and such.

Source: Information provided by the delegate of the government of Turkey to the OECD Working Party on Rural Policy.

At the same time, Poland would benefit from delving deeper into the barriers to co-operation (see also Chapter 3). In response to an OECD questionnaire for this report, some local policy makers in Poland said that meeting administrative standards imposes high transaction costs on partnerships. Lack of trust among municipalities has been identified as a particular obstacle to co-operation in Poland (Potkanski, 2016[15]), especially between small rural governments and cities. With little history of co-operation, rural governments tend to fear being dominated by city governments, which have greater staff capacity, resources and political weight. As noted, this is an issue recognised by the proposed new National Urban Policy 2030.

Given the growing depopulation trend in Poland, it is understandable that competition among municipalities to attract or retain people also becomes an obstacle when entering into partnerships that might encourage greater commuting and sharing provision of key public services. The national government thus needs to actively focus on building trust. The experience of other OECD countries, such as Portugal and Austria, indicates that promoting partnerships among municipalities of different capacities (rural and urban) can itself help build a culture of co-operation and trust (OECD, 2013[1]).

Other strategies to build trust include (OECD, 2013[1]):

• Developing formal spaces for dialogue to agree on short term win-win strategies that show the benefits of partnerships.

• Building partnership structures with equal voice and vote among all partners, regardless of size and financial capacity. For example, partnerships in the Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg, Germany, and Geelong, Australia, implemented “one voice, one vote” schemes, giving each municipality an equal vote, no matter what its contribution. While most of the funding was provided by the core city, the scheme helped allay other partners’ concerns.

• Promoting a local leader (e.g. a local government or agency) to focus on building trust and co-operation. For example, in Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg, Germany, the leader leveraged relationships to persuade municipalities to join the partnership (Box 2.5).

Box 2.5. Building trust for urban-rural partnerships: the case of the Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg, Germany

The Nuremberg Metropolitan Region (NRM) covers a wide territory that includes urban and rural areas located in different labour markets, but with common functions. The main challenges of the region have been demographic decline and the need to retain young and skilled workers after educating them.

The partnership in the NRM is a voluntary municipal alliance legally defined as a “statutory body sui generis under public law”. It was formally set up in 2005 under an agreement between 60 politicians and various stakeholders. It grew out of a combination of top-down (the “Supra-Regional Partnership” project, a national initiative for urban-rural co-operation) and bottom-up processes (the Lord Mayor of Nuremberg’s vision of fighting the pressures of globalisation through more structured, formal co‑operation efforts).

A big challenge was the low level of trust among municipalities. Three factors helped to overcome this:

• Top-down support: The Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs launched a three-year pilot project on spatial development through the Demonstration Projects of Spatial Planning (MORO) initiative to engage urban and rural areas in project-oriented co-operation.

• Leadership: The Lord Mayor of Nuremberg sought to capitalise on the local clusters to build a region better equipped to compete in a globalised economy, in both the domestic and international markets. He helped create a common vision of fighting the pressures of globalisation through more structured, formal co-operation efforts. Shared identity in response to globalisation was the essence of the approach to the partnership.

• The principle of “one voice, one vote”: The partnership agreed that all members would have equal standing, regardless of population size or economic strength. This principle helped build trust and overcome partners’ suspicions of the big city.

Source: OECD (2013[1]), Rural-Urban Partnerships: An Integrated Approach to Economic Development, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204812-en.

Polish national strategies related to regional development could also do more to improve municipal staff capacity to enter into local partnerships – need that most already recognise. Organisational and advisory incentives across the different policies need to be aligned to support capacity-building and networking across urban and rural municipalities. For example, the strategic project Advisory Support Centre (Centrum Wsparcia Doradczego), implemented by the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy, could aim to increase awareness among local decision-makers of the benefits of urban-rural partnerships and support interactions to better co-ordinate service delivery. A project called Advisory Support Centre Plus aims to expand the geographic coverage (e.g. additional municipalities) to deliver capacity-building support.

While EU funds has triggered different partnership around the country and thus revealed the potential of local co-operation, high reliance on these funds can undermine the formation of future partnerships. Currently, European programmes and funds are the main source of founding and incentive for urban-rural partnerships, in particular ITIs and CLLD. But these funds promote partnerships to only those regions eligible for the funds, and currently mostly focus in partnerships within FUAs. As Chapter 3 will explain, the government of Poland could develop additional financial incentives for urban-rural partnerships, and thus complement EU support programmes. Financial incentives from the government could focus in those areas that do not access EU funds, for example partnerships between small and medium size functional urban areas and rural areas outside of FUAs and promote co-operation on strategic or priority areas to accelerate development.

Looking beyond the boundaries of FUAs

Poland’s development policy framework does not fully recognise the potential for partnerships among municipalities outside FUAs. The SRD does mention the importance of collaboration across municipalities outside FUAs – for example, by linking rural areas to the highway network – but it does not explicitly recognise the potential benefits of partnerships among such municipalities.

The identification of the potential of these partnerships is relevant to provide the right support or eliminate barriers. Even if municipalities are not physically close to one another, digitalisation may connect them. Strengthening partnerships outside FUAs could help regions mobilise the workforce potential of catchment areas, for example, and thus increase their attractiveness. It can also support marginalised areas or rural municipalities to benefit from economic opportunities from overall regional attractiveness (e.g. increased demand of agricultural products or tourism) and access health or education.

The SRD in the next programming period 2021-2027 will increase the focus on providing municipalities outside FUAs with the basic conditions to increase attractiveness and ensure well-being. The Ministry of Funds and Regional Development should benefit from this updating process to improve the identification of linkages among these two types of municipalities and include a clear mechanism to promote urban-rural partnerships with municipalities outside FUAs.

Incentivising local partnerships

Co-operation culture and incentives for urban-rural collaboration can also come from a better integration of national urban and rural policies in Poland. The Strategy for Sustainable Rural Development, Agriculture and Fisheries 2030 and the forthcoming National Urban Policy 2030 could build further complementarities by developing common or integrated goals and strategies. This can also help reduce the fragmentation of policy responsibilities that emerges when different ministries deal with specific competences for urban and rural areas – such as spatial planning and public transport on the urban side, and agriculture and natural parks on the rural side (OECD, 2013[1]).

The updated NUP is a unique opportunity to reinforce the role of urban-rural partnerships in territorial development, by clearly identifying common projects along with the Strategy for Sustainable Rural Development, Agriculture and Fisheries 2030. Together, the two strategies can promote collaboration between the respective ministries to set joint objectives and implementation mechanisms that support the development of rural areas within FUAs and around them.

Digitalisation to unlock new partnerships

Finally, Polish national policies can also increase the promotion of ICT to encourage greater integration between urban and rural areas – especially remote ones – through better access to services, jobs and amenities. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digitalisation to work and access services. This aspect opens up new possibilities for collaboration among rural and urban municipalities, which includes working remotely from rural areas and rural residents virtually accessing education or health services provided by cities. This has the potential to revitalise rural economies and improving quality of life in rural municipalities that suffer from low access to services (OECD, 2020[16]).

Virtual interlinkages among rural and urban communities and economies are a recent phenomenon that still receives little attention in Poland’s policy framework, as in many OECD countries that are adapting to this new trend. The updating process of national development strategies in Poland can further explore mechanisms to promote remote working in marginalised areas or rural municipalities, as well as incentivise virtual access to services for rural population. For example, national policies could provide special support to facilitate partnerships where rural municipalities can provide places for remote working to private and public employees. The rural national rural policy of Ireland offers a good example to integrate incentives to remote working in national strategies (Box 2.6).

Box 2.6. Our Rural Future – Ireland’s rural development plan 2021-2025

Our Rural Future represents the Irish Government’s blueprint for COVID-19 recovery and development of rural areas over the next five years. Its stated objectives are optimising digital connectivity; supporting employment and careers in rural areas; revitalising rural towns and villages through enhanced participation, public services and resilience; and fostering the transition to a climate-neutral society.

The plan places particular importance on telework, noting that it has contributed to reducing transport emissions, provided a boost for small local businesses across the country, and offered possibilities for young people to build a career without leaving their communities, regardless of where their employer is based. Planned actions specifically related to telework include:

• Invest significantly in digital infrastructure to provide an opportunity for people to pursue their career ambitions while continuing to live in rural communities.

• Provide financial support to local authorities to bring vacant properties in town centres back into use as teleworking hubs and develop an integrated network of over 400 teleworking facilities throughout the country, with shared back-office services and a single booking platform.

• Pilot co-working and hot-desking hubs for civil servants in a number of regional towns, and move to 20% home or teleworking in the public sector in 2021, with further annual increases over the lifetime of this policy.

• Examine the potential to introduce specific incentives to encourage teleworkers to relocate to rural towns and provide funding to local authorities to run innovative marketing campaigns targeted at attracting teleworkers and mobile talent to their county.

Source: OECD (2021[17]), “The future of remote work: Opportunities and policy options for Trentino”, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/35f78ced-en.

Subnational development strategies recognise the relevance of inter-municipal co-operation and can further support urban-rural partnerships.

A combination of strategic development documents at the regional and local levels operationalise national strategies for development in Poland (OECD, 2021[4]). Poland’s different levels of subnational government – regions, counties and municipalities – set strategies that are aligned vertically and with the principles and goals of the national policy framework. Some policy strategies require actions across all three levels of subnational government, including socio-economic development strategy, a long-term investment programme, a waste management plan, and an environment protection plan (OECD, 2021[4]).

Polish subnational governments have a number of key responsibilities that they can deliver individually or jointly (Table 2.3). Regions (voivodeships) play a more strategic role and are in charge of important regional dimensions for well-being, including regional transport, environmental management, labour market policies and more specialised health services and post-secondary schools, among others. Since 2007, regions have been fully responsible for a big share of European cohesion funds (25%).

At the intermediate level, counties (powiats) are responsible for some specific local issues, including secondary education, social welfare, economic activity and job creation. under the Self-Government Act of 1990, municipalities are responsible for ensuring the well-being of their communities and are in charge of spatial planning, infrastructure development, utilities, municipal housing, social services, education, transport, environmental protection, basic health care, recreation and culture.

Table 2.3. Responsibilities of subnational governments in Poland by sector

Sector	Regions	Counties	Municipalities
General public services	Internal administration, management of EU funds	Administrative services	Internal administration, real estate management, civil registration status, support and disseminate the idea of self-government; promotion of the municipality; co-operation with local and regional communities of other states
Public order and safety	Defence, public order	Civil protection, flood and fire protection	Public order and security, emergency responses
Economic affairs and transport	Regional economic development, employment and labour market policy, regional roads, public transport including regional rail transport, consumer rights protection	Economic development, job creation (employment offices), county roads (maintenance and construction)	Local roads (maintenance and construction), local public transport, telecommunications
Environmental protection	Environmental protection, waste management	Environmental protection	Zoning and local environmental protection, waste management, sewage, landfills
Housing and community amenities	Spatial development, water management, land improvement, hydropower facilities, modernisation of rural areas	No relevant role	Spatial planning, water supply, public areas (including cemeteries), electricity, gas and heat supply, housing
Health	Health promotion, regional hospitals (specialised services, secondary referral level hospitals), medical emergency and ambulance services	Health promotion, county hospitals (first referral level hospitals)	Health promotion, primary health care services
Recreation, culture and religion	Regional cultural institutions	Sports and tourism, support to cultural institutions	Market places, municipal libraries, support to cultural institutions, monument protection, promotion of sports
Education	Some secondary schools and vocational schools, post-secondary schools, teacher training colleges	Secondary education	Pre-primary and primary education
Social protection	Regional social policy centres, social welfare and family policy, social exclusion, disabled, childcare, elderly care	Social welfare (beyond territorial municipal boundaries), support to the disabled through county family centres.	Social services, including family benefits through municipal social assistance centres

Source: OECD/UCLG (2019[18]), 2019 Report World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment: Key Findings, www.sng-wofi.org/publications/2019_SNG-WOFI_REPORT_Key_Findings.pdf.

The key role of regional governments

The Regional Development Strategies (RDS) created by regional governments identify the mission, development vision and strategic objectives for the development of the region, closely following the objectives and goals set by national regional policies. They also identify the functional areas in the region and thus the areas for strategic interventions.

These strategies recognise the relevance of local partnerships and networks. Some acknowledge the relevance of co-operation as a goal in itself to attain greater development in the region and as tool for sustainable implementation. For example, the Regional Development Strategy of the Lubelskie Voivodeship emphasises that multi-level co-operation is important for building lasting partnerships with regional impact (Box 2.7). Some RDS also see intraregional co-operation as a way to better distribute wealth across the region and reduce differences between the areas of dynamic development and those with less favourable conditions (e.g. the Regional Development Strategy of the Lubelskie Voivodeship 2030 and the 2020 Regional Development Strategy of Dolnośląskie Voivodeship). Podlaskie Voivodeship’s RDS includes the aim to become a partnership-based region, to make “better use of existing and often dispersed resources through co-operation” (Podlaskie Voivodeship, 2020[19]).

Box 2.7. Lubelskie Voivodeship’s approach to promoting urban-rural partnerships

One of the four objectives of the Lubelskie Voivodeship’s 2014-2020 Regional Development Strategy was to promote the functional, spatial social and cultural integration for the region. To this end, the strategy aimed to:

• Design educational programmes on the region’s history and traditions.

• Support joint economic, social, educational and cultural projects by local communities.

• Develop joint touristic routes.

• Establish a regional territorial forum.

Through these actions, the region expected to create a stronger sense of regional community, stimulate social activity, improve local government operations, and foster co-operation, thus improving well-being.

The strategy also identifies six guiding principles, two of which relate to co-operation and partnerships:

• Multi-level governance and integrated projects – aiming to undertake co-ordinated activities and pro-development investment projects among various entities and funded from various sources to ensure complementarity and greater benefits for the region.

• Partnerships and co-operation – aiming to promote close co-operation between public institutions and other entities in charge of implementing the strategy, in order to unlock the endogenous resources of the region.

A system of support for urban-rural partnerships was built in the financial perspective 2014–2020 based on territorial instruments, ITIs (voivodeship centre, the Lublin Functional Area) and the Strategic Territorial Investments, or SITs (four subregional centres of Puławy, Chełm, Biała Podlaska and Zamość). Based on these instruments, partnerships of territorial self-government units and functionally related areas (a city and self-governments within its influence) implemented joint projects combining measures financed from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund.

As part of the update of the Regional Development of the Lubelskie Voivodeship (SDLP) to 2030, a multi-criteria analysis was conducted to develop a proposal for the delimitation of Functional Urban Areas (FUAs). As a result, 17 FUAs were created (the FUA of the voivodeship centre Lublin Metropolitan Area, FUAs of subregional centres and UFAs of local centres). The FUAs indicated in the SDLP will open up opportunities for partnerships in developing supralocal strategies and, as a result, for using the ITI.

Source: Lubelskie Voivodeship (n.d.[20]), Information for Foreigners on the website of the Lubelskie Province Governor’s Office in Lublin, www.lublin.uw.gov.pl/information-foreigners-website-lubelskie-province-governor%E2%80%99s-office-lublin; EURE (2020[21]), “Lubelskie works on a regional development strategy”, https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/eure/news/news-article/9045/lubelskie-works-on-a-regional-development-strategy/; Lubelskie Voivodeship (2014[22]), Regional Innovation Strategy for the Lubelskie Voivodeship 2020, www.onlines3.eu/wp-content/uploads/RIS3_strategy_repository/PL_Regional_Innovation_Strategy_of_Lubelskie_Voivodeship_2020.pdf.

Regional governments have a strategic role in promoting urban-rural partnerships by designating strategic priorities and improving local governments’ competencies to build partnerships. This includes providing advice to navigate regulatory frameworks and identifying support instruments at the national and regional levels. They can also offer training and consultation services (e.g. in interpreting EU and national regulations) to help identify proposals for integrated operations and joint action plans. In addition, they can present a dedicated system of preferences for co-operation to the European Funds, including to improve urban-rural functional links in the region.

Regional government could also play a more active role in matching municipalities of different types to make the most of their respective assets. They can serve as facilitators, supporting initiatives and projects that foster the exchange of good practices in building agreements. As part of this, they can raise awareness of the benefits of urban-rural partnerships, show how tasks can be optimised, and point to particular areas where these partnerships can help address common challenges. Regions also have a unique role to play in helping overcome distrust linked to differences in political power (OECD, 2021[4]).

Regional instruments of co-ordination, such as Regional Territorial Forums and Regional Territorial Observatories, can be used to identify common challenges and share examples of successful partnerships. Regional Territorial Forums can also serve as institutional platforms to build partnerships for the implementation of initiatives of supralocal importance. Regional Territorial Observatories, meanwhile, which are used by some regions (e.g. Lubelskie Voivodeship) as a unit to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Regional Development Strategy, could serve as a repository of guidelines and information about the potential benefits of intraregional partnerships.

Regional governments have limited budgets for these kinds of activities. Many regional governments do not include any provisions on the possibility of entering into partnerships other than those provided in the law. This means they are likely to need to rely on EU funds as the main financial support for partnerships (OECD, 2021[23]). Helping co-finance urban-rural partnerships to complete short projects can be a concrete way to build an enabling environment for partnerships.

Local governments can further embed and operationalise inter-municipal co-operation

Counties (powiats) are in charge of ensuring the alignment of development strategies within the framework of the RDS. They can play a co-ordinating role in promoting urban-rural partnerships by participating in activities aimed at strengthening urban-rural connections – for example, through technical and organisational training assistance – as well as by involving non-governmental actors. In addition, they can serve as facilitators, highlighting the potential for collaboration among municipal governments.

As part of regional associations, counties could also undertake actions to level out differences among urban and rural municipalities, including creating strategic documents (e.g. a local development strategy), help obtaining common funds or taking joint actions for the benefit of the region. For example, they can directly be members of Local Action Groups, as the Nakielski County in the Local Action Group Association "Partnership for Krajny and Pałuki". However, in practice, counties do not yet play a significant role in the creation and co-ordination of urban-rural partnerships (Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, 2022[12]).

Municipalities, the lowest government level in Poland, have the right to develop their own local development strategy (LDS). According to the Act on the Principles of Implementing Development Policy (2020), the strategy can be developed by a single municipality or jointly by a group of municipalities that create a supralocal development strategy in order to improve co-ordination (see Chapter 3 for further analysis on supralocal strategies). The municipality is responsible for all public matters of local importance in its territory, including local public transport, waterworks, health, education, housing, etc. The municipal office is headed by the mayor or president, who is elected by citizens.

However, not all municipalities include in the LDS a reference to inter-municipal co-ordination across administrative units and policy sectors. In 2021, a survey conducted by the OECD (2021[4]) on better governance, planning and services across 47 municipalities in Poland found that 54% of responding municipalities did not have policy documents that focus on co-ordination in planning, service design and delivery across different policy sectors. The majority of municipalities that did have such policy co-ordination documents were located inside FUAs (OECD, 2021[4]).

Although there are positive examples of LDS explicitly stating the relevance of co-ordination to attain local goals (Box 2.8), acknowledging the mechanisms to partner with different local governments is not a common practice. Even less common is the explicit reference to urban-rural partnerships in LDS, as happens at the national and regional policy levels. Particular recognition of the potential and the instruments to facilitate urban-rural partnerships is scarce. Development strategies instead tend to focus on inter-municipal co-operation in general terms. Making mandatory the preparation of LDS and further clarifying Article 10a of the Act on the principles of development policy, with a minimum scope to conduct partnerships, would help create a common basis for co-operation and economies of scale.

Box 2.8. Local development strategies containing references to inter-municipal co-operation across different policy sectors

Poznań’s City Development Strategy 2020+ adopts as one of its underlying principles an effective leadership that ensures “individual departments co-operate with each other in [the strategy’s] implementation”.

The strategy further stresses the importance of “co-ordination and communication within interdisciplinary teams that allows combining knowledge from different backgrounds […] and areas of the city’s functioning to put together many – often different – points of view”. It stresses that “a holistic and open view of the tasks that make their implementation part of more than one priority” can benefit the city.

The Białystok City Development Strategy 2020+, meanwhile, lists co-ordination of the “functioning of various institutions and organisations” as a fundamental priority, in particular in areas of activity towards people and families who need support and help.

Source: OECD (2021[4]), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en.

Both regional and local governments could embed the benefits of urban-rural partnerships in the implementation principles of their development strategies. The success of those strategies depends in part on the level of commitment to the principles they have set to guide implementation by different administrative units. Including the principle of urban-rural co-operation or partnerships systemically could be the right approach to promote local partnerships.

The preparation of the LDS also requires substantial inter-governmental co-operation, but consultation among municipalities is voluntary and depends on the relationships among political leaders (OECD, 2021[4]). It also requires technical expertise, political commitment and funding, which represent important challenges for many Polish municipalities. To address this issue, some rural municipalities have partnered with universities or other entities, often based in cities, to develop the LDS. The possible involvement of universities or other partners in the development of LDS could be leveraged to promote co-ordination with neighbouring municipalities in the preparation of LDS (see Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion).

Finally, national and subnational policies facilitating inter-municipal co-operation are underpinned by laws and regulations (e.g. the Act on the Principles of Development Policy, the legal framework for urban-rural co-operation) that define various forms of association (e.g. inter-county associations, municipal associations, inter-municipal agreements). The different mechanisms for inter-municipal co-operation vary in terms of the objectives and the type of projects or services. Chapter 3 delves deeper into the strengths and challenges of these mechanisms in the context of urban-rural partnerships.

Mobilising urban-rural partnerships for territorial well-being in Poland

Partnerships to stimulate economic growth and unlock new opportunities

As discussed in Chapter 1, economic growth in Poland has mainly been concentrated in large FUAs, even though a majority of the population lives in small and mid-sized FUAs and rural areas. Urban-rural partnerships can be used to unlock growth opportunities around population hubs and to help spread the wealth of large FUAs. Local governments interviewed for this report saw potential for partnerships on transport, private investment, business support services, tourism and food value chains, among others.

Partnerships on transport can help achieve multiple development goals

In Poland, transport is a frequent thematic area of co-operation within FUAs. Transport is also one of the common areas of urban-rural co-operation across OECD countries (OECD, 2013[1]), as it is a pre-condition to access other services and foster urban-rural synergies. As cities in Poland draw commuters from large areas, including rural municipalities beyond the boundaries of their FUAs, co-ordination is increasingly important. While the most advanced integration in transport services is observed in the largest Polish FUAs (e.g. Warsaw), some small FUAs have also prioritised this sector and made progress in greater integration of public transport (e.g. Lublin, Bydgoszcz).

Most urban-rural partnerships in Poland that are implementing transport projects have done so through ITI instruments, targeting mobility across municipalities that are already linked by commuting flows. Common features of integrated transport systems in Poland include:

• Direct connections to the urban core.

• Integrated tariff schemes.

• Access to suburban railways.

• Integrated internet platforms.

• Access to the closest airport within the local transportation system.

• A metropolitan transport authority.

Improving infrastructure is a seminal and effective action to strengthen integration and unlock functionality in the region. Rather than size, urban infrastructure and institutional capacity are the most important determinants of an FUA’s ability to generate economic growth (Camagni, Capello and Caragliu, 2014[24]; Frick and Rodríguez-Pose, 2017[25]). Improving transport infrastructure enhances access to jobs, education and health care. The efficient movement of people across municipalities allows for greater exchange of knowledge and ideas, which may lead to greater innovation, social cohesion and regional identity.

Local governments in Poland have used different mechanisms to establish partnerships in transport. They include bilateral agreements between the core municipalities and the surrounding ones (e.g. Lublin, Warsaw, Jelenia Góra and Bydgoszcz) or municipal associations to revitalise the public transport system (e.g. Oławskie Przewozy Gminno- Powiatowe in Wrocław FUA). For example, in Bydgoszcz, the metropolitan association created programmes and frameworks for inter-governmental co-operation, which required separate agreements with the city and the surrounding municipalities. Box 2.9 describes a partnership in Lublin that succeeded through dialogue, the involvement of citizens, and organisational capacity-building in partner municipalities.

Box 2.9. Partnerships to improve public transport in the Lublin Functional Area

The Lubelskie Voivodeship decided to include the Lublin Functional Area (LFA) in its ITI for 2014-2020, on the basis of identified functional links in the Regional Development Strategy. It includes the City of Lublin, three smaller cities and more than a dozen other municipalities. To enable the implementation of the projects, they all signed an inter-municipal agreement.

Common problem: Poorly developed transport infrastructure affects functionality of the area and growth in rural areas, this is currently one of the most important constraints for development.

The solution provided by the partnership: The main project of the ITI is supporting public transport and micro-mobility in the LFA. The City of Lublin owns the public transport system, which can provide public transport services on the territory of other municipalities only on the basis of individual agreements, as part of the ITI. Each municipality in where service is provided contributes to the cost of maintaining the lines within its administrative borders.

The Metropolitan Bus Station is the flagship project of the partnership. It integrates various means of transportation and enables faster connections between Lublin and other municipalities, as well as with the airport. The station integrates rail-buses as well as other types of public transportation.

Twenty-two municipalities and five counties are now working to establish a Lublin Municipal Area Association. As a transitional step, they have forged a new agreement laying out principles for co-operation until June 2030.

Factors that facilitated this partnership:

• Partners dedicated organizational resources for the proper implementation of the projects (qualified team, employees)

• Dialogue and mutual trust between partners

• Partnership decision making aimed at solving the diagnosed common problems

• Involvement of inhabitants allows to build durable solutions and to reduce conflicts arising from often divergent interests

Factors that hinder this partnership:

• “Individualistic” approach to solving common problems

• Narrow thinking on administrative boundaries without a broader perspective on the needs

Some solutions to address the barriers:

• Government administration of the City of Lublin took care of appropriate formal and legal regulations enabling the establishment of the partnership, which was prepared in consultation with stakeholders.

• Formal solutions should be implemented to supporting such partnerships with financial resources.

Source: Answers from ITI Lublin to OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Often in these partnerships around transport in Poland, the core city takes the lead, handling the formal and legal regulations and co-ordinating dialogues with surrounding municipalities to enable the establishment of the partnership. While no single type of inter-municipal agreement is inherently better than others, those that involve the greatest number of municipalities that have commuting interdependencies and differentiates their financial and administrative capacity to create fair schemes of participation can attain more sustainable outcomes.

Urban-rural partnerships around transport can not only make commutes more efficient, but can also help reduction of air pollution, revitalise old infrastructure and build a stronger regional identity. For example, Wałbrzych Agglomeration implemented an ITI that included reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Other example is the flagship project of the ITI of Wrocław, which involved the revitalisation of a railway route to make the most efficient use of existing assets and strengthen regional identity (Box 2.10).

Box 2.10. Revitalisation of the railway in Wrocław functional area

The Wrocław Functional Area is mainly urban, but about 22% the population lives in rural municipalities. One of the goals of the ITI Wrocław FUA Office is to provide more equitable opportunities and reduce travel times between urban municipalities (especially the core city) and rural ones.

Common problem: The ITI identified the misuse of a railway line as a barrier to integration in the FUA.

The solution provided by the partnership: One of the flagship projects from the ITI in Wrocław was thus the revitalisation of railway line No. 292 on the section between Wrocław Sołtysowice and Jelcz Miłoszyce, with new hybrid trains.

Three municipalities were involved and entered into an agreement to co-finance the project: urban Wrocław, rural Czernica, and urban-rural Jelcz-Laskowice. Local governments are not directly responsible for the railway, so the partner municipalities contributed financially to the public company, Polish Railway Company (PKP PLK S.A), which was responsible for modernising the railway line and building new stops. The supporting infrastructure (car parks, communication nodes within the station) was provided directly by the municipalities.

For rural residents, the project will make it easier to commute to study and work in Wrocław city. Since December 2021, trains service has run seven times per day in each direction, and the aim is to increase this number to 15. The regional government (Dolnośląskie voivodeship) will cover the largest share of the cost of maintaining the line, and the rest will be covered by the three municipal governments.

Factors that facilitated this partnership: Participants said two factors were key to enabling this project: political will and – especially – the availability of funding.

Source: Answers from ITI Wrocław to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Urban-rural partnerships on transport projects in Poland also need to be forward-looking. For instance, they need to be able to anticipate the effects of an increase in telework and the potential emergence of new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles and drones, that could change how people commute and goods are transported (OECD, 2021[26]). Adopting a flexible planning approach to include new technologies and information systems in the design and implementation of transport projects could help align currents projects with future changes in mobility

Involving private actors can attract new businesses and help existing ones grow.

Attracting new businesses and supporting existing ones is a common concern for local governments. In Poland, municipalities outside FUAs report an average of 1.3% annual growth, while those within FUAs report, on average, 2.2% annual growth (OECD, 2021[4]).

Different factors can contribute to attracting business to a municipality, such as the cost and availability of land, access to quality services, the quality of the labour force, and connections to internal and external markets. In Poland, small and medium-size FUAs and rural municipalities can typically offer land for new investments at a lower price than large cities, which have limited undeveloped (greenfield) land. Respondents to the OECD questionnaire for this report also noted that investors are increasingly interested in redeveloping post-industrial areas, which tend to be located outside large cities.

To make the most of these assets, urban and rural municipalities would benefit from working together to promote their regions in a co-ordinated way – for example, by offering quality connectivity and labour. Alignment of new investments with local capacities and small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs) also requires co-operation among municipalities with different strengths.

Some urban-rural partnerships in Poland are already working to improve the business environment by hosting networking activities for local and foreign businesses and promoting local assets through a coherent territorial brand. For example, some FUAs, such as Wrocław and Bydgoszcz, have created agencies to co-ordinate with surrounding municipalities to promote their economic advantages and provide business support services (Box 2.11). Others are promoting the creation of privately run business associations that gather local firms and improve networking activities (e.g. FUA Grudziadz).

These type of co-ordination is relevant to actively involve the private sector and thus help improve the regional business environment. However, extra effort has to be made to ensure that business associations, which are normally based in cities, include rural businesses equitably. Sound co-operation among urban and rural private sector representatives can be the basis for lasting partnerships among urban and rural municipalities.

Box 2.11. Attracting investors through urban-rural partnerships in Wrocław and Bydgoszcz

The Wrocław Agglomeration Development Agency (ARAW)

The city of Wrocław created an agency to co-ordinate activities with the 13 rural and urban surrounding municipalities. The Wrocław Agglomeration Development Agency (ARAW) co-operates closely with local municipalities to accomplish its strategic responsibilities. Its work mainly involves connecting companies with opportunities to invest in the agglomeration.

The agency has set up partnerships with the aim to enhance the area’s attractiveness and bring in new investors and companies. Examples of joint actions include participation in fairs and economic promotion, business events, and promotional campaigns within Poland and abroad.

The main tool used for presenting the functional areas as an excellent investment location is a dedicated website (www.invest-in-wroclaw.pl), which provides a range of information, such as available investment areas, support for investors and incentives offered by special economic zones. There are also reports and publications, dedicated presentations and economic analyses.

ARAW actively participates in the organisation of investor visits, both in Wrocław and in neighbouring municipalities, and provides substantive, logistical and language support. ARAW's co-operation with local government units is also based on the implementation of investor service standards in accordance with the guidelines of the Polish Investment and Trade Agency.

Support for the internationalisation of SMEs and economic promotion in Bydgoszcz

In the Bydgoszcz metropolitan area, meanwhile, the Bydgoszcz Regional Development Agency is leading a project, in partnership with the Bydgoszcz Metropolis Association, to help SMEs connect with international markets and to promote the area to investors.

The programme provides financial assistance to help SMEs participate in international fairs and exhibitions, and helps them find partners in target markets. It also provides training and informational meetings on participation in foreign markets. In addition, the project has developed catalogues and promotional leaflets for all municipalities that are members of the Bydgoszcz Metropolis Association. A promotional campaign was developed, using both traditional and digital media, including a video and a website featuring investment opportunities in the participating municipalities (www.invest.barr.pl).

Factors that facilitated this partnership included mutual trust, the existence of a formal co-ordinating organisation, and the fact that small municipalities were given equal voice and the same opportunities to promote their potential as larger cities.

Source: Answers from ITI Bydgoszcz-Torun to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Rural areas need more attention from local partnerships to attract business.

In Poland, innovation support bodies (business accelerators and public and private innovation/research centres) tend to be in cities, due to the agglomeration of firms and the location of other administrative centres. Many of the governments interviewed for this report stated that the city hall is the first information contact point for entrepreneurs who want to expand their business in neighbouring municipalities.

However, city halls often do not the knowledge or information needed to provide guidance about investing in rural municipalities. Businesses in rural municipalities tend to face more acute challenges to achieve economies of scale, reach external markets, and adjust to the digital transition and to a shrinking workforce. On the other hand, they have special knowledge in working with environmental assets and endogenous capacity of innovation. Therefore, such particularities require special attention in the way business support programmes are setting up networking activities and offering capacity building.

Urban-rural partnerships that aim to improve the business environment would benefit from greater exchange of business information, programmes to transfer knowledge and talent capacity from cities to rural municipalities, and networking activities to support businesses and entrepreneurship. To this end, development agencies or business associations could consolidate regional information on skills and business across rural and urban municipalities. Business Joensuu in North Karelia, Finland, offers an example of an inter-municipal co-operation within an agency that not only manages common data, but also promotes co-ordinated investments (Box 2.12).

Box 2.12. Inter-municipal business support agency in Finland

At the beginning of the 21^st century, smaller municipalities in North Karelia decided to set up a joint development agency to address some pressing challenges in the local market, including scarcity of resources, lack of special knowledge to handle the business advisory services and competition between neighbouring municipalities. All municipalities around the capital of the region (Joensuu) negotiated at the City Board level the creation a functional body, called Josek, organised on the level of the region.

The partnership has not been without issues. In 2018, two municipalities decided to reduce the services acquired from Josek and started providing business advisory services in-house, while continuing to use project development and facilitation services. This led to a reform of the development agency and the creation of Business Joensuu.

The new Business Joensuu integrates common strategic municipal tasks under a single institution and has the resources to hire skilled staff and find synergies among municipal strategies through more efficient exchange of information (e.g. labour force skills). Urban and rural municipalities buy services to the agency according to a service agreement.

Business Joensuu provides services to start-ups, municipal growth, and foreign investors interested in the region and internationalisation support to local companies. In addition, it creates an enabling environment for different industries to operate in the region. It is governed by a board of directors that is selected by the City Council of Joensuu, the University of Eastern Finland, the Joensuu University Support Foundation and the North Karelia Educational Council Group Riveria.

Given its capacity to balance interests among partners, this agency could be a useful example for similar instruments in Poland, showing how to build trust among municipal actors (governments and private sector) and make them realise they can gain more from co-operation in business development than from competing with one another.

Overall, the agency has managed 25 programmes focused on different sectors, including export growth, the bioeconomy, business digitalisation and entrepreneurship. It is also involved in two active EU programmes to support the mining sector. The services are typically one- to three-year, customer-oriented development projects. They are initiated by industry experts who are responsible for creating a favourable environment for the sector in which they specialise.

Source: OECD (2021[27]), Mining Regions and Cities Case of Västerbotten and Norrbotten, Sweden, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/802087e2-en.

Local governments can also leverage infrastructure for entrepreneurs to target co-ordinated support to urban and rural entrepreneurs and create synergies among business from different areas. For example, municipalities can benefit from the 80 techno-parks currently in place across Poland, which were created to support entrepreneurs with fully equipped infrastructure to create businesses and provide assistance with legal consulting, accounting, promotion and marketing services. Co-ordination with business environment institutions like this is an efficient tool to improve business conditions and support enterprise innovation locally.

However, in Poland, national and regional business support programmes do not yet differentiate between urban and rural settings. This means they tend to favour urban firms, which have a greater capacity to access programs and present projects for funding. Adapting national and regional programmes and instruments to allow equal access and participation of rural businesses can help identify and harness complementarities across urban and rural municipalities. The example of Southern Ontario’s business support policy can provide an example for Poland (Box 2.13) of how to better promote entrepreneurship and innovation all along the urban-rural continuum.

