Oct. 12-13 Przemyśl, Polska One LAG, one life Robert Lukesch

1. International LEADER Conference Oct. 12-13 Przemyśl, Polska One LAG, one life Robert Lukesch

2. Guiding questions 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?

3. 1. How shall the LAG be structured?

4. SOCIAL CAPITAL 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.“ Conception space 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". Local partnership Bargaining space Steering body The local action group, a multi-purpose local development partnership, is a (potential) asset in the social capital of an area. Party space

5. Three types of governance contexts for LAGs Programme Programme Mainstream programme LEADER Programme Programme LEADER Rural Policy L Programme Programme Programme LAG Incubator/pathfinder or niche specialist The pounding heart of mainstream rural policy Local combination and costumisation of different programmes and support schemes The place of LEADER in rural development strongly influences the place of a LAG in local development

6. Three types of implementation arrangements Quasi global grant system (Internalised FB) Quasi global grant system (external FB) Operational programme system Global grant system Intermediary Body is Final Beneficiary LAG is Final Beneficiary Managing authority Managing authority Managing Authority Intermediary body is Final Beneficiary Managing authority Intermediary Body LAG LAG Intermediary Body Intermediary Body LAG LAG Project promoter Project promoter Project promoter Project promoter The degree of autonomy for the LAG decreases from left to right

7. 1234M („one-two-three-four-model“) Governance Model for Partnership-Based Local Development One LAG Mandate Normative Steering dominates Monitoring and supervision Local partnership (voluntary) Four Steering Tasks negotiates Strategic Steering Decision making on strategies and projects Three Leadership Levels negotiates negotiates Management staff (professional) Operational Steering Technical implementation dominates Two Steering Bodies

8. Some relevant distinctions Voluntary partnership (LAG) Professional staff LAG Manager, project staff, contracted experts administrative personnel „Truly voluntary“ Remunerated Non-public Public Business Non-profit Administrative Political The secret of viable partnerships is a good balance over time

9. Questions to reflect upon • 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?

10. 2. Which criteria shall be used for acknowledging a LAG?

11. SPECIMEN Complementarity with other programmes/ interventions Viability and sustainability Balance between individual and collective operations Coherence with territory Pilot character/ innovativeness Internal coherence Contiguity Territorial coherence Local development strategy Transferability of actions <population> (number, density) Territory Multi-sector approach Self-evaluation Partnership Quality assurance system Management and financial capacity Specific target groups (women, youth) Juridical structure <50% public partners Composition and representativeness Eligibility criteria Selection criteria Communication policy Other target groups Participation methods

12. 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.

13. 3. Which rules and criteria shall be used for selecting projects?

14. 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 • …. Rough guide 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

15. …it is therefore the monitoring and quality assurance system on which the main focus should be put

16. Example (Austria): Quality Assurance in LEADER Jobs created/maintained Targets (expected results) derived from the Local Development Strategy 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 Results Resources Implementation Processes Learning & Development Gender balance in respect to participation Youth participation Participation and cooperation of municipalities

17. 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

18. If it were so easy..... Impact Input Output Results

19. Priority Output Output indicators Process Monitoring of Impacts (PMI) Monitoring Chart Results Result Indicators Impact (Indicators) USE OF OUTPUT Specific Objective Assumption a Expected Result MC debates and decisions Activity Indicator Assumption b Activity Indicator Indicators Operational Objective Activity Indicator Financial and technical programme advancement Activity Indicator Assumption c The assumptions are the key element for ongoing and self-evaluation, because they stipulate how the local development strategy will generate the expected outcomes

20. Questions to reflect upon • 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?

21. Thanks. Robert Lukesch www.oear.at Download (on the European Contact Point Website): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/library/methodology/lukesch_handbook.pdf