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

Are stakeholders ready for CLLD?

Case study Nitra 2015International Master in Rural Development

1

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 recommendations2

INTRODUCTION

Nassim

Kazusa

Maria

Matteo

Kamrul

Gabriel

Emily

Tyler Enrique Katarina

3

4

ATTENDANCE STATISTICS

● Three interviews covering:1. Management Authority 2. Paying Agency3. Nitra Region Administration

● 7 LAGs● 78 people together

5

ATTENDANCE STATISTICS

6

Nu

mb

er o

f p

eop

le

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

Key success factors - National level

Principle Key factors

Bottom up Training actions and promotion of linkages among local stakeholders.

Public-private partnership

High transparency and clarity in rules and governance

Area based Evaluation and diffusion of multiplier effect, side effect, long term effect for development of the area

Multi-sectorial design Wider range of measures for a higher number of beneficiaries from different sectors

Innovative approach Transfer of good practices (workshops, database…)

Networking of local partnership

Prioritization of strategies that are already involved in networks/coop. projects

Cooperation projects Promotion of conditions for transnational projects

Principle Key factors

Bottom-up Ensuring the open access to all stakeholders

Key success factors - LAG level

Public-private partnership

Emphasaizing networking across private & public sector

Area based Selectting projects which promote regional identity and higher use of local resources

Multi-sectorial Attracting 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

EVALUATION TOOLS

Interviews

Followed by an Analytical Method

Qualitative data collection

Questions under 3 sections1. LAG preparation,

selection and contracting 2. LDS implementation3. Monitoring and Evaluation

Focus groups

Participatory approach to collect data from different stakeholders gathered

Questions under 3 sections1. LAG development2. Development and

implemention of LDS3. Self-assessment and

Evaluation

10

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

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

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

Strengths Weaknesses

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 of 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

Opportunities

Threats


• 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/beneficiaries in a LAG


• European Innovation Partnership linkage to foster innovation at LAG level

• Uneven distribution of authorities and institutional organization between the regions.


• New measures that allow diverse types of regional cooperation


• 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)


• 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

Strengths Weaknesses


• High use of local resources (natural beauty of territory; historical/cultural heritage)

• Existence of micro-regions

• Large number of small municipalities


• 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


• Mutual exchange of information between LAGs

• Lack of communication between stakeholders and managers extend the time to reach a consensus


• Trust among LAG members

• Development of cooperation and partnerships; exchange of knowledge (with international partners)

• Cooperation between experienced and new LAGs


• Innovative services and products• E.g. Passport

stamps and wool mill


Opportunities

Threats


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• Problematic public procurement - competition

• Compliance to the strict rules of public procurement


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

RecommendationsBetter

marketing – country-wide

Less restrictions for

smaller projects

Improvement of quality of

life

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

RecommendationsBetter tailored

support

Continue to increase regional

involvement

CONCLUSIONS: Partnership Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia?

Key FindingsDisillusioned

private sector

ConclusionsBelief that

funds are for public sector

Funds directed to

involved LAG members

RecommendationsOrganization 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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS: Cooperation Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia?

Key FindingsBinding

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

CONCLUSIONS

Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia?

YES!

26

Documents

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