European Commission

1
Leader Observatory Final Conference Leader
achievements a diversity of territorial
experience 22-23 November 2007, Évora/Portugal
European Commission
European Commission
Findings of the four mini-plenary sessions
Key messages on concrete outputs and impacts on
the territorial strategies complementary non
Leader development processes Elena
Saraceno Dorothée Duguet, Thomas Müller, Petri
Rinne After the experience of Oberschwaben (DE),
Joensuu Region (FI), LAG of Thessaloniki (GR),
Sarret (HU) LAGs
2
Contents

• 1. Key achievements of 4 LAG cases in
• Governance
• Competitiveness
• Sustainability
• 2. Risks and challenges for the future
• 3. Key messages
• 4. A territorial focus
• 5. Link to non-Leader interventions
• Some remarks / considerations

3
The 4 LAG cases

• Germany Oberschwaben
• Finland Joensuu region
• Greece LAG of Thessaloniki
• Hungary Sarret
• Different in size, population, land use,
  diversification, institutional context, role
  attributed to LAG in rural development
• We can compare specific themes with care for
  these different contexts
• I mention what is said in the territoiral
  synthesis and in the discussion

4
1a. Key achievements governance

• DE-Oberschwaben LAG as THE network organisation
  mirror and voice of local actors, participation
  of municipalities, good exchanges with
  authorities and Länder, 50 women
• FI-Joensuu region tripartite partnerships, good
  division of labour with authorities, the LAG as
  agency with autonomy, addressing incoming actors,
  decision make of first instance
• GR-Thessaloniki Lag as permanent support
  mechanism for RD, new form of local and rural
  national governance evolved
• HU- Sarret change in peoples minds after
  centralization, community building - with local
  people and authorities
• Leader as joiner of isolated actors in
  sparsely populated areas as innovator of RD
  policy practice at higher than local level
  facilitating linkages between actors and
  institutions more differentiated in decision
  making

5
1b. Key achievements competitiveness

• DE-Oberschwaben strategic initial conference,
  participation of actors in project design, in
  fairs, in networking (also municipal
  authorities), self-evaluation to improve future
  action
• FI-Joensuu region making villages attractive
  considered as key for competitiveness, improving
  external image of the area, small scale projects,
  micro-enterprises in service (never before),
  womens employment
• GR-Thessaloniki economic development as explicit
  objective, extensive participation of civil
  society, micro-enterprises, public sector,
  agro-tourism emphasis. Promotion of clusters and
  quality standards.
• HU- Sarret animation activities to stimulate
  participation in projects, image building for the
  external world, theatre, rural tourism
• Competitiveness is an unusual concept for
  LAGs in a strict economic sense. Territorial
  competitiveness with social, economic ,
  environmental , and governance dimensions , all
  reinforcing each other, is better. Link with
  Lisbon strategy very significant in terms of
  growth (new enterprises, products, processes) and
  jobs (for women, youth, services...).Linking
  dispersed economic initiatives common achievement

6
1c. Achievements sustainability

• DE-Oberschwaben matching peoples needs with
  regional cultural and natural heritage (tourism,
  museums, ICT)
• FI-Joensuu region prior check on all projects,
  specific action on environmental education which
  has become benchmark for all Finland
• GR-Thessaloniki Lag partly covered by national
  park, tourist promotion with spot interventions
  and trails, services (volounteer work)
• HU- Sarret consideration of environmental
  protection in all phases of project
  implementation (cultural and natural)
• Weak concept, not addressed as main achievement.
  Probable explanation is that sustainability
  understood, as competitiveness not as a separate
  dimension but part of territorial strategy,
  future oriented. Public goods concept absent.

7
2. Risks and challenges

• DE-Oberschwaben maintain people in sparsely
  populated rural areas, with diversification from
  agriculture, poor infrastructure, implement
  sustainable tourism with education, importance of
  maintaining good-will attitude, find partners
• FI-Joensuu region maintain the LAG concept, risk
  of bureaucratization, being able to renew actors
  in the partnership and rural vision in strategy
• GR-Thessaloniki proximity of a big city,
  opportunity as market but risk of draining young
  from rural areas that with mainstreaming Leader
  maintains its experimental and pilot nature for
  RD strengthening informal rural networks,
  accompany cluster approach in the future
• HU- Sarret further lagging behind the area,
  depopulation, actors working together, safeguard
  rich environment, quality
• Fear of losing the Leader specificity, challenge
  of finding the right solutions/actions for rural
  problems

8
3. Key messages

• DE-Oberschwaben finding partners for all
  projects, be patient, maintain regional networks,
  share work, be able to explain, make projects
  with youth (not for them), build sense of
  community, dont watch the risks but the
  challenges
• FI-Joensuu region Keep LAG independent from
  public administration (as NGOs), link with local
  people, and other LAGs, they should sit at the
  same table with other development agencies
• GR-Thessaloniki Leader builds local champions,
  build informal networks (not only officially
  appointed network units)
• HU- Sarret not discussed
• Most key messages deal with governance issues
  autonomy, bureaucratization fears, maintain its
  niche character. Few explicitly address the
  challenge that mainstreaming will pose.

9
4. A territorial focus

• DE-Oberschwaben opportunity for valorisation of
  landscape, heritage, boundaries of participation
  and local contacts, networking, image building
  for communication.
• FI-Joensuu region quality of life central issue,
  problems of rural-urban cooperation, very sparse
  population and many small projects, integrating
  incomers with old residents (radio), attractive
  image building
• GR-Thessaloniki local strategy is the key
  strength of Leader, allows clustering approach to
  projects at local regional level (agro-tourism).
  Facilitates/gives sense to integration of actions
  and decision making based on development
  criteria.
• HU- Sarret not discussed
• Local strategies created know-how capacity about
  strategic thinking, later picked up at national
  and EU level. Some were used as building blocks,
  others have been taken as a new top down
  instruction. Depends on past role and power of
  Leader.

10
5. Link to non Leader actions

• Issue addressed only in terms of the agency
  functions of LAGs in some areas (links with other
  EU initiatives, national programmes) and for the
  past, not for the future and within the context
  of mainstreaming

11
Some final remarks

• There are many ways of addressing the same issue
  in a successful way, no single recipe.
• Even if when you have seen a rural case you have
  seen one rural case, over 1 000 LAGs create the
  need to find patterns, best practices,
  codification of individual experience on specific
  issues. Without it there is no transfer of
  experience, between groups, at regional,
  national, EU, or trans-national level. There is a
  lot of work to be done here.
• Leader initiative has had a multiplier effect
  over time incubator of development (governance,
  competitiveness, sustainability, all dimensions),
  changing/adapting to successive regulations. Now
  biggest challenge live with the rest of RD, new
  processes and policies (mainstreaming and future
  CAP/2nd pillar)
• Rural tourism, the most frequently found action
  in Leader, links spontaneously the 4 axes. Good
  starting point for the future