Box 2.13. Supporting entrepreneurship across the urban-rural continuum in Canada

In Canada, the cities of Ottawa and Waterloo have been at the heart of Southern Ontario’s technology cluster for many years. The province of Ontario accounts for nearly half the country’s business research and development spending, almost two-thirds of patent applications and over 40% of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. The city of Waterloo, about an hour west of Toronto, has the second-highest density of technology start-ups on the continent, while Ottawa, the national capital, five hours east of Toronto, has one of the highest concentrations of technology talent in North America.

In each city, the technology sector is supported by a strong business accelerator organisation, specifically the MaRS Discovery District, Communitech and Invest Ottawa. These organisations work closely with local universities, investors, business strategists and mentors, as well as with the government, to provide entrepreneurs and SMEs with the tools, advice and access to finance innovation, commercialise new ideas and technologies, and support companies’ growth.

The problem to solve by the partnership: Outside these cities, however, the picture is very different. While Ontario created 865 000 net new jobs in the decade following the 2008 recession, 87% of this job growth was concentrated in Ottawa and Toronto, while rural communities lost 76 000 jobs over the same period.

Recognising this issue, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, which provides funding to the three major business accelerators, included a provision to develop urban-rural linkages between the three major business accelerators and other innovation centres serving smaller communities and rural areas across the region. This resulted in the Southern Ontario Scale-Up Platform, which brings together MaRS, Communitech and Invest Ottawa into a new partnership.

Outcome: A goal of the new platform is to make the advisory services and other support offered by these organisations at their urban locations available to entrepreneurs and SMEs located outside the three major cities. To that end, Invest Ottawa has developed its Eastern Ontario Collaborator initiative and is signing partnership agreements with other organisations throughout Eastern Ontario. For example, Invest Ottawa provided funding support to Queens University, in Kingston (196 km from Ottawa) to develop the Launch Lab initiative, including a boot camp for early-stage start-ups, a pre-commercialisation pilot for intellectual property holders and a growth accelerator programme for SMEs. This boot camp has been offered in other rural areas.

Source: OECD (2021[28]), Perspectives on Decentralisation and Rural-Urban Linkages in Korea, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/a3c685a7-en.

Urban-rural partnerships on tourism cover different economic and social dimensions

Tourism is an important economic activity in Poland that requires co-ordination among urban and rural settings to create greater value for visitors and local economies. In 2018, tourism contributed an estimated 6.0% to Poland’s GDP, including direct and indirect benefits (OECD, 2020[29]). Rural areas provide different types of amenities, lodgings and attractions than urban ones, and tourism an important source of economic activity for them (OECD, 2013[1]).

Local governments interviewed for this report recognise the need for partnerships to better co-ordinate tourism, including accommodations, transport for touristic or gastronomic circuits across administrative borders, and inter-municipal management of parks and natural attractions (OECD, 2013[1]). Tourism can also gather municipalities around a common goal to improve regional attractiveness (e.g. the Jelenia Góra FUA), as this sector often relies on the interconnection of different amenities within a region to offer both diverse and unique experiences to attract visitors.

In Poland, partnerships have already been created to develop sustainable circuits and co-ordinate the management of natural assets, sometimes as part of a regional tourism strategy (e.g. “Lower Silesia: Green Valley of Food and Health”). As in other sectors, ITIs have been an engine to promote joint urban-rural projects on tourism, which are increasingly aligned with environmental protection and sustainability. For example, the tourism projects in Agglomeration Jelenia Góra reveal the capacity for join projects among municipalities that shared a common environmental asset. This example also suggests that in some cases, partnerships through ITIs are mainly conducted to kick off the project, but maintenance is done individually, missing opportunities of resource efficiency and sustainability in the co-operation (Box 2.14).

Poland’s Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs) can be useful platforms to spark urban-rural partnerships. These are associations within which co-operation is conducted between subnational governments (particularly at the Voivodeship level) and the tourism industry, particularly in the field of consumer marketing and promotion. RTOs’ role typically includes supporting the operation and development of tourist information systems, as well as initiating, assessing and supporting tourism infrastructure development. At the subnational level, there are more than 120 local tourism organisations, which conduct tasks including the classification of local hotel facilities or the supervision and registration of companies and entrepreneurs operating (OECD, 2020[29]). Regional governments should further leverage these organisations to produce joint projects among different types of municipalities, with special focus on marginalised areas and municipalities outside FUAs.

Box 2.14. Urban-rural partnerships to boost tourism: Mountain bike routes in the Karkonosze Mountains

Tourism is very important to the Agglomeration Jelenia Góra (AJ), a scenic and history-rich area in south western Poland. The city has partnered with other municipalities on three tourism projects:

• Closer to nature, protecting nature – construction of sustainable mountain-biking routes in the Karkonosze Mountains.

• Trail of tradition and regional production in the Polish-Czech region of the Jelenia Góra Valley, the Jizera Mountains and the Karkonosze Mountains.

• Tourism in the Borderlands of the Karkonosze, Jizera Mountains and Lusatia.

The nature project was developed jointly by the city of Jelenia Góra and Podgórzyn and Piechowice municipalities. They built 63 km of bike trails with a focus on protecting valuable flora and fauna while attracting cycling tourism. The project has contributed to the growth of tourism and increased the number of points providing related services, including dining and lodgings. The construction of bicycle paths was complemented by promotional and educational activities, including printed trail maps and information about naturally valuable areas. Bike tours are also offered that allow participants to learn about nature in protected areas.

The first formal step to support links between urban and rural areas of the Jelenia Góra Agglomeration municipalities was the signing in 2015 of an agreement on entrusting the City of Jelenia Góra with ITI management in the agglomeration. The agreement was signed by 19 municipalities, including the City of Jelenia Góra, six urban communes, six urban-rural communes and six rural communes.

To make this partnership happen, the Agglomeration emphasised the practical benefits to participating municipalities. The Regional Operational Programme for Dolnośląskie Voivodeship (RPO WD) selected projects for co-financing based on the principle of partnership and urban-rural co-operation.

In the nature project, the City of Jelenia Góra was the leader and co-ordinator, responsible for writing, managing and settling the grant application. The other municipalities contributed to financing and carried out promotional and educational activities.

Factors that facilitated this partnership included the participants’ full commitment and the efficient management by the City.

However, the municipalities could not reach an agreement on how to maintain bike trails. Each municipality will therefore be in charge of maintaining its own part of the route, which is less efficient and could result in differences in the quality of different segments of the trail. This lack of agreement was mainly due to changes in political leadership and low interest to extent the partnership in the initial agreement beyond the initial investment.

Source: Answers from Jelenia Góra Agglomeration to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Non-governmental organisations are key enablers of partnerships on food supply chains

The food supply is one of the most important links between urban and rural areas (OECD, 2013[1]). It is important to manage those connections well to avoid negative effects on food security and nutrition (Mitra et al., 2021[13]). Cities are the main consumers of food, and changes in urban food demand, such as through dietary trends, increasingly shape agricultural production (Bilewicz and Śpiewak, 2015[30]). At the same time, rural farms are key sources of food for people all along the urban-rural continuum.

Poland has different types of urban-rural linkages around food value chains that can be mobilised to ensure food security and also unlock new business opportunities in rural areas:

• The country benefits from a growing network of food co-operatives and buying groups,1 which have established direct and regular contacts between consumers and food producers or local food processors. These co-operatives, which now exist in cities of all sizes (Bilewicz and Śpiewak, 2015[30]), reduce intermediation in the food chain, helping to lower the price of high-quality and organic food.

• Local farmers’ markets also tighten linkages between urban and rural municipalities. For example, the Free Toruń Marketplace directly connects producers with urban consumers within a rather informal institutional structure across members (Goszczynski et al., 2019[31]). These interactions are also supported by EU strategic programmes, such as the Farm to Fork Strategy, which creates instruments supporting the formation of platforms of communication between rural and urban dwellers and local farmers’ markets in municipalities surrounding cities.

• Food bank association gather different local actors – private and public – to save food from waste and distribute it the people who need it most. An example is the Grudziądzki Bank Żywności in the FUA of Grudziadz. This association was formed as the Union of Associations and Municipalities Grudziądzki Bank Żywności (in 1999), made up of non-governmental organisations and a number of urban and rural municipalities (e.g. Grudziądz, Wąpielsk, Książki and Wąpielsk, Mrocza, Brodnica and the Świecie). These type of urban-rural partnerships around food systems can be a good anchor to stimulate circular practices around food – for example, through short food chains and re-use of food waste (ROBUST, 2021[32]).

These partnerships are often bottom-up developed and led by non-governmental actors. Governments can provide organisational and promotional support to help them link with other economic activities and from there build an environment of co-operation. Key challenges in implementing such approaches include the physical distance between farms, lack of trust, and issues around quality and certifications (Goszczynski et al., 2019[31]; Bilewicz and Śpiewak, 2015[30]). Co-operatives in Poland also tend to work independently, with little collaboration with one another or with other institutions.

Existing rural-urban collaborations around food could be mobilised to add greater value in local economies. This can be done by coming together around a single goal of increasing productivity of adding greater value to food production. It can entail formal collaboration platforms to gather relevant stakeholders such as rural growers, manufacturing (e.g. packaging) and communication services companies along with universities, and agree on projects around agro-industry. For example, in Forlì-Cesena, Italy, universities in urban areas partnered with farmers and food producers to improve innovation in food production and marketing. An important outcome was a shift from mainly growing crops to making food products (OECD, 2013[1]).

Partnerships to improve public services amid depopulation trends

As in most OECD countries, in Poland, delivering quality health, education and other basic services is a growing source of concern for urban and rural municipalities. Depopulation trends, rising public spending on both social services and health care due to ageing societies, and tight budgets in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the recent COVID-19 crisis all hinder public service delivery. This is particularly the case in rural municipalities across Poland (OECD, 2021[33]). As discussed in Chapter 1, demographic decline is in fact one of the main development challenges in Poland. Joint delivery of services (transport, social services and education) can help reduce costs.

The war in Ukraine, which drew more than 3.5 million refugees to Poland in its first three months (UNHCR, 2022[34]), makes those challenges even more urgent. Cities in particular are overwhelmed, so co-ordination among municipalities is crucial to meet the refugees’ needs as efficiently as possible. Looking beyond the immediate situation, working together can also reduce the cost of services while improving their quality and accessibility.

In Poland, municipalities outside large FUAs are facing the greatest challenges in service provision. A self-assessment of local authorities in medium-sized cities in 2019 revealed that health care, technical infrastructure and public transport were seen as the lowest-quality services, whereas access to broadband (but no high-speed), culture and art were perceived to be of better quality (Ministry of Investments and Development, 2019[35]). Municipalities outside FUAs lag behind those within FUAs in terms of enrolment in primary and secondary schools and the share of workers with post-secondary education (7.6% vs 8.9%) (OECD, 2021[4]).

As depopulation is likely to continue in the coming years, particularly affecting smaller urban areas and rural municipalities, local governments need to work together to adapt. This may mean collaborating to ensure continued access to quality services. Digital technologies could also improve access to services such as secondary and tertiary education or primary health care, but it requires good broadband and some technical skills.

Partnerships to improve access to high-quality education

Poland faces a persistent gap between high- and low-density areas in terms of access to education. Kindergarten and primary schools are the responsibility of municipalities, while secondary education is handled by counties and regions. While there are generally enough kindergarten seats to meet demand across all types of municipalities, the number of primary schools has decreased in municipalities outside FUAs. The availability of secondary and higher education also falls short of demand, both outside FUAs and in small and medium-sized FUAs. Table 2.4 shows the trends across different types of municipalities.

Table 2.4. Evolution of access to education across types of municipalities, 2015-2019

Municipalities in:	Kindergarten	Primary	Secondary	Higher-Education
Large FUAs	Increased	Increased	Stable	Decreased
Small/medium-sized FUAs	Increased	Stable	Decreased	Decreased
Outside FUAs	Increased	Decreased	Decreased	Not applicable

Source: Based on answers from the government of Poland to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages.

Across Poland, there is scope for increasing co-operation on education. Education provision in Poland is increasingly concentrated in core municipalities, which play a key role in providing services to surrounding rural municipalities. For example, for kindergarten, the number of spots available for children aged 3‑5 years old is much lower in municipalities outside core FUAs.

Competition among municipalities to retain population, concern about losing political power, and the lack of clear mechanisms to develop win-win projects all hinder the emergence of urban-rural partnerships around education. For example, although the existing legal framework allows municipalities to pay other municipalities to provide kindergarten to their children, respondents to the OECD questionnaire for this report said that a number of constrains make such partnerships rare in practice:

• Demand for kindergarten services in core municipalities is growing faster than their capacity to plan, which creates uncertainties to open possibilities to new students living in other municipalities.

• Financial requirements to compensate for the provision of services – for example, with the payment of taxes in the municipalities that provide the services. As municipalities have discretion to set their own criteria for enrolment in kindergartens, some request a proof of residency in the area, such as payment of income tax by one or both parents in the municipality.

• Low trust in national reimbursement processes and low capacity (time and staff) to handle it.

Municipalities could set up partnerships as needed to provide educational opportunities to their residents. However, municipalities interviewed for this project stressed that individual agreements require time and human resources due to the discretionary nature of the partner mechanism and the low use of national compensatory schemes.

Public-private co-operation is also a possible solution to provide education services, while reducing pressures on public budgets. This is especially the case for some educational services, nurseries, kindergartens, and primary schools. Sometimes, Polish municipalities entering into this type of partnerships offer incentives to private investors by increasing the share of municipal public funding (a practice mostly seen in private kindergartens).

At the tertiary and technical level there are no extended partnerships among urban and rural municipalities in Poland. In some European regions, for example, urban-rural partnerships have opted for focusing in improving skills and qualifications of the rural population by bringing branches of academic institutes to rural regions or facilitating the access of rural residents to high education or high-level training. A good example is the partnership between the urban district of Brandenburg an der Havel in Brandenburg and the rural county of Prignitz in Germany (Box 2.15).

Box 2.15. A partnership to boost tertiary education in Brandenburg, Germany

A sectoral urban-rural partnership between the urban district of Brandenburg an der Havel in Brandenburg and the rural county of Prignitz (in the northwestern part of Brandenburg, Germany) focused on improving the tertiary educational offer in the county.

Problem to solve by the partnership: the county of Prignitz, mostly formed by rural municipalities, has been losing population at a fast rate. The lack of tertiary education supply in the county drove many young people to continue their studies in other parts of the region. At the same time, the shrinking of the qualified working force was affecting the sustainability and competitiveness of local business and industries.

In this context, the region of Brandenburg and the Wachstumskern Autobahndreieck Wittstock/Dosse e.V. (WADWD eV) association, made up of 36 regional companies and five communities, promoted the agreement to bring the branch of the University of Applied Sciences of Brandenburg an der Havel into the county. The association financed the starting phase in 2006 with EUR 50 000 and has contributed EUR 10 600 per year since 2007. The State of Brandenburg covered the majority of the costs of the project, with EUR 31 800 from the European Social Fund.

Outcome: The university branch in Pritzwalk offers studies in business economics and consulting for business, with a focus on transfer of technology and knowledge, company foundations and successions. It also provides education to employed people by offering courses during weekends.

Now, as a co-operation partner of the WADWD eV association, the Prignitz presence point serves as a unit to enable an intensive exchange between schools, science and business in a county that is remote from the university. This unit provides access to the Brandenburg University of Technology and seven other universities in the state of Brandenburg

Source: BBSR (2011[36]) Partnership for Sustainable Rural-urban Development: Existing Evidences, https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/research/programs/region-gestalten/region-gestalten-node.html; Wachstumskern Autobahndreieck Wittstock/Dosse (2021[37]), Presence point Prignitz - Pritzwalk, https://www.nordwestbrandenburg.de/kopie-von-landeplatz.

Enhancing the efficiency of health and social assistance through urban-rural partnerships

As in most OECD countries, urban centres in Poland concentrate a relatively greater proportion of health care services and facilities, including hospitals, ambulance services, specialist and pharmacies (OECD, 2018[9]). While 63% of people in urban municipalities can access both universities and hospitals in less than a 30-minute drive, only 32% of residents of rural municipalities can do the same (OECD, 2018[9]). Long commutes to access a hospital are mainly an issue in marginalised and peripheral areas, such as the eastern parts of the Podlaskie and Lublin regions and border areas between provinces, including Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Wielkopolskie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Pomorskie.

These issues of accessibility, along with the prohibitive cost of bringing specialised health centres or doctors to every rural municipality, make it important to forge urban-rural partnerships to improve the efficiency and quality of health care across regions. Partnerships among rural and urban areas can lead to greater economies of scale and ensure people that all people can access high-quality care, regardless of where they live.

Moreover, a strong local network of health supply may improve the efficiency of the resilience of the entire system, as it helps share resources and reduce pressure on hospitals by transferring patients to other ones in neighbouring municipalities. The need for collaboration was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, as hospitals and health care centres coped with the crisis by sharing both resources and patients.

As described in Box 2.16, urban-rural partnerships in Poland help improve the efficiency of health and social assistance provision include nursing homes with spare capacity receiving elders and people with disabilities from other municipalities (e.g. Grudziądz FUA); urban municipalities providing financial aid or shelter to homeless people from another municipality; and Metropolitan Senior Cards that allow people aged 60+ from across the area to benefit from special offers (e.g. Grudziądz FUA, Bydgoszcz FUA).

These partnerships are generally addressing the right issue to attain economies of scale and can be further expanded to link them with other services, such as education. The card programme also involves local business, which benefit people going from one municipality to another. This system could also help with access to training programmes offered by private institutions (e.g second language or IT).

Box 2.16. Urban-rural partnerships on social affairs: The functional urban area of Grudziądz

The Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship classified the functional area of the city of Grudziądz as a Strategic Intervention Area under the Regional Operational Programme of 2014-2020. It identifies some areas of well-being requiring intervention, including culture, tourism, education and social. EU funds were allocated for the projects implemented under the Strategic Intervention Areas (agreements of the city acting as the leader and the neighbouring municipalities acting as partner).

As part of the inter-municipal co-operation, an agreement was made between the urban municipality of Grudziądz, the rural municipality of Grudziądz and the municipalities of Radzyń Chełmiński, Gruta, Rogóźno and Dragacz.

In December 2015, the city of Grudziądz and the rural municipality of Grudziądz entered into an agreement to allow residents of the Grudziądz municipality to use the rights resulting from the city’s "Grudziądzka Large Family Card" Programme. The Large Family Card Programme is a system of discounts and additional rights granted to families by public institutions as well as private businesses. The discounts are offered for railway transportation, free admission to national parks, lower passport fees, as well as discounts on food, clothes, shoes, cosmetic products, books and petrol.

A Municipal Family Assistance Centre also co-operates with social welfare centres from other municipalities in solving social problems such as domestic violence, homelessness, poverty, disability and addiction, as well as meeting the needs of the elderly. The most common form of co-operation is conducting community interviews with people applying for social assistance.

Very often, the co-operation implies that the city of Grudziądz provides financial aid or shelter to homeless people residing in another municipality (and vice versa). Co-operation also takes place by referring elderly and disabled people to nursing homes to or from another municipality.

In addition, the city of Grudziądz collaborates in an Interdisciplinary Team in the case of conducting the "Blue Cards" procedure, when a person suspected of experiencing or using domestic violence resides in other municipality of the FUA. Co-operation takes the form of a working group of an Interdisciplinary Team that intervenes in the targeted family, exchanges information to provide effective help and searches for vacancies in foster families and care and educational facilities for children in both urban and rural municipalities, thus making full use of the resources across the functional urban area.

Children deprived of their parents' care are placed in foster families or care and educational institutions. The placement procedure is governed by the relevant regulations. If there is no free spot in the city, the child may be placed in an institution or a foster family in another municipality.

Source: Answers from FUA Grudziadz to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Partnerships through Local Action Groups can help address social issues in strategic intervention areas and more remote muncipalities. For this, participation of non-govermental actors is essential; indeed, these structuers promote a diversity of partners and support for private local initiatives. Some have formed social enterprises to address pressing issues (Box 2.17).

Box 2.17. Social scope of the Local Action Group in Nakielski County

The Association "Partnership for Krajny and Pałuk" is a Local Action Group for the area of Nakielski County (Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship), covering five municipalities of the Nakielski county (including four urban-rural municipalities with up to 20,000 inhabitants and one rural municipality). It was registered in the National Court Register in autumn 2008, but the process of building the Partnership in Nakło county dates back to 2001, when an informal group of people professionally involved in rural matters proposed to local governments to launch a village renewal programme at the county scale.

This was the first initiative of this type in Poland, which aimed to meet pressing rural problems such as increasing poverty, the highest unemployment rate in the voivodeship, and local conflicts between Krajna and Pałuki. In the spring of 2002, residents' meetings were held in each municipality that resulted in simple, understandable plans. Parallel to the meetings with the residents, workshops were held for leaders from all municipalities in order to explain the process of rural renewal to them and teach them how to work on the development of projects.

In the period 2014-2020, the partnership implemented a multi-fund strategy under the CLLD mechanism, through which it continued the support from the previous perspective and included support for people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, including unemployed or economically inactive people, families using social assistance, people with disabilities and the elderly.

As a result of the partnership's activities, many local non-governmental organisations were created, the third sector developed, and its activity in shaping local development increased noticeably. Moreover, investments by local enterprises increased, accompanied by an increase in employment, thanks to subsidies for developing or starting business activities.

Currently, this Local Action Group has 61 members (11 representatives of public sector entities, 33 representatives of social sector entities and 17 representatives of the economic sector).

Source: Answers from Nakielski County to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Urban-rural partnerships to accelerate the digitalisation of service provision

An important challenge for Poland is to accelerate digitalisation to provide equal quality services to all inhabitants. Greater uptake and adoption of new technologies to deliver health (telemedicine) or care to elderly people (medical drones or primary care robots) requires an enabling infrastructure in place, including high-quality screens and imaging devices, among others (OECD, forthcoming[38]). This type of ICT infrastructure and technology is very expensive for a single municipality. Instead, partnering with urban municipalities, where agglomeration economies facilitate the investment of technologies, can help meet the future health demand of rural residents.

The COVID-19 crisis accelerated the adoption of virtual modes of working and accessing services, but also revealed the substantial urban and rural gap in the degree of quality digitalisation and digital skills to access services and benefit from digitalisation. According to (OECD, 2020[39]), in Poland, only 29% of rural areas (a subset of areas with a population density lower than 100 inhabitants per km²) have access to fast broadband (>30 Mbps). This means Poland has the third-largest urban-rural gap in household access to fast broadband across 26 OECD countries.

Some ITIs in Poland have included joint municipal projects to allow and improve deployment of e-services, including government services. For example, Jelenia Góra Agglomeration has implemented a project to strengthen municipal capacity to deliver public e-services by improving access to information and communication technologies, working with three urban-rural municipalities. Thanks to the partnership, the municipalities could implement public services available online through integration of data from various sources. The data connection allows municipalities to go through the entire process of dealing with a given request remotely, to adopt a more interactive approach of responding people’s requests and questions.

Accelerating technological adoption in Poland, beyond EU funds, could involve leveraging networks of service providers in urban settings to create partnerships that allow rural municipalities benefit from new technologies. This strategy has been used by other countries, for example in the case of Nuremberg, Germany, where municipalities join to not only improve quality of care service but also boost innovation and regional resilience (Box 2.18).

Box 2.18. A leading-edge cluster as an urban-rural network: The Medical Valley in the Metropolitan Region Nuremberg, Germany

The Medical Valley is an extensive and varied medical-related network in Nuremberg, Germany. It is composed of 65 hospitals that provide health care to more than 650,000 people per year, working on solutions with about 500 different companies and 80 institutions in universities.

The Medical Valley European Metropolitan Region Nuremberg (EMN) and the Nuremberg Metropolitan Region promoted the partnership between technology developers, users and local rural governments to adapt urban technologies for elderly care in rural areas. It connects the latest technical solutions in medical technology in the cluster with the needs of the housing industry and local networks in rural areas of the region. The Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS) promoted the project under the framework of Demonstration Projects of Spatial Planning (MORO).

