Appendix IV
INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL
INSTITUTIONS (IDARI) IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES
PROJECT UNDER THE EU 5TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
Contract number: QLK5-CT-2002-02718
Integrated Cooperation for Tourism Development
– the case of the Jura River Initiative,
Lithuania
Subcontract 2, IDARI Workpackage 3, coordinated by Humboldt University
Romualdas Zemeckis
Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics
1
Vilnius, July 2005
I. Introduction and problem statement
During the transition process, rapid institutional change was evident in Lithuania as with
other Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The institutional context of
agriculture and rural society changed. Accession to the EU provided opportunities for
farmers and rural people to alter their practices. The PHARE 2000 - Economic and Social
Cohesion (ESC) project provided an incentive for communities to work together for a
common purpose. This required a learning process on behalf of applicants and
administrators; the exchange of information between rural people and state organisations;
and a communication process between all parties involved. The actors were required to
cooperate with each other, with the statutory agencies, programme implementers and
local communities. How these actors organised themselves, drawing from and building
upon their social capital is the focus of this study, within the context of creating a viable
tourism product on the Jura river. Here, within case study I define the ‘community’ as a
community of government officials, who work within the local administrative structures.
The aim of the PHARE 2000 ESC Programme is to encourage the development of the
country and the regions, sustaining economic and social cohesion; while the specific
purpose is to stimulate the development of entrepreneurship and the enhancement of
human resources. Taurage county is in the north-west of Lithuania. The PHARE 2000
ESC programme funded a project entitled the ‘tourism infrastructure for the Jura river
waterway’, involving cooperation between three municipalities within Taurage county
(Taurage, Silale and Pagegiai municipalities). Implementing the project required the
formation of a 140km water tourism route through the Jura and Nemunas rivers, and the
creation of the necessary facilities: setting up four equipment/rental points, building
twelve new campsites, investing in kayaks and canoes and marketing the project. The
project contributed to a neglected area of river tourism in Western Lithuania. The new
route was expected to increase the tourist numbers by between 30-40%. The Jura river
waterway project was the largest tourism development in Taurage County, although the
project was integrated into a larger plan for Lithuanian waterways – within the Lithuanian
National Programme of Tourism Development. The project is contributes to a larger
2
passenger water infrastructure – a passenger route between three counties Kaunas,
Taurage and Klaipeda – forming the ‘Nemunas Way’.
Rural development in transition countries is dependent on creating new social fields and
institution-building. With the transformed political and economic landscape, individuals
have to find and accept new rules and social norms for their interactions. Policy
intervention can affect institutional change and the PHARE 2000 Economic and Social
Cohesion (ESC) project in central and eastern European countries is an example of such
policy. PHARE 2000 created incentives for rural actors to access funding sources, given
certain constraints. Much research on post-socialist society stress the separation of
society into two spheres of activity – a public and private one (Herslund, 2001). This
implies the underdevelopment of civic society, and the lack of networks to bridging the
gap between rural inhabitants and communities and the State authorities. Thus when
social capital is defined in terms of networks of association (Bourdieu, 1986), it seems
there is a lack of such capital in central and eastern European countries. This is in spite of
high levels of trust at family or neighbourhood level. The western concept of active
participation in decision-making within policy formulation and implementation remains
problematic.
In this report we examine the experience of a community initiative in Lithuania, on the
Jura river. This project largely contributes to the development of a neglected field, that of
river tourism. The project also contributed to the strengthening civil society within the
region. To this end, a network was formed, incorporating a group of individuals who
worked collectively on this project.
The formation of interest groups, social movements, rural lobby and protest groups has
increased in recent times in developed countries (Diani and Mc Adam, 2003). Interest has
emerged in an understanding of their structures and dynamics. If a group of users can
determine its own membership – including those who agree to use natural resources
according to group rules, trust and reciprocity were established. Group boundaries are
frequently marked by well understood criteria, such as geographical community (Ostrom,
3
2000:149). However, Agraval and Gibson (1999) critique community based natural
resource management and point 2 out that a major stumbling block for achieving
successful policy implementation in this respect is due to the problems of defining
‘community’, despite the rhetoric in policy circles about increased participation. Khumar
(2005) stresses that in its most generic sense, the thinking of ‘community’ was at the
lowest level of aggregation at which people organise for common effort, such as a small
homogenous, harmonious and territorially bound unit. However, there is no universally
accepted definition of community, which means its use is abstract, and socially
constructed according to the context. This is important when considering targeting, access
to EU projects and empowerment of actors.
The movement toward community-development programmes in the 1950s and 1960s to
reduce poverty brought the term community into policy rhetoric, and is included as a
conventional management tool in many projects and programmes. Yet it is not clear the
extent to which ‘community’ can be delineated from State and market, for example.
Members of local government are embedded within their community, and form
communities of association.
Equally, markets are composed of groups and networks, which form a community of
exchange, which can occur on a very local level1. It is recognised that collective action is
shaped by social ties between prospective participants and embeddedness in specific
relational contexts (such as environment), which is conducive to forms of collective
action. The traditional sequential approach to group development and emergence stems
from Tuckman & Hensen’s (1977) model of five discrete phases of forming, storming,
norming, performing and adjourning.
Models offered within the subsequent literature proposed similar patterns, including:
defining a situation; development of new skills; developing appropriate roles for group
members; agreeing on goals and policies; conflict resolution; developing norms and rules
of engagement, performing tasks and maintaining coherence2. Juska et al (2005), uses a
resource mobilisation perspective for the emergence of ‘community’ groups in Lithuania,
4
that acknowledges the importance of pre-existing organisations, a favourable context of
political opportunity and access to key resources. In particular, causal explanations of
community movements are developed in their approach, based on the interaction of
structural and strategic factors. Among structural factors that facilitate collective actions,
the most important is the existence of pre-existing community networks (social networks
and organisations) within an aggrieved population. Strategic factors include planning,
leadership and an ability to capitalise on opportunities. Juska et al (2005) operationalised
community organising as a process of resource mobilisation occurring along two
dimensions simultaneously: diachronic3 and synchronic4.
This approach is appealing to studying group processes in CEE, as it takes an
evolutionary perspective, and allows for inclusion of historical factors, also allowing for
structural effects such as power within groups to be understood. Thus, institutions both
formal and informal are included, as are norms of group behaviour. It also provides a link
to theory on social capital, which is defined as ‘the norms and networks of civil society
that enable groups of individuals to cooperate for mutual benefit (and perhaps for broader
social benefit) and may allow social institutions to perform more productively’ (Putnam
1993:67). Putnam also makes a link between social capital and cooperation and argues
that cooperation is facilitated if a community has inherited a substantial stock of social
capital in the form of norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement.
There are other factors that affect cooperation, such as motivation (including trust and
reputation) and the likely benefits of cooperative behaviour. These more strategic factors
are explored in this paper, with particular reference to opportunities for rural people to
access EU funding. Thus the focus is on incentive led development, and the case study
elucidates how a network of individuals capitalised on an opportunity for EU funding.
The number of people who prefer spending their holidays in farmhouses all around
Lithuania climbed to 164,000 in 2003 from 120,000 in previous year. The majority of
rural tourism fans are travelling to Aukstaitija and Zemaitija ethnic regions. It is expected
that around 200,000 stays were in 2004. About 2 percent comes from other countries the
5
rest majority- Lithuanians. More than 1000 farms are offering this service; about 500 of
them are listed in the published directories. Every year this business is expanding about
150 percents. To satisfy the demand it is estimated that would be necessