THE FINNISH LEADER EXPERIENCE

1
THE FINNISH LEADER EXPERIENCE
LEADER-seminar in Finland
Joensuu 5.9.2007

• Eero UusitaloProfessor, Counsellor for Rural
  DevelopmentSecretary General of the Rural Policy
  CommitteeChairman of the Village Action
  Association of Finland

2
(No Transcript)
3
RURAL NETWORK OF THE PARLIAMENT
GOVERNMENT Ministries responsible for funds
MINISTERIAL GROUP OF RURAL POLICY
RURAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Members of the Committee (29) represent nine
ministries and several other organizations
related to the welfare of the rural population
and rural development

• EU Rural Development
• Programme and
• EU Structural Fund
• Programmes
• Monitoring Committees
• TE Centres
• Regional Councils
• State Provincial Offices
• Regional Environment Centres
• Local Action Groups

• Theme and Work Groups
• Sparsely Populated Rural Areas (Theme Group)
• Welfare Services (Theme Group)
• NGOs (Theme Group)
• Interaction between Urban and Rural Areas (Work
  Group)
• Culture (Theme Group)
• Nature and Landscape Services (Theme Group)
• Rural Housing (Theme Group)
• Rural Tourism (Theme Group)
• Women (Theme Group)
• Food Finland (Theme Group)
• Work Group for the LAGs (Local Action Groups)
• Work Group for Communications
• many groups have partner groups
• and actors also in regional level

Programme Leader / Secretary General

• Rural Policy Programme
• Work Programme of Rural Policy Committee
• Special Programme of the Government
• Perspectives
• Rural Development of the Central Government
• Subregional Development Programme

Secretariat Deputy Secretary General and
Secretaries in Different Organisations (60)
Project Actors and Inhabitants of Rural Areas
National Research and Development Projects

• International Cooperation
• International Leader projects
• Development of EU Programme Policy
• OECD and IRN cooperation
• Contacts (ERA, HNSL, ELARD)

• Close Partners
• Island Committee (Ministry of the Interior)
• Village Action Assosiation of Finland
• MUA Assosiation and Network of Professors

4
W
here we are in Finnish Rural Policy
The instruments and tools for rural policy have
been developed for 17 years, still
insufficient The scope of narrow rural policy has
become wider while that of broad rural policy has
narrowed Finnish rural policy has evolved into a
cross-sectoral policy programme The political
support to the Rural Policy Committee is still
insufficient One major strength in Finland is the
short distance, practically a direct contact,
between the central government, regional
administration and local actors A horizontal
policy needs horizontal actors at all levels. We
have, but some of them are too weak
5
P
riorities
Finnish rural policy is constructed around four
main prioritiesReorganisation of industries and
work Basic services and housing Raising the level
of know-how Reinforcing the operative structures
of the rural areasAll priorities have
administration, special expertise and development
work of their own, but it is up to rural policy
to ensure the continuous development of means and
practices suited for the countryside and bringing
together the available resources. In practice the
priorities mean that rural policy is
cross-sectoral and horizontal
6
Rural policy networks

• Rural Policy Committee and its Secretariat
• Theme groups and their equivalents in the regions
• Local Action Groups, LAGs
• Village associations and societies
• Rural Sections of the Regional Management
  Committees
• Institutions carrying out rural research
• Regional service points for business and centres
  of expertise

7
The Village Action Association of Finland

• Three Levels
• 1 national village association (SYTY)
• 19 regional village associations
• 2 700 registered village associations
• The role of SYTY is the co-operation association
  promotes the villages voluntary activities,
  development projects for villages, democracy,
  interaction between rural and urban areas
• Gives education, advice, information on village
  action, newsletter and web-site
• Network services to the LAGs (Local Action
  Groups, 55)

8
The Village Action Association of Finland

• Village Action Association is part of the rural
  policy network
• Village Action Programme 2003-2007
• General Manager and project based staff, over 10
  persons
• Funding
• in 2004 annual turnover over 1 Meuros
• project funding (about 600 000 ), Government
  (since 2003
• 120 000 , 2007 530 000 and membership fees
  (20 000 )
• Future? Old associations from the sectoral
  orientation will probably be gathered under or
  absorbed to Village Movement

9
M
ain Finnish experience
The core of the Finnish experience is this the
regional broadening and deepening of LAG work was
supported by national rural policy. LEADER action
is not only a temporary tool for the European
Union in rural development - not at all. It is a
part of the national and EU rural policy.
10
T
he phases of mainstreaming
Time Forms Area1996 22 Leader II groups ?
of rural areas 1997 26 Pomo groups ? of rural
areas 2001 25 Leader groups almost 40 of
rural areas 2001-2002 26 Alma or Objective 1
almost 50 of rural areas groups2001
7 Pomo groups about 10 of rural areas
2002-2006 58 LAGs almost all rural areas, only
6 rural municipalities outside2007-2013 55
1 LAGs All rural areas include to LAGs
11
L
ocal Action Groups (LAGs) in Finland in the
Period 2007-2013
Funding of the LAGs is insufficient in the Rural
Development Programme 2007-2013 LAGs are key
actors in Finlands rural development work LAGs
will cover the whole Finland also during the
programming period 2007-2013 (regional
mainstreaming is completed) Focus in
mainstreaming will be in the content (tasks) LAGs
aim to achieve a strong and recognised position
as rural development actors in the whole
Finland Regulations have developed in a positive
way
12
W
hat can we learn from this?
Cross-administratorial rural policy needs an
organ, which constantly develops the rural policy
system as a network in central administration as
well as the regional and local levels Risks have
to be taken to achieve results Although the main
direction and power of LAG work moves upwards,
the crucial beginnings must be brought about from
a higher level downwards
13
W
hat can we learn from this?
Rural policy needs contact persons who will watch
the progress of whole projects, preferably on all
levels of action Activities must be considered
and planned sufficiently long into the future,
for example the negotiations carried out at the
turn of 2000 and 2001 were aimed for both the
periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 LAG work
functions well for local people and is close to
them
14
P
reconditions for Powerfull LAGs
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
a LAG is a mixed group a LAG has real power with
own global grant money LAG's own Plan and
Programme Wide range of projects In the Board of
the LAG own quotas for different
partners Goodwill of regional and national
authorities Good results on the basis of living
civil society
15
T
he Network of Rural Development Policy
Levels Local Microregional subregional Regiona
l National EU
NGOs¹ Village association LAG Regional
organization for local
actors Village action movement Rural
Parliament European Rural Alliance ERA
GOs¹ Municipality Subregional unit of
municipalities Regional unit for
horizontal affairs Rural Policy
Committee EU-officials
¹All organizations are cross-functional or
-administrative