The project addresses a growing need in rural municipalities where the population is ageing rapidly. New technical developments such as assisted living systems can help elders stay in their own homes. These innovative technologies can be especially interesting for communities in rural areas, but must be adapted to local conditions.

Outcome: The direct dialogue between technology and project developers (companies and research institutions located in the Medical Valley) and users in rural municipalities (local authorities, housing associations and local networks in the Metropolitan Region Nuremberg) is fostered within the MORO project, through a broad knowledge and know-how transfer between cities and rural areas. During the project implementation phase, innovative solutions were developed together in dedicated workshops and symposia with selected pilot rural municipalities located in the Metropolitan Region Nuremberg.

Source: Medical Valley EMN (2020[40]), Leading-edge Cluster Medical Valley EMN as Urban-rural Network, https://en.medical-valley-emn.de/node/1771.

Partnerships to enhance environmental management

Meeting international climate goals and protecting the environment in Poland requires greater co-ordination at the local level. Local environmental actions have the capacity not only to improve local well-being in terms of the air that people breathe or the water they consume, but to affect national and global climate outcomes. Adopting green growth strategies can also create new job opportunities locally in circular and bio-economy activities.

Poland’s polycentric structure and industrial history explain many of the most acute environmental challenges that local communities outside large cities are facing. According to the information provided by government of Poland for this review, such challenges include:

• Pollution from transport, mainly due to persistent deficits in public transport and the high share of private transport modes.

• Pollution from industrial and residential activities, particularly in areas with coal power and heating plants; outside large cities, small/medium FUAs are rarely equipped with a complex central heating network, which leads to a relatively high number of deconcentrated emitters in relatively small areas; in some municipalities, private buildings use low-quality coal furnaces.

• Greater water use per capita than in large cities and relative to the existing water supply infrastructure.

• Degradation resulting in low quality of water.

• Waste management systems running with old technologies and little recycling.

• Deficiencies in land use management that have resulted in uncontrolled urbanisation, affecting protected natural areas and increasing impacts from natural risks (floods) on real estate projects.

Scaling up clean energy and improving energy efficiency requires urban-rural partnerships. Limited available space and the lack of natural resources in urban settings makes it difficult for cities alone to achieve their renewable energy targets (Mitra et al., 2021[13]). Second, accelerating the efficient use of energy in buildings requires co-ordinated actions to share resources and technologies to cover both urban and rural buildings. Some ITIs in Poland have piloted urban-rural partnerships to promote energy clusters with dedicated knowledge sharing events (e.g. Jeleniogorska Agglomeration), or to increase energy efficiency in housing, industry and the public sector (in the Lublin Functional Area)

Urban-rural partnerships in the management of water and waste collection have a long history in Poland, where often core municipalities end up serving as main providers of water and waste management, based on bilateral agreements with surrounding municipalities. This section focuses in these two angles of environmental linkages to understand the key drivers and barriers.

Inter-municipal companies are the backbone of urban-rural partnerships on water

Water is a flow resource that moves across rural and urban spaces and requires co-ordination to protect the resource and avoid negative externalities. Urban areas depend on rural areas for water supplies and to protecting their residents from floods and droughts, yet some rural areas lack access to improved water sources (OECD, 2016[41]). At the same time, in Poland as in other OECD countries, industrial pollution and storm water runoff from cities can pollute water bodies, while upstream pollution (e.g. from a mining or manufacturing sites) can affect the quality of urban water supplies.

In Poland, the management of water supply and sewage disposal is one of the basic tasks of the municipal government. Municipalities in Poland tend to co-ordinate their water management through the establishment of a dedicated inter-municipal company, funded by an inter-municipal association or union.

Such partnerships are not without challenges. For example, some past cases of collective water management in Poland have shown that collective agreements can fail if member municipalities feel disadvantaged in the distribution of investments (Box 2.19). Decisions to unify tariffs can be a cause of conflict among municipalities, as some (particularly urban) might feel that they subsidise other municipalities or lose municipal autonomy in investment and quality decisions.

Box 2.19. An attempt to improve water quality through municipal co-operation on the Raba River and Dobczycki Reservoir

The Union of the Upper Raba River Basin, comprising 15 urban and rural municipalities, with Kraków as the urban core, was established in 1994. It aimed to improve the water quality in the Raba River and Dobczycki Reservoir, the primary source of water for Kraków. In the beginning, the Union was effective in grant acquisition – the share of support was usually covering 80-90% of investment costs.

In 2000, the Union established a separate company to provide services related to water supply (as the Union was an investment vehicle). Over time, the success rate in grant acquisition decreased, and some member municipalities felt disadvantaged in the distribution of investments and had concerns about a potential unification of tariffs. Between 2007 and 2011, five municipalities decided to leave the Union. In 2011, the remaining member municipalities chose to liquidate the Union.

The reasons cited for the collapse of the union include the wide diversity of member municipalities (the biggest, Kraków, had 780 000 inhabitants, whereas several urban and rural municipalities had fewer than 10 000) with different needs, expectations and financial resources, and disagreements over the territorial distribution of investments. There was also a lack of readiness for integration of service operations due to concerns regarding the universal tariff and the potential negative impact on municipal autonomy.

Source: Based on the information provided by the government of Poland through the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Some positive examples of municipalities that have succeeded in sustaining their inter-municipal water company reveal the importance of management stability and willingness to benefit from economies of scale. This is the case of the inter-municipal company Aquanet in Poznań, whose growth was attributed to its rapid expansion and diversification of activities (e.g. testing water), which allowed it to gradually cover the entire metropolitan area (Box 2.20). Other companies at a lower scale in small/medium sized FUAs in Poland could benefit from this experience and partner with neighbouring municipalities to increase their scope and expand the type of services offered.

Box 2.20. Partnerships for collective water management in Poznań and Grudziądz

In 2005, the inter-municipal company Aquanet was established in the Poznań metropolitan area based on the former municipal company Poznańskie Wodociągi i Kanalizacja. It started as a water supplier, but over time its services expanded to other areas, such as sewage, water testing, and construction services. Aquanet is now a capital group that includes a main water company and seven smaller water companies, collectively serving more than 800 000 clients. The shareholders are 10 local governments, with Poznań having the largest share (77.38%), and 11 private stakeholders.

Aquanet’s success is attributed to the rapidly expanding territorial scope and diversification of activities, allowing it to gradually cover the entire metropolitan area. The company is highly rated by its users thanks to the transparency of its operations and quick response to problems. The main managerial positions in the company are relatively stable and independent from electoral changes in the shareholder municipalities. Along with that stability, other factors in Aquanet’s success include the competitiveness of its offer and its ambition to cover all municipalities in the metropolitan area.

A much smaller-scale, but also successful, partnership has been forged between the urban and rural municipalities of Grudziądz, in northern Poland. The rural municipality does not have its own infrastructure for water intake and sewage disposal, but the urban municipality has enough infrastructure to meet both municipalities’ needs.

Grudziądz city thus took over the implementation of water supply and sewage collection for both municipalities, aiming to provide a comprehensive solution to the issue of network operation and uniform water prices for all residents.

Source: OECD (2016[41]), Water Governance in Cities, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251090-en; Answers from FUA Grudziądz to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Strengthening existing partnerships for water management and promoting new ones in Poland is crucial to ensuring water security in the future. The most common response to meet the growing urban water demand is water reallocation from rural to urban regions (OECD, 2016[41]). However, this might lead to growing conflicts between cities and their surrounding rural areas. Across the OECD, positive examples of urban-rural partnerships highlight that good governance is key (Box 2.21). Many of these examples show how compensation for water conservation from urban areas to farmers or water users in rural settings can create win-win situations for both type of municipalities.

Box 2.21. International examples of urban–rural partnerships on water security

Challenges related to water security have increased around and will affect future development. When water is scarce, co-operation is particularly important to equitably and sustainably balance the needs of urban areas and agricultural production. Examples from OECD countries include:

• Compensating farmers for conserving water in Southern California: The City of San Diego initiated an agreement to pay farmers for water conservation. As a result, nearly 100 million cubic meters (MCM) were saved by farmers and sent to the city. The target is to raise the figure to 237 MCM in the near future.

• A water market mechanism in Spain: An irrigation subscriber association introduced a water market mechanism involving the City of Reus, other municipalities and small rural landowners. It has reduced urban water demand and increased water use efficiency in agriculture. The revenues are used to finance dams and other infrastructure.

• Groundwater recharge in Japan: Kumamoto City, which entirely relies on groundwater resources, has been facing groundwater level depletion. It has therefore adopted a new programme to incentivise paddy field owners for groundwater recharge. As a result, it has increased groundwater recharge that improved water security for the city and increased the income of paddy field owners.

• Promotion of organic farming with the municipal water utility in Munich: The city water supply source, the Mangfall Valley, has experienced nitrate and pesticide pollution due to intensive agricultural practices. In this context, the municipal water utility introduced a voluntary payment scheme to promote organic farming. As a result, it has improved water quality, reduced water treatment costs, and helped meet the growing demand for organic produce in Germany.

Source: Mitra et.al. (2021[13]), “Urban-rural partnership framework to enhance food-energy-water security in the post-COVID-19 era”, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312493.

Improving waste management and creating a circular economy

In Poland, waste collection has revealed the potential efficiency gain from managing linkages on production and treatment of waste through inter-municipal co-ordination. Municipalities are in charge of waste collection, while regional governments designate the waste collection centres (RIPOKs, Regional Waste Treatment Installations). Inter-municipal co-operation for waste management has been a clear example of the benefits of EU membership. Increasing co-operation among Polish municipalities has been reinforced by a large stream of EU funds earmarked for waste management projects (Kołsut, 2016[42])

However, partnerships in waste management vary across Poland and depend on the active role of the region. According to Kołsut (2016[42]), the spatial distribution of inter-municipal bodies is uneven and clearly differs by type of region. For example, there is more co-operation in northern and western Poland than in the south and east. This reveals the significant and determinant role that the regions play in initiating and stimulating co-operative behaviour among municipalities.

Most of the partnerships on waste collection are conducted through bilateral agreements. The urban core municipality often provides waste management services and receives a fee from surrounding rural ones. Core municipalities usually sign agreements on waste collection with surrounding municipalities, based on market prices and for a determined timeframe. Once the duration of the agreement is over, municipalities can open a tender. The scope of some partnerships have been addressing the national challenge of outdated installations and technologies for waste treatments, resulting in better outcomes than could be achievable through individual actions (Box 2.22).

Box 2.22. Agreements on waste management: Izery Spółka and Bydgoszcz

The Municipal Waste Disposal Plant Izery Spółka was jointly established by four municipalities: Lubomierz, Gryfów Śląski, Stara Kamienica and Wleń, with equal shares of 25% each. They used to manage their waste individually, but chose to collaborate on the waste plant due to environmental protection requirements that imposed an obligation to introduce selective waste collection.

The establishment of the company enabled the municipalities to extend service to remote areas where it had never been provided before. Local representatives said the private sector had not been interested in service provision within these four municipalities because of their remoteness and sparsely populated areas. Up to now, co-operation has worked smoothly.

An incineration plant in Bydgoszcz, meanwhile, receives waste from many local governments in an FUA, pursuant to inter-municipal agreements. One of the goals of the city for the coming years is to ensure self-sufficiency in the field of municipal waste management for all local governments of the Bydgoszcz Metropolis.

The incineration plant was built with EU funds in 2011 and was supposed to be a regional plant covering municipalities beyond Bydgoszcz city, but some municipalities found better deals with their own waste providers, leading to underused capacity. However, that changed after new requirements for more sustainable waste management led to an increase in the cost of waste management. The modern plant could meet the requirements at a competitive price, attracting other municipalities in the metropolitan association. For example, 11 municipalities from the Bydgoszcz Functional Area handed over mixed-waste management activities to the city of Bydgoszcz.

Source: Based on the answers from the government of Poland and the FUA of Bydgoszcz to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages in Poland.

