Presentation on theme: "Oct. 12-13 Przemyśl, Polska One LAG, one life Robert Lukesch International LEADER Conference."— Presentation transcript:
Oct Przemyśl, Polska One LAG, one life Robert Lukesch International LEADER Conference
1. How shall the LAG be structured? 2. Which criteria shall be used for acknowledging a LAG? 3. Which rules and criteria shall be used for selecting projects? Guiding questions
1. How shall the LAG be structured?
Local partnership Bargaining space Conception space Steering body Party space The local action group, a multi-purpose local development partnership, is a (potential) asset in the social capital of an area. Pierre Bourdieu (1983): Social Capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Robert Putnam (1995): Social Capital refers to the collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other".
Mainstream programme The place of LEADER in rural development strongly influences the place of a LAG in local development LEADER Programme Rural Policy Programme L LAG LEADER Local combination and costumisation of different programmes and support schemes Incubator/pathfinder or niche specialist The pounding heart of mainstream rural policy
Global grant system Managing authority LAG Project promoter LAG is Final Beneficiary LAG Project promoter Managing authority Intermediary Body Quasi global grant system (external FB) Managing Authority LAG Project promoter Intermediary Body is Final Beneficiary Operational programme system Intermediary Body LAG Project promoter Managing authority Intermediary Body Intermediary body is Final Beneficiary Quasi global grant system (Internalised FB) The degree of autonomy for the LAG decreases from left to right
Strategic Steering Operational Steering Normative Steering Management staff (professional) negotiates dominates Monitoring and supervision Technical implementation Mandate Decision making on strategies and projects Local partnership (voluntary) dominates 1234M (one-two-three-four-model) Governance Model for Partnership-Based Local Development Three Leadership Levels Four Steering Tasks Two Steering Bodies negotiates One LAG negotiates
Professional staff Political Non-public RemuneratedTruly voluntary Voluntary partnership (LAG) Administrative Public LAG Manager, project staff, contracted experts administrative personnel Non-profitBusiness The secret of viable partnerships is a good balance over time
How is the balance of influence between public and private partners? How is the balance of influence between voluntary partners and the LAG management? How does the LAG assure that it responds to the needs and aspirations of local people? How does the LAG assure monitoring and supervision functions? How are decision-making processes organised (To what extent do real processes match the formal design)? How significant are genuinely voluntary contributions and how are they appreciated? How is the LAG represented towards the local public? How is the LAG represented towards the outside world and the public authorities? Where do voluntary partners put their main focus of activities? Where does the LAG management put its main focus of activities? Who works on strategic issues and how is this organised?
2. Which criteria shall be used for acknowledging a LAG?
Local development strategy Territory Partner ship Other target groups Participation methods <50% public partners (number, density) Contiguity Territorial coherence Viability and sustainability Specific target groups (women, youth) Juridical structure Management and financial capacity Communication policy Composition and representativeness Complementarity with other programmes/ interventions Internal coherence Coherence with territory Balance between individual and collective operations Multi-sector approach Pilot character/ innovativeness Quality assurance system Transferability of actions Self-evaluation
Example (France) for the criterion pilot character: In terms of new products and services In terms of new methods to (re)combine territorial resources In terms of combinations and linkages between usually separated economic sectors In terms of peculiar forms of organisation and participatory practices In terms of considering specific target groups The criteria shall be operationalised, in order to facilitate the evidence procedure Example (Wales) for the criterion target groups: Young people (including young farmers) Micro and small enterprises (including farming families) Welsh speaking communities Black and minority ethnic groups Children The elderly The under-employed The list is neither put in order of priority nor exhaustive. LAGs are encouraged to add additional target groups to address the needs of specific areas. The operationalised criteria should be weighted.
3. Which rules and criteria shall be used for selecting projects?
The criteria used for selecting projects should mirror the criteria used for assessing the quality of the local development strategy: Coherence with the local development strategy Financial viability Management capacity of project owner Social and environmental sustainability Pilot character/ Innovativeness Synergy with other actions Transferability …. The selection of projects should be entrusted to a jury which is composed of LAG board members and external experts Selecting projects is not an end in itself. It should be a key element in a coherent monitoring and quality assurance system
…it is therefore the monitoring and quality assurance system on which the main focus should be put
Example (Austria): Quality Assurance in LEADER Results Resources Implementation Processes Learning & Development Gender balance in respect to participation Youth participation Participation and cooperation of municipalities Self-steering Quality assurance (LAG functions and projects) Coordination processes Innovation Internal cooperation Territorial cooperation Balance of projects in respect to priorities Marketing and communications Participation in the LEADER network (EU, national, regional) Capacities of local actors Information and knowledge Jobs created/maintained Targets (expected results) derived from the Local Development Strategy
Steps towards building the Quality Assurance System Set the criteria (see the previous Scorecard) Operationalise criteria into indicators Describe degrees of fulfilment for each indicator (e.g. from 1 to 5) Monitor development of indicators regularly (in the course of ongoing evaluation and/or self-evaluation) Revise criteria and indicators, if deemed necessary Use the evaluation meetings to assess the advancement according to the Process Monitoring of Impact (PMI) method
Input Impact OutputResults If it were so easy.....
Output Priority Specific Objective Activity Expected Result Results Financial and technical programme advancement Assumption a Impact (Indicators) Indicators Activity Indicator MC debates and decisions Operational Objective Activity Indicator Activity Indicator Assumption b Assumption c Result Indicators USE OF OUTPUT Output indicators Process Monitoring of Impacts (PMI) Monitoring Chart The assumptions are the key element for ongoing and self- evaluation, because they stipulate how the local development strategy will generate the expected outcomes
How is the advancement of activities monitored? Are there practices of periodic self-reflection or self-evaluation? On the basis of which parametres is the functioning of the local partnership appraised? Is it appraised at all? How does the local partnership get feedback from target beneficiaries (local actors and project promoters)? How is feedback from target beneficiaries appreciated and processed? How are deficiencies and wrong decisions dealt with? Is there a systematic exchange with programme administration upon the quality of programme delivery? Is there a systematic exchange with other LAGs in order to learn from good practices?
Thanks. Robert Lukesch Download (on the European Contact Point Website):