Westport 30 May1 June 2004 Improving Living Conditions and Quality of Life in Rural Europe

1
Westport 30 May-1 June 2004 Improving Living
Conditions and Quality of Life in Rural Europe 

• Leader Programme
• Lessons for new rural Europe
• Jean-michel Courades
• DG Agriculture - European Commission

2
LEADER II EX POST EVALUATION

• Main findings

3
PERCEPTION OF LEADER II

• is seen by local actors as highly contributing to
  the sustainable development of rural areas

4
INNOVATION

• not so much the actions financed but the
  partnership aspect
• real innovation took place with regard to the
  valorisation of local resources

5
PARTNERSHIP

• Leader II is an investment to the social capital
  of rural areas in terms of cooperation
• the best working partnership has been
  tripartite ( public, private and NGO)

6
TRANSNATIONAL COOPERATION

• Transnational co-operation was welcome but too
  ambitious
• the LAGs found difficult to implement precise
  projects
• and found transnational cooperation mainly useful
  for networking

7
INTEGRATED APPROACH

• Multi-sectorial integration has proved to be the
  most difficult local feature to implement

8
IMPACT OF LEADER II

• the effects of Leader are better felt in the long
  term (one programming period is not enough)
• high effectiveness in producing the intended
  outcomes on the territory considering the small
  scale at which the initiative operated
• the territorial approach has contributed to the
  re-evaluation and valorisation of immaterial and
  material local resources
• in some regions, LEADER II lead to reshaping
  regional and local governance structures

9
ADDED VALUE OF LEADER II

• to bring local and administrative actors together
  to discuss common issues and perspective
• throughout EU the adoption of similar principles
  of good practice in local development
• the elements of the LEADER, in some cases the
  approach as a whole, has been generalized into
  rural development mainstream programmes

10
Westport 30 May-1 June 2004

• EU STUDYON THE MAINSTREAMING OF THE LEADER
  METHOD

11
LEADER Method

• A mode of governance characterized by the
  combined application of the 8 LEADER features

12
Definition of the LEADER Method

• Innovation
• Area based approach
• Bottom-up
• Partnership
• Networking
• Decentralized management and financing
• Cooperation
• Multi-sectorial integration

13
Four types of mainstreaming

• Strong mainstreaming
• Explicit political purpose, structural
  transformation,
• long term orientation.
• Full mainstreaming
• territorial approach
• Area-Based Rural Development Initiative (IE)
• PRODER, specifically Andalucía (ES).
• structural transformation
• ALMA, Obj. 1 and POMO measures in FI
• Rhône-Alpes/FR Hessen/DE Integrated
  Territorial and Food Chain Projects (PIT, PIF))
• in Objective 1/IT RDP Toscana/IT Obj. 1 2
  and national programmes in Wales, Scotland/UK.

14
Four types of mainstreaming

• Light mainstreaming possibly political purpose,
  temporary , reversible, integration of peoples
  views in the programming and implementation
  process of some measures
• Weak mainstreaming no political purpose
  consultation of local stakeholders in the
  programming process of some measures

15
Added value of mainstreaming

• Better use of local resources There is
  increased participation of individuals,
  collectives and organisations whose knowledge of
  the area was of great importance (ES).
• Capacity building, enhanced social capital Even
  rather limited mainstreaming of LEADER features
  may serve as an educational tool and learning
  process to everyone involved (GR).
• More effective in the long term The programme
  significantly enhances employment, through its
  project expenditure, and small enterprises, which
  are often overlooked by the larger state bodies,
  are identified and supported (IE).

16
Lessons for the future

• Decentralised management and financing and
  localpartnerships need more investments in the
  early phase(resources for capacity building,
  negotiation time, organisation development)
• Accelerated programme delivery in later phases
  due toenhanced local capital, local ownership
  and strategic fitof local development plan.

17
Lessons

• The LEADER method is applicable and useful
  to the whole range of development measures
  from both the territorial and the sectorial
  viewpoint
• Territorial training, agri-environment,
  forestry, diversification, village renewal
• Sectorial Farm investments, young farmers,
  training, marketing and processing, forestry,
  diversification, infrastructures
• Strong mainstreaming requires permanent
  support structures for capacity building,
  networking and administrative cross-coordination.

18
The LEADER method is demanding

• in terms of time in the start-up phase
• in terms of strategic thinking, networking skills
  and flexibility of administrators
• in terms of willingness to co-operate and
  managerial capacity at local level
• in terms of sufficient resources devoted to
  accompanying structures.

19
Difficulties

• Programming rules (automatic decommitment)
• Political and institutional hindrances in member
  states (local partnerships not entitled to manage
  public funds, institutions reluctant towards new
  players in local governance)
• Administrative barriers
• Problems related to the social capital in local
  areas

20
Administrative Barriers

• If there is no clear strategic orientation
  communicated from top-down
• If excessive monitoring, reporting and control
  requirements are imposed on local structures
  (partnerships and supporting agencies)
• Undercurrents point towards re-centralisation

21
Problems related to the local social capital

• Local actors may be unprepared for taking
  responsibility in designing and implementing a
  local action plan
• There may be political interference in local
  groups
• The local implementing bodies may adopt a
  technocratic behaviour towards beneficiaries

22
Difficulties related to LEADER features

• Area-based approach may be considered too complex
  for agricultural support structures used to
  large-scale direct payments.
• Bottom-up may be considered as costly,
  time-consuming and risky.
• The local group, as a new structure absorbing
  resources, is sometimes considered as superfluous
  by institutions already in place.
• Innovation is a vague concept. If taken
  seriously, it involves risk, but funding schemes
  are generally risk-averse.
• Multi-sectorial integration is perceived with
  suspicion by farming organisations, and hindered
  by sectorial support and funding structures.
• The value of networking and trans-national
  co-operation is often neglected by funding
  authorities and by local groups, either.
• Decentralised management may meet inertia of
  structures in place.