Co-ordinated activities around the circular economy are rather scarce or scattered in Poland (OECD, 2021[23]). In 2016, the Ministry of Development elaborated the Polish Road Map draft for the transformation towards a circular economy. In 2017, the Ministry of Environment has launched a small-scale "Pilot priority programme for the circular economy” that was conducted in five small municipalities, but these supporting initiatives were addressed to the business sector, with little government involvement.

Partnerships between urban and rural municipalities to manage waste can go one step further and include the usability of waste within different economic activities. For example, the experience of some OECD regions illustrates the potential to leverage organic waste separation in urban settings to deliver compost to farmers in surrounding rural areas (Box 2.23).

Box 2.23. The circular economy and waste management in Valladolid, Spain

Valladolid, a city of about 300 000 people, has been a pioneer in introducing organic waste separation throughout its metropolitan area. Organic waste collection started two decades ago. After the collection process, the organic waste is treated, producing compost and stabilised biowaste. The compost is used in nearby rural areas, to improve soil structure and provide nutrients to cereal crops as well as alfalfa, beetroot, beans and others. The original plant produced low-quality compost that was provided for free to local producers, but an upgraded facility on the outskirts of the city went online in 2020. It produces higher-quality compost that can also be sold for profit.

Outcome: this economic circularity brings benefits to all the actors involved. The city administration plays an essential role due to its waste treatment competencies and its work with the companies involved in the implementation of the initiative. In addition, the project relies on residents’ commitment to separating their waste, and on farmers’ commitment to use the compost as an agricultural input.

Source: OECD (2020[43]), The Circular Economy in Valladolid, Spain, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/95b1d56e-en; Valladolid Recicla (2021[44]), “¿Qué es el compost? ¿Pueden nuestros residuos orgánicos ser el alimento perfecto para las tierras castellanas?”, https://www.valladolidrecicla.es/compost-residuos-organicos/.

Factors that facilitate and hinder urban-rural partnerships in Poland

Most urban-rural partnerships in Poland are implicit, meaning that they are not only targeting co-operation among urban and rural municipalities, but rather among any type of municipalities. In many partnerships, the city centre or biggest urban municipality plays the co-ordinating role. This does not necessarily affect the effectiveness of the urban-rural partnership. However, it requires greater attention to ensure the interests and voices of rural municipalities are taken into account. It is also important to recognise the different assets of rural and urban municipalities and find ways to unlock synergies.

Most partnerships that have been set through EU instruments (ITIs and LAGs) are multiple-purpose, setting objectives on a wider scope of activities. However, because of legal instruments in Poland that prevent metropolitan association from taking over tasks of municipalities, in some partnerships (e.g. on transport), the core cities have to make individual agreements with municipalities that want to join the project. There are some single-purpose partnerships to address specific inter-municipal issues, such as on water and waste management, business support or education. Overall, urban-rural partnerships in Poland are present across different dimensions of well-being and with various level of integration of non-governmental actors.

Following the (OECD, 2013[1]) framework on effective urban-rural partnerships, several insights can be drawn from the case studies in Poland about what can facilitate urban-rural partnerships and what inhibits them. Factors that facilitate partnerships include:

• A functional approach to build partnerships:

  • Partnerships trigger by ITIs are well set to look beyond city-centred embrace a wider set of rural-urban interactions (e.g. transport projects).

  • EU funds have also helped encourage territories to identify their strategies around functional geographies.

  • Structures to engage different levels of government and foster knowledge-sharing.

  • FUAs offices and regional governments have helped to reduce obstacles coming from economic and institutional differences between urban and rural municipalities.

  • Existing associations or regional institutions can be mobilised to share good practices of partnerships and identify new ones – for instance, Regional Tourism Organisations, Regional Territorial Forums and Regional Territorial Observatories.

• Factors that create an enabling environment for partnerships:

  • Clear leadership in some partnerships within FUAs (e.g. transport Wrocław and Bydgoszcz or water management examples). Urban cores have stood out as co-ordinating leaders by helping other municipalities to deal with administrative processes and ensure the proper implementation of the project. A related factor in some partnerships is stable top management, which can help ensure long-term goals and create trust among partners.

  • Balancing the voices of large and small municipalities has been a success factor in many partnerships (ITIs in general). This is in fact a good practice to enhance trust and reduce fear of losing power. Some partnerships (e.g. revitalisation transport project in Wrocław FUA) have succeed at benefit from trust as a factor that facilitated the co-operation.

  • Non-governmental organisations and the private sector have been involved in a number of partnerships (e.g. in water management, social assistance) or as leaders in others (e.g. food value chain, associations of local firms). Facilitating and clarifying ways of involving non-public actors in partnerships is a tool to protect partnerships from political change and attain sustainable co-operation.

Factors that have hindered partnerships include:

• Failure to identify existing partnerships and potential for co-operation:

  • The national government and the voivodeships lack a clear mapping of urban-rural interactions that happen outside the EU-promoted partnerships. More urban-rural interlinkages in the country could be identified, especially outside FUAs. A good understanding of particular challenges and assets across different types of areas, with data at the appropriate spatial level, can help identify interdependencies and incentivise partnerships around them.

  • No clear platform to examine urban-rural partnerships happening in the country, their achievements and lessons.

  • National urban and rural policies are still not aligned to identify common potentials and threats.

• Administrative burden and lack of regulatory clarity:

  • There are no guidelines or good practices on developing urban-rural partnerships in Poland. This type of material can help identify good practices and shortcomings in forming an urban-rural partnership, which in turn incentivise and trigger further local collaboration.

  • Partnerships with several municipalities can involve heavy administrative burdens, as bilateral agreements are required to involve new municipalities, given that co-operation mechanisms such as metropolitan associations cannot legally take charge of services for all member municipalities (see example of partnerships for transport infrastructure).

  • There is a lack of national and regional instruments to target the specific integration of urban and rural areas through services provision, such as in education.

  • Local governments lack the personnel and time to implement urban-rural partnerships, especially in the case of rural municipalities (see cases of transport, or business support). Governance arrangements working at the urban-rural interface are often highly complex, characterised by horizontal and vertical co-ordination of numerous institutional public and private actors.

• Narrow view of partnerships:

  • There is a lack of financial and institutional incentives from national and regional governments to help partnerships include rural municipalities outside FUAs. Given the asymmetric power relations between rural areas outside FUAs and those municipalities inside FUAs, regional governments should serve as intermediaries to promote connections and incentivise partnerships with initial short projects.

  • Partnerships still struggle to involve private or non-governmental actors as partners. Instead, some partnerships only see the private sector as the implementer of projects. For example, water or waste partnerships are materialised through inter-municipal companies, which could further involve private actors as active members of the partnerships. Education along with other public services could also be jointly delivery with private partnerships.

  • Narrow thinking on administrative boundaries across some self-governments is still affecting dialogue to build partnerships. Some of the self-governments interviewed for this report stated that initiating partnerships, especially with those municipalities with whom there is no frequent interaction, required thorough explanation of the benefits from working jointly with projects that cross boundaries (transport or tourism). The need for co-funding is one of the causes that might discouraged at first many rural municipalise, despite the long-term benefits from the partnership. Leadership to trigger co-operation and dissemination of benefit of partnering is greatly needed.

• Lack of trust and long-term vision:

  • Many urban-rural partnerships triggered by EU funding are narrowly focused on attracting EU funds, which hampers long-term co-operation to address other local priorities.

  • Partnerships are not always forward-looking, and unexpected impacts on the project can hinder the partnership itself. For example, there is a need to grapple with the rise in telework.

  • There are no clear criteria for monitoring the effects of urban-rural partnerships. The evaluation of effects focuses on completion of projects and how they function, but fail to cover outcome indicators or well-being effect in the regions (e.g. regional attraction of investment, income, surveys of life satisfaction).

  • Competition between local governments to attract investment and people is an existing barrier for co-operation as municipalities face a growing depopulation and ageing trend. The political aim to ensure sustainably of the local community has nurtured an “individualistic” approach to solving problems and a weak culture of partnering.

Towards a more strategic approach to urban-rural partnerships in Poland

For Poland, urban-rural partnerships represent an opportunity to reduce regional inequality and boost well-being. The country’s dispersed settlement patterns around a large number of small and medium-sized FUAs offer various linkages that can be further mobilised and strengthen through partnerships. Partnerships among urban-rural municipalities in Poland cover a diverse range of well-being dimensions and some involve non-governmental actors or are created directly by them (food or business associations).

Poland already has in place various elements to increase sustainable urban-rural partnerships. The country has a comprehensive policy framework that offers different guidelines and strategic support to conduct inter-municipal co-operation (e.g. institutional and staff support, planning instruments). Laws and regulations also allow for various types of associations.

Regional governments play a strategic role in identifying functional links in their regional development strategies and encouraging a culture of co-operation and partnerships, which are the basis to apply for EU funding and develop joint projects. At the local level, counties can undertake actions to level out differences among urban and rural municipalities, including creating strategic documents (e.g. a local development strategy), helping to obtain common funds or taking joint actions for the benefit of the region. Municipalities’ development strategies (LDS) can provide tools for inter-municipal co-ordination.

Still, urban–rural partnerships are a relatively new phenomenon in Poland, mainly triggered by the EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and its place-based approach. National and subnational strategies support inter-municipal co-operation, but without specific differentiation of the challenges and advantages of urban-rural partnerships, which imply different type of co-ordination and balance of powers. There are several things Poland can do to reduce barriers and foster successful urban-rural partnerships.

Recommendations to make urban-rural partnerships more effective in Poland

Strengthening national and subnational policy frameworks

National policy frameworks, with the leadership of Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, should:

• Clearly recognise the different characteristics and potential of urban-rural partnerships in national and legal framework. To this end, Poland should improve the understanding of the types of urban-rural linkages across the country with data at the appropriate spatial and better identify in national guidelines the particularities of urban-rural interactions, their barriers and potential benefits. This recognition should be mirrored by regional and local development strategies – for example, with a clear implementation principle that involves joint work by urban and rural municipalities. Poland could be guided by practices such as Spain’s national strategy, which explicitly recognises the relevance of urban-rural partnerships for attaining some development goals, or Turkey’s exercises to identify and create a framework of urban-rural linkages for the country.

• Set institutional support and financial incentives to develop urban-rural partnerships within its national policy framework. For example, the SRD or the forthcoming NRDS could explicitly define capacity-building support or co-financing mechanisms for local governments aiming at entering into partnerships.

• Increase the focus and support to partnerships between functional urban areas and rural municipalities outside those areas. To this end, the updating process of various regional development policies (e.g. the NUP or the NRDS) should better identify the potential benefits of urban-rural partnerships, with a clear financial and organisational mechanism to promote them. This support can involve targeted resources to co-finance urban-rural joint projects, especially those outside FUAs, and developing guidelines to help set a partnership.

• Improve integration of national urban and rural policies in Poland to boost a culture and incentives for urban-rural collaboration. The forthcoming National Urban Policy 2030 and the Strategy for Sustainable Rural Development, Agriculture and Fisheries 2030 have scope to set common or integrated goals, strategies and financial mechanism to promote the role urban-rural partnerships in territorial development.

• Making mandatory the preparation of LDS and further clarifying the minimum guidelines to conduct partnerships in the Article 10a of the Act on the Principles of Development Policy. It would help create clear information, action lines and common basis for co-operation.

Both national and subnational governments should develop clear actions to address structural factors undermining urban and rural partnerships such as lack of trust or competition among communities. To this end, governments could:

• Promote that the first action of partnerships, among municipalities without experience in co-operation, relate to win-win short term projects or strategies to make evident that co-operation can be effective. This type of projects should be low-cost and short-term.

• Encourage partnership structures that offer equal voice and vote to all partners, regardless the size and financial capacity. This can be done with information on how to set this mechanism and examples of other partnerships doing that. It can follow the example of OECD regions like the Metropolitan Region of Nuremberg, Germany, or Geelong in Australia, which implemented partnerships with an egalitarian representational scheme of “one voice, one vote”.

• Strengthen regional co-ordination platforms and instruments to trigger partnerships for the implementation of initiatives of supra-local importance. To this end, regional governments can leverage Regional Territorial Forums or the Regional Territorial Observatory to disseminate benefits from existing partnerships, identify possible new projects among municipalities and facilitate involvement of non-governmental organisations in partnership initiatives.

• Further explore mechanisms to promote urban-rural partnerships through digital connectivity. Facilitating the possibilities for municipalities to benefit from virtual interactions, such as remote working or accessing e-services, could trigger partnerships in the country and boost well-being in rural regions, especially in marginalised areas or rural municipalities losing population. For example, the National Rural Policy of Ireland can be a guide for Poland to set incentives that facilitate (temporary or permanently) remote working in rural municipalities and strategies to make the most of it for local economies.

Reducing barriers to facilitate sustainable urban-rural partnerships in Poland

Both national and subnational governments should:

• Create financial incentives to complement the funding from EU instruments. National and regional incentives could provide a greater appraisal for those partnerships that do not use EU funding and that include rural municipalities outside FUAs. To this end, the national government could assign a share of existing funds for local development and investments exclusively to joint projects.

• Simplify administrative process and reduce red tape to conduct urban-rural partnerships. The need of multiple bilateral agreements for a project in metropolitan association imply important use of time and staff (e.g. partnerships around transport) for municipalities. Facilitating the administrative process of making partnerships with standard application formats and clear guidelines would help partnerships’ formation.

• Enhance actions to strengthen municipal government capacity to join urban-rural partnerships. This can involve:

  • Strengthening ongoing projects to provide specific consulting and technical assistance programmes for local governments, especially rural ones (e.g. to navigate and implement EU instruments). This involves expanding existing advisory projects such as the Advisory Support Centre (Centrum Wsparcia Doradczego), which can contribute to increased administrative efficiency in local governments and more effective implementation of public policies.

  • Further promoting network activities and conducting a proactive intra-regional advisory assistance that reaches weaker municipal governments. To this end, regional and county governments have scope to play a more active role as facilitators for inter-municipal co-operation, which for some regional and county governments might require clear strategies and staff capacity focus to this matter.

  • Leveraging urban-rural partnerships to accelerate the adoption of new technologies. Local partnerships can help rural or marginalised communities adopt technological innovation through for example network of service providers as the case of Nuremberg, Germany.

Local governments should:

• Identify complementarities across different types of municipalities (urban and rural) to help adapt policies to different local challenges. This can also help to spot unseen linkages in the territory and spark new type of partnerships.

• Increase incentives to include non-governmental actors in urban-rural partnerships and upscale privately run partnerships (e.g. food or business associations). To this end, the promotion of partnerships from national and regional governments (e.g. in the application to ITIs) should give preference for funding support to those that involve non-governmental actors in the partnership structure. Moreover, specific strategies could be put in place to help privately run partnerships include members in rural municipalities that lack financial capacity or information to join. For example, they can cover subscription fees or connect businesses in rural areas or with low resources to privately run business associations.

• Keep fostering local leadership to promote partnerships by for example identifying a person/team within the administrative staff of the regional government that is in charge of seeking co-operation opportunities with neighbouring governments. This person/team could actively identify opportunities for co-operation, monitor the partnership scheme and evaluate its results/outputs.

• Define indicators to evaluate outcomes of urban-rural partnerships. This implies evaluating the long-term goal of the partnership (e.g. growth of local income or reduction of CO₂ emissions) on top of output indicators that measure the direct effect of the joint project (e.g. number people using public transport in partnerships on transport).

Based on Poland’s urban-rural partnership analysed in this chapter and OECD experiences in other countries, Box 2.24 provides some guidelines to achieve sustainable urban-rural partnerships in Poland.

Box 2.24. Guidelines for urban-rural partnership making in Poland

• Agree on a common goal. Reaching a common understanding of the main shared challenges and needs to be addressed and shared opportunities to be unlocked is seminal to start the conversation on partnerships (e.g. partnership on tourism in Jelenia Góra Agglomeration).

• Identify the potential/benefits of the partnership to attain the common goal. Clearly defining how the partnership can help address a common challenge or harness a common asset helps provide clear map of actions (e.g. the partnerships around social assistance in the functional urban area of Grudziądz).

• Establish clear administrative and legal mechanisms to conduct partnerships. The ITIs mechanism of EU offers a first set actions to form partnerships (Chapter 3).

• Reduce the administrative burden to create partnerships by reducing paperwork and help municipalities with weak administrative capacity (e.g. partnership on transport in Lublin Functional Area).

• Establish clear co-funding mechanisms. Clear financial incentives from national or regional government can be important in developing urban-rural partnerships.

• Foster leadership. Partnerships with a clear leader (municipality or person) can mobilise and incentivise other municipalities to join and help establish long-term visions. Transport partnerships in Poland are a good example.

• Create trust. Building trust among partners is needed for the sustainability of the co-operation. Setting schemes of equal voice and planning for quick wins are useful strategies for this.

• Embrace a forward looking-vision. Adopt new ways to co-operate locally through digital interactions – for example, to complement service delivery or synergies among labour markets. Increasing digitalisation, including the growth in telework and in the use of e-services, has the potential to create new urban-rural linkages beyond physical proximity and allow partnerships among more municipalities.

• Evaluate results. Set performance indicators that measure not just outputs of the joint project, but also the outcomes of the partnership (e.g. income growth in the region).

References

[36] BBSR (2011), Partnership for Sustainable Rural-urban Development: Existing Evidences, Federal Institute For Research On Building, Urban Affairs And Spatial Development, https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/research/programs/region-gestalten/region-gestalten-node.html.

[30] Bilewicz, A. and R. Śpiewak (2015), “Enclaves of activism and taste: Consumer cooperatives in Poland as alternative food networks”, Socio.hu Special issue 3, pp. 145-166, https://doi.org/10.18030/socio.hu.2015en.145.

[24] Camagni, R., R. Capello and A. Caragliu (2014), “The rise of second-rank cities: What role for agglomeration economies?”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 23/6, pp. 1069-1089, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.904999.

[6] EIB (2017), Municipal Infrastructure - EIB Investment Survey, European Investment Bank, https://www.eib.org/attachments/efs/eibis_2017_municipality_en.pdf.

[21] EURE (2020), Lubelskie works on a regional development strategy, European Union, https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/eure/news/news-article/9045/lubelskie-works-on-a-regional-development-strategy/.

[25] Frick, S. and A. Rodríguez-Pose (2017), “Big or small cities? On city size and economic growth”, Growth and Change, Vol. 49/1, pp. 4-32, https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12232.

[31] Goszczynski, W. et al. (2019), “Between imitation and embeddedness: Three types of Polish alternative food networks”, Sustainability, Vol. 11/24, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247059.

[5] Jańczuk, L. (2020), “Współpraca gmin obwarzankowych na płaszczyźnie gospodarczej. Zarys problemu [Cooperation of doughnut municipalities on the economic plane: Outline of the problem]”, Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, Vol. 18/4, pp. 247–259, https://doi.org/10.36874/RIESW.2020.4.11.

[42] Kołsut, B. (2016), “Inter-municipal cooperation in waste management: The case of Poland”, Quaestiones Geographicae, Vol. 35/2, pp. 91-104, https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2016-0018.

[22] Lubelskie Voivodeship (2014), Regional Innovation Strategy for the Lubelskie Voivodeship 2020, http://www.onlines3.eu/wp-content/uploads/RIS3_strategy_repository/PL_Regional_Innovation_Strategy_of_Lubelskie_Voivodeship_2020.pdf.

[20] Lubelskie Voivodeship (n.d.), Information for Foreigners on the website of the Lubelskie Province Governor’s Office in Lublin, http://www.lublin.uw.gov.pl/information-foreigners-website-lubelskie-province-governor%E2%80%99s-office-lublin.

[40] Medical Valley EMN (2020), Leading-edge Cluster Medical Valley EMN as Urban-rural Network, https://en.medical-valley-emn.de/node/1771.

[12] Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (2022), “Draft proposal of the National Urban Policy of Poland 2030”, Warsaw.

[11] Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (2022), National Urban Policy of Poland, Warsaw.

[10] Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (2017), Strategy for Responsible Development for the Period up to 2020 (Including the Perspective up to 2030), https://www.gov.pl/documents/33377/436740/SOR_2017_streszczenie_en.pdf.

[3] Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (n.d.), Imienna lista 139 miast średnich tracących funkcje społeczno-gospodarcze.

[35] Ministry of Investments and Development (2019), Polsce dla lokalizacji inwestycji BPO/SSC/ IT/R&D.

[14] MITECO (2021), Plan de Recuperacion: 130 Medidas frente al reto demográfico, Ministerio para la Transición ecológica y el reto demografico, https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/reto-demografico/temas/medidas-reto-demografico/plan_recuperacion_130_medidas_tcm30-524369.pdf.

[13] Mitra, P. et al. (2021), “Urban-rural partnership framework to enhance food-energy-water security in the post-COVID-19 era”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18/23, p. 12493, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312493.

[23] OECD (2021), “Answers from Poland to the OECD questionnaire on urban-rural linkages”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.

[4] OECD (2021), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en.

[33] OECD (2021), Delivering Quality Education and Health Care to All: Preparing Regions for Demographic Change, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/83025c02-en.

[26] OECD (2021), Implications of Remote Working Adoption on Place Based Policies: A Focus on G7 Countries, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b12f6b85-en.

[27] OECD (2021), Mining Regions and Cities Case of Västerbotten and Norrbotten, Sweden, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/802087e2-en.

[28] OECD (2021), Perspectives on Decentralisation and Rural-Urban Linkages in Korea, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a3c685a7-en.

[17] OECD (2021), “The future of remote work: Opportunities and policy options for Trentino”, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2021/07, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35f78ced-en.

[39] OECD (2020), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/959d5ba0-en.

[29] OECD (2020), OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6b47b985-en.

[16] OECD (2020), Rural Well-being: Geography of Opportunities, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d25cef80-en.

[43] OECD (2020), The Circular Economy in Valladolid, Spain, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/95b1d56e-en.

[9] OECD (2018), OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Poland 2018, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264289925-en.

[41] OECD (2016), Water Governance in Cities, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251090-en.

[1] OECD (2013), Rural-Urban Partnerships: An Integrated Approach to Economic Development, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264204812-en.

[38] OECD (forthcoming), Enhancing Rural Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[18] OECD/UCLG (2019), 2019 Report World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment: Key Findings, http://www.sng-wofi.org/publications/2019_SNG-WOFI_REPORT_Key_Findings.pdf.

[8] OECD/UN-Habitat/UNOPS (2021), Global State of National Urban Policy 2021: Achieving Sustainable Development Goals and Delivering Climate Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/96eee083-en.

[19] Podlaskie Voivodeship (2020), Strategia Rozwoju Województwa Podlaskiego 2030, https://strategia.wrotapodlasia.pl/pl/strategia_rozwoju_wojewdztwa_podlaskiego_2030/.

[15] Potkanski, T. (2016), “Forms and experience of inter-municipal cooperation in Poland”, https://rm.coe.int/16806fa10d.

[32] ROBUST (2021), Synthesis Report: ROBUST Deliverable 3.3, https://rural-urban.eu/sites/default/files/FINAL%20ROBUST%20WP3%20Synthesis%20report.pdf.

[7] UN-Habitat (2019), Urban-Rural Linkages: Guiding Principles, United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi, https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/03/url-gp-1.pdf.

[34] UNHCR (2022), “Poland welcomes more than two million refugees from Ukraine”, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/3/6234811a4/poland-welcomes-million-refugees-ukraine.html.

[2] UNHCR (2022), Ukraine Refugee Situation, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine (accessed on 5 May 2022).

[44] Valladolid Recicla (2021), “¿Qué es el compost? ¿Pueden nuestros residuos orgánicos ser el alimento perfecto para las tierras castellanas?”, https://www.valladolidrecicla.es/compost-residuos-organicos/.

[37] Wachstumskern Autobahndreieck Wittstock/Dosse (2021), Presence point Prignitz - Pritzwalk, https://www.nordwestbrandenburg.de/kopie-von-landeplatz.

Note

← 1.  The difference between a buying group and a co-operative is that being a member of food coop requires dedicating time and contributing to a common fund and a varying degree of democracy in decision making.