1. Are stakeholders ready for CLLD? Case study Nitra 2015 International Master in Rural Development 1

2. OUTLINE 1.Introduction 2.Attendance statistics 3.Key success factors 4.Evaluation tools 5.Findings from the field research 6.SWOT analysis 7.Conclusions and recommendations 2

3. INTRODUCTION Nassim Kazusa Maria Matteo Kamrul Gabriel Emily Tyler Enrique Katarina 3

4. 4

5. ATTENDANCE STATISTICS ●Three interviews covering: 1.Management Authority 2.Paying Agency 3.Nitra Region Administration ●7 LAGs ●78 people together 5

6. ATTENDANCE STATISTICS 6 Number of people

7. Framework of finding key factors Leader Preparation for LAGs/LDS Implementation of LDS Monitoring and Evaluation Bottom-up Public- private partnership Area-based Multi- sectorial design Innovative approach Networking Cooperation Seven Principles

8. Key success factors - National level PrincipleKey factors Bottom upTraining actions and promotion of linkages among local stakeholders. Public-private partnership High transparency and clarity in rules and governance Area basedEvaluation and diffusion of multiplier effect, side effect, long term effect for development of the area Multi-sectorial designWider range of measures for a higher number of beneficiaries from different sectors Innovative approachTransfer of good practices (workshops, database…) Networking of local partnership Prioritization of strategies that are already involved in networks/coop. projects Cooperation projectsPromotion of conditions for transnational projects

9. PrincipleKey factors Bottom-upEnsuring the open access to all stakeholders Key success factors - LAG level Public-private partnership Emphasaizing networking across private & public sector Area basedSelectting projects which promote regional identity and higher use of local resources Multi-sectorialAttracting and involving all the sectors in the decision- making process and implementation Innovative approaches Ensuring that projects include the factor which is new in the territory Networking of local partnership Facilitating interaction between different institutional levels horizontally and vertically Cooperation projects Ensuring that knowledge is transferred with other interregional and international LAGs

10. EVALUATION TOOLS Interviews Followed by an Analytical Method Qualitative data collection Questions under 3 sections 1.LAG preparation, selection and contracting 2.LDS implementation 3.Monitoring and Evaluation Focus groups Participatory approach to collect data from different stakeholders gathered Questions under 3 sections 1.LAG development 2.Development and implemention of LDS 3.Self-assessment and Evaluation 10

11. FINDINGS - INTERVIEWS -Networking as buzzword for the Capacity Building. What about the NRN? -Participatory Approach for desiging the call for proposal. Is it well organised? -Selecting LAGs. What are the Critical Factors? -Supporting the implementation of the LDS. Is money everything? -Evaluation system. How can we use it better? Average “Perceived” degree of readiness for CLLD in Slovakia? → 7 11

12. FINDINGS – FOCUS GROUPS ●Bottom-up and area-based: Local stakeholders initiated LDS to form LAG in the local territory. ●Partnership: Mayors, NGOs, schools, entrepreneurs, farmers and other stakeholders formed LAG with partnership. ●Multi-secotoral: Projects like agro-tourism, agricultural diversification combine multiple sectors such as health, education, economic and cultural sectors. 12

13. FINDINGS – FOCUS GROUPS ●Innovation: New projects (outdoor gym, museum) have been introduced in the area. ●Networking: Knowledge exchange has been enhanced through interaction among managing authority, paying agency, LAGs and other stakeholders. ●Cooperation: Projects related to heritage and agro-tourism have brought together different national and transnational partners. 13

14. StrengthsWeakness es LEADER Principle: Area Based Prioritize LDSs that have higher geographical impact (e.g. regional level) Lack of influence on the Public Procurement Legislation (cross sectional) Deficient formal evaluation to determine regional impact LEADER Principle: Cooperation Financial support to LAGs for cooperation projects (move to weakness or opportunity) Lack of strategic vision for supporting TNC Language barrier (don’t speak languages other than Slovak) LEADER Principle: Bottom Up Support for Training/workshops to educate LAGs (build capacity; MA and RA) Designing of call of proposal are mainly done top down Lack of control for supporting tools for capacity building (training/workshop) Perception of LAGs: information and knowledge transfer is not sufficient LEADER Principle: Networking Lack of human capital Low involvement of the NRN Lack of communication (between 3 agencies: MA, PA, and RA) LEADER Principle: Public Private Partnership No evidence of interest in offering tools for attracting collective/individual private investors Complexity of bureaucracy, high administrative burden and delay in payment, discouraging private investors LEADER Principle: Innovation No evidence of encouragement o f a strong coordination and connectivity among different organizations (University, Farm Advisory Group, Research Center, etc.) (cross-cutting) LEADER Principle: Multi-sectoral strategies LAG/LDS selection criteria includes the LAG’s orientation of non-public sector Integration of Regional Policy for tourism/regional brand with the LEADER program National Level SWOT Analysis

