LEADER(M)

Preliminary thoughts on preparing the future

Leader+ Steering Committee Meeting / Leader+ Observatory Seminar

Brussels / Belgium – 29 June 2006

Robert Lukesch & Bernd Schuh

Some aspects emerging from the MTE evaluations

From LEADER II to LEADER+ and further...

LE

AD

ER

I

future

LEADER II LEADER+ LEADER(M)

•innovation•activation potential•cooperations and networking•“LEADER spirit”

•higher maturity•higher activation of actors and better cooperation•better performance higher influence in RD•“LEADER is (still) fun”

•integration in RD•LEADER is definitely accepted•key role for fostering integrated sustainable development

•more isolated•comparably small programme

•increase of bureaucracy•common understanding of „vocabulary“•only in some countries connected to mainstream RD

•risk of losing juvenile lightness and dynamics•competition between RD measures

lear

ning

learning

learning

learning

Lessons from LEADER+ Problems with the “rules of the game”

• Different interpretation of features: bottom-up approach, pilot nature, delimitation of areas

• The restrictive character of some rules:– n+2: „speed kills“

– Priority themes – „nice, but...“

– Evaluation – „too early, too little“

– Global Grant – fascinating and ambiguous

Lessons from LEADER+ Programming & implementation

• Previous experiences: the „joker“ in the game• LEADER is a joyful experience - the programme

offered high satisfaction to the actors• Flexibility to answer the systemic changes &

challenges (priority themes, activation)

„Let the good times come!“- the positive results

Lessons from LEADER+ Cooperation/ networking

„The sleeping giant”

Expectations:

•Spreading of know-how and good practice

•Building up critical mass

•Pooling of resources

•Preparing the grounds for / facilitating mainstreaming

The reality:

•The „joker“ previous experience wins again

•Cooperation/ networking not like in Action 2+3

•Problems: the why, the logic, the partners

Complementarities between LEADER and rural development programmes

„The threat of losing virginity“Sustainable regional development as strategic task –difficult starting conditions:

•Complexity•Multi-actor approach•Unclear final aim

+

Administrative framework:•Top-down sector policies as competitors•Bottom-up: nothing but a „brake“ in efficiency?

Overall, commonly accepted, long term strategy in the regions

LEADER in conflict with other hinge functions in the areas

The drivers for good LAG performance

• previous experiences – the „joker“ again• a wide range and variety of actors• clear common understanding of the terminology• Good connection with programme management• „learning“ is structured in some way

„Shiny, happy people“

Conclusions and recommendations

LEADER

Mainstream programme

The place of LEADER in rural development

Mainstream programme

LEA

DE

R

Programme

Programme

Programme

Rural Policy

ProgrammeL

Programme

Programme

Programme

LAG

Programme

L

Structuring combined programme delivery at local

level

Incubator/pathfinder

Niche specialist

The beating heart of mainstream rural policy

The global grant system

GG is seen as key element in decentralised management and financing

If the GG is not applied, there is mostly a quasi-GG system respecting strategic sovereignty of the LAG

In general, autonomy of LAGs is more respected than in LEADER II

GG can be undermined, even reversed in its effects by bureaucracy and co-funding problems

Thresholds and limits

10.000 to 100.000: what for? Even if mitigated in the regulation 1698/05, it works like a scissor in administrators heads

Ceiling of LAG costs at 15% of total budget: could be detrimental for incipient LAGs, in peripheral areas, in difficult environments

50% public partners: generally accepted and understood, but be aware of circumvention on one side and implicit disregard of public partners on the other; rather pursue actively the tripartite approach

European priority themes

The four themes: What for?

Gender: Some achievements, but more due to the approach itself than to the prescription

Youth: Seen as extremely important; some despondency how to address/include them. There are interesting approaches, but more experience is needed

Rural-urban relationships

In general less emphasized, except some good examples in densely populated rural areas

Again: 100.000 inhabitants threshold leads to exclusion of towns and markets: the Emmentaler principle

Intended territorial split between ERDF and EAFRD in some EU10 countries would annihilate axis 4

Area delimitationSocial Capital

Human Capital

Institutional Capital

Thematic/variable geometry Felt identity / Administrative boundaries /

Bottom-up

Authorities

Local people

LAG

Connecting and improving the two realms of bottom-up is a

matter of multi-tier learning

Real bottom-up

is definitely not the

opposite of top-down!

The local group

Distinguish between professional and amateur voluntaries. Specifically the latter need some kind of immaterial reward to remain active over a longer period of time.

Beware the lock-in syndrome of local partnerships which develop exclusive cultures.

The legitimacy challenge is still unresolved.

The role of LAGs in RDYin-function: Strengthening identity, motivation, social capital

Yang function: Programme administration, technical support, monitoring (typical development agency tasks)

There are LAGs embodying both functions and LAGs focusing rather on the Yin function. LAGs concentrating solely on the Yang-function leave the space of what is called the LEADER approach.

Balanced pilot strategies

Some stakeholders are satisfied that at least the local elite is mobilised by LEADER.

Others want an inclusive approach, but see the limits.

There are at least three mechanisms working for a balanced strategy:

-Good LAG staffing for animation

-Eligibility of voluntary work and labour contribution

-Advance payments

Networking

Networking appears in two forms:

1. Action 3: EU, national, and (certain) regional networks need continuity. They are systematically underused if only for information brokerage. They should be used for accumulating, encoding, translating and transferring knowledge, play a role in accompanying evaluations etc.

2. Networking as the master feature for transfer and dissemination: LAG-LAG learning through networking. Godmother LAGs should be associated with beginners.

Learning

Accumulation and transfer of knowledge from LEADERn

to LEADERn+1 requires:

•Double-loop learning at local stakeholders‘ and programme administrators‘ level.

•Continuity of staff (no funding gaps, no abrupt changes)

•EU, national and regional networks becoming the memory, processor, translator and transmitter of acquired experiences and knowledge (Reload the European Observatory!)