The EU LEADER Experience

1
The EU LEADER Experience

• LEADER influence on new RDR
• Overview of LEADER programme
• Ex Post Evaluation of LEADER II
• Mainstreaming of LEADER Method
• Presented by Robin McDowell (OIR team)
• on behalf of Jean-Michel Courades
• DG Agriculture, European Commission

2
LEADER Influences New RDR

• The LEADER approach has matured over 3 pilot
  programmes since 1991 - EC now view it as a
  model for future mainstream RD programmes
• the new RDR will 'transfer the basic principles
  of the LEADER approach to the programmes,
  building a specific priority in them'
• local partnerships managing local strategies -
  also co-operation, networking,capacity building
• substantial share of new Fund for this priority
  - 15 for mainstreaming of LEADER plus 7 for
  continuation of LEADER initiative (new EU states
  and most deprived areas)

3
LEADER in 15 EU Countries

• Implementation Period 2001- 07
• 73 programmes approved by 2002
• 9 national
• 61 regional
• 3 network (DE, ES, IT)

4
Local Action Groups

• 880 LAGs selected
• 217 in Leader I
• around 1000 in Leader II
• Total population covered 51.7 million
• Ave. LAG area population 58,750

5
Actions and Share of Funds

• Action 1 - Local Area Strategy 86.7
• Action 2 - Inter-Area Co-operation 10.0
• Action 3 - Networking 1.4
• Technical Assistance 1.9

6
Priority Themes
7
Ex-Post Evaluation - LEADER II

• The programme was regarded by local actors as
  contributing greatly to the sustainable
  development of rural areas

8
Innovation

• not so much in the actions financed but in the
  partnership and process aspects
• real innovation evident in the different ways of
  adding value to local resources

9
Partnership

• an investment in the social capital of rural
  areas - enabling cooperation of actors
• the best working partnerships have been
  tri-partite ( public, private and NGO)

10
Trans-national Co-operation

• a desirable feature but too ambitious
• LAGs found it difficult to implement concrete
  projects (rather than exchanges)
• TNC mainly useful for networking

11
Integrated Approach

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

12
Impact of LEADER II

• Will be more evident in the longer term
  (one programming period not enough)
• highly effective in producing outcomes for local
  areas - considering the small scale of the
  initiative / resources
• territorial approach enabled re-assessment and
  better use of local resources physical, human
  and social
• in some regions, the re-shaping of regional and
  local governance structures

13
Added Value OF LEADER II

• to bring local practitioners and administrative
  actors together to discuss common issues
• adoption of principles of good practice in local
  development EU wide
• elements of LEADER or, in some cases, the
  approach as a whole transferred into main
  programmes for rural development

14

• EU-wide STUDY Methods for and Success of
  Mainstreaming LEADER Innovations and Approach
  Into Rural Development Programmes
• by ÖIR (Vienna)
• 2003-04

15
The LEADER Method

• A mode of governance characterized by the
  combined application of the 8 LEADER features
• and their synergetic effects
• ie. the whole is greater than sum of parts

16
Definition of the LEADER Method
17
Four Types of Mainstreaming

• Strong mainstreaming
• Explicit political purpose, structural
  transformation,
• long term orientation
• Full mainstreaming
• 1) pan-territorial approach
• Area-Based Rural Development Initiative (IE)
• PRODER, specifically Andalucía (ES)
• 2) structural transformation
• e.g. Obj. 1 2 and national programmes
• in Wales and Scotland (UK) POMO / ALMA
  (FI)

18
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

19
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).

20
Lessons for the Future

• Decentralised management and financing local
  partnerships need more investment in the early
  phase (resources for capacity building,
  negotiation time, organisation development)
• Accelerated programme delivery in later phases
  due to enhanced local capital, local ownership
  and strategic fit of local development plan.

21
Lessons for the Future

• The LEADER method is applicable and useful to the
  whole range of development measures
• - Territorial training, agri-environment,
  forestry, diversification, village renewal
• - Sectoral 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.

22
The LEADER method is demanding !

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

23
Difficulties

• Programming rules
  (e.g. automatic de-commitment of funds)
• Political and institutional barriers in member
  states (e.g. local partnerships not entitled to
  manage public funds, institutions blocking new
  players in local governance)
• Administrative barriers
• Lack of social capital in local areas

24
Administrative Barriers

• If no clear strategic orientation communicated
  from top-down
• If excessive monitoring, reporting and control
  requirements imposed on local structures
  (partnerships / support agencies)
• Undercurrents of re-centralisation (tightening of
  budgets control systems)

25
Problems of Local Social Capital

• Local actors may be unprepared for tasks and
  responsibility of 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.

26
Problems related to LEADER features

• Innovation - a vague concept. If taken seriously,
  it involves risk, but funding schemes are
  generally risk-averse.
• Area-based approach - too complex for
  agricultural support structures used to
  large-scale direct payments ?
• Bottom-up - too costly, time-consuming and
  risky ?
• The local group, as new structure absorbing
  resources, may be seen as superfluous by
  institutions already in place.

27
Problems related to LEADER Features

• Multi-sectoral integration viewed with suspicion
  by farming sector, and hindered by sector-based
  support and funding structures
• Value of networking and trans-national
  co-operation often neglected by both funding
  authorities and by local groups.
• Decentralised management may founder due to the
  inertia of structures in place.

28
Concluding Remarks (non-EC !)

• new RDR testifies to success of the
  locally-driven, bottom-up LEADER approach
• Real prospects for expansion of LEADER-style
  activity into new rural areas and sectors
• BUT it will be a major challenge to apply the
  LEADER approach on a much larger scale
• "Owing to the fact that all experience is a
  process, no point of view can ever be the last
  one
• William James