15. Opportunit ies Threats LEADER Principle: Area Based Use of formal evaluation (including the participatory approach) and self- assessment to determine regional impacts Selection of LAGs based on unique and strategic natural resources Distribution of funds is not dependent upon the number of participants/beneficia ries in a LAG LEADER Principle: Innovation European Innovation Partnership linkage to foster innovation at LAG level Uneven distribution of authorities and institutional organization between the regions. LEADER Principle: Cooperation New measures that allow diverse types of regional cooperation LEADER Principle: Networking Overall improvement of NRN (activities, engagement and networking) Higher amount of resources allocated to this measure LEADER Principle: Multi-sectoral strategies Favoring the selection of LDS with a high degree of multi-sectoral LOCAL cooperation Wider range of measures that increase job opportunities in several sectors LEADER Principle: Public Private Partnership Wider range of measures that allow more non- governmental participation High acknowledgement of new market opportunities (eco- tourism) from the LAGs Improving the access to funds Public procurement legislation (cross- cutting) LEADER Principle: Bottom Up Higher participation of pro-active and experienced LAGs in the design and implementation of the program Unexpected changes in requirements of National legislation Public procurement legislation (cross- cutting) LAG Level SWOT Analysis

16. StrengthsWeakness es LEADER Principle: Area Based High use of local resources (natural beauty of territory; historical/cultural heritage) Existence of micro- regions Large number of small municipalities LEADER Principle: Bottom Up Enthusiasm and development of possibilities - better future for communities - motivation High awareness among stakeholders; farmer initiatives Increased participation of beneficiaries and volunteers - mobilization - cooperation Working groups didn’t include all inhabitants People not interested in public affairs - hard to get feedback LEADER Principle: Public-Private Partnership Ability to reach compromise and consensus in the community (common vision) Partnerships strengthened in region as compared to in the past Dominant position of mayors LEADER Principle: Multi-Sectoral Strategies Common project among multi-sectoral stakeholders Increased experience in agri- tourism LEADER Principle: Networking Mutual exchange of information between LAGs Lack of communication between stakeholders and managers extend the time to reach a consensus LEADER Principle: Cooperation Trust among LAG members Development of cooperation and partnerships; exchange of knowledge (with international partners) Cooperation between experienced and new LAGs LEADER Principle: Innovation Innovative services and products E.g. Passport stamps and wool mill LAG Level SWOT Analysis

17. Opportunit ies Threats LEADER Principle: Area Based Local branding Preserving historical and cultural traditions Extension of territory - more territory More experience in local development and feeling of identity of local people - cultural and local LEADER Principle: Bottom Up Community leaders More proactive involvement of local stakeholder Bureaucracy Administration problem - changing of rules, procedure LEADER Principle: Public-Private Partnership Enhanced private- public partnership Lack of interest of public sectors LEADER Principle: Multi-Sectoral Strategies Wider range of measures to be implemented via LDS Lack of diversity of multi-sectoral projects Lack of financial resources LEADER Principle: Networking Broader contacts with experts in the field Visit other LAGs External consultants Potential increase in social capacity Competitiveness among different LAGs and difficulty to conduct the strong lobbying LEADER Principle: Cooperation International cooperation Paying agency - time lapse of money, recalling payment, difficulty to collect decent amount of money at the initial stage Low sustainability of projects - difficulty to keep running LEADER Principle: Innovation Problematic public procurement - competition Compliance to the strict rules of public procurement LAG Level SWOT Analysis

18. CONCLUSIONS: Area-Based Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Strong regional promotion of brands and services Complex public procurement requirements Conclusions Recognition of unique regional factors Restrictive requirements Recommendations Better marketing – country-wide Less restrictions for smaller projects Improvement of quality of life

19. CONCLUSIONS: Bottom-up Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Existing training and support systems Trust and reciprocity Conclusions Supportive training exists LAGs are accomplishing projects Recommendations Better tailored support Continue to increase regional involvement

20. CONCLUSIONS: Partnership Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Disillusioned private sector Conclusions Belief that funds are for public sector Funds directed to involved LAG members Recommendations Organization of collective private investors Foster entrepreneurship and private investment Project bias towards public sector Minority groups are not represented Include minority groups in the LAG

21. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-Sectorial Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings High potential to promote multi-sector projects Conclusions Priority – but not effective Allowance for wider range of measures Recommendations Improvement of integration between policies Activities aimed at transferring of knowledge and experience

22. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Uneven distribution of organizations among regions High level of social and cultural capital Conclusions Disconnect between extension, research, and stakeholders Recommendations Participate in networks fostering new ideas and new innovation

23. CONCLUSIONS: Networking Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Weak connection and inclusiveness Conclusions Strong networks within the LAG NRN not meeting needs Recommendations Improvement of effectiveness of the NRN Peer-to-peer evaluations LAGs creating own network LAG Lobby Body

24. CONCLUSIONS: Cooperation Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Binding competitive nature Region- focused Conclusions LAGs ‘competing’ instead of cooperating Concern with own region and not bigger picture Recommendations Collective action to tackle main problems Promote multi-level governance

25. CONCLUSIONS Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia?

26. 26