Upload
nicole-mccracken
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Oct. 12-13Przemyśl, Polska
One LAG, one lifeRobert 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
Ba
rga
inin
g
spa
ce
Conception space
Ste
erin
g
bo
dy
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
Programme
Programme
Rural Policy
ProgrammeL
Programme
Programme
Programme
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
Projectpromoter
Managing authority
IntermediaryBody
Quasi global grant system(external FB)
Managing Authority
LAG
Projectpromoter
Intermediary Body is Final Beneficiary
Operational programme
system
Intermediary Body
LAG
Projectpromoter
Managing authority
IntermediaryBody
Intermediary body is Final Beneficiary
Quasi global grant system
(Internalised FB)
The degree of autonomy for the LAG decreases from left to right
StrategicSteering
Operational Steering
Normative Steering
Man
agem
ent
staf
f (p
rofe
ssio
nal)
negotiates
dominates
Monitoring and supervision
Technical implementation
Mandate
Decision making on strategies and projects
Loca
l par
tner
ship
(v
olun
tary
)
dominates
1234M („one-two-three-four-model“)Governance Model for Partnership-Based Local Development
Th
ree L
ead
ersh
ip L
ev
elsF
ou
r S
tee
rin
g T
ask
s
Two Steering Bodies
negotiates
One LAG
negotiates
Professional staff
Political
Non-public
Remunerated„Truly 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?
Loca
l
deve
lopm
ent
stra
tegy
Territory
Partnership
Other target groups
Participation methods
<50% public partners
<population>(number, density)
Contiguity
Territorial coherence
Viability and sustainability
Specific target groups (women, youth)
Juridical structure
Managementand financial
capacity
Communication policy
Composition and representativeness
Complementarity with other
programmes/ interventions
Internal coherence
Coherence with territory
Balance betweenindividual 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 elementin a coherent monitoring and quality assurance system
…it is therefore the monitoring andquality assurance system on which
the main focus should be put
Example (Austria): Quality Assurance in LEADER
Resu
lts Res
ou
rces
Implementation Processes Learning & Development
Gender balance in respect to participation
Youth participation
Participation and cooperation of municipalities
Se
lf-s
tee
rin
gQ
ua
lity
as
su
ran
ce
(L
AG
fu
nc
tio
ns
an
d p
roje
cts
)C
oo
rdin
ati
on
pro
ce
ss
es
Inn
ov
ati
on
Inte
rna
l c
oo
pe
rati
on
Te
rrit
ori
al
co
op
era
tio
nB
ala
nc
e o
f p
roje
cts
in
re
sp
ec
t to
pri
ori
tie
sM
ark
eti
ng
an
d c
om
mu
nic
ati
on
s
Pa
rticip
atio
n in
the
LE
AD
ER
ne
two
rk (E
U, n
atio
na
l, reg
ion
al)
Ca
pa
citie
s o
f loc
al a
cto
rs
Info
rma
tion
an
d k
no
wle
dg
e
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 ImpactOutput Results
If it were so easy.....
Output
Priority
Specific Objective
Activity
Expected Result
Results
Financial and technical
programme advancement
Assumption a
Impact(Indicators)
Indica
tors
Activity Indicator
Indicator
MC debates and decisions
Op
era
tio
na
l O
bje
cti
ve
Activity Indicator
Activity Indicator
Assumption b
Assumption c
Result IndicatorsUSE 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
www.oear.at
Download (on the European Contact Point Website): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/library/methodology/lukesch_handbook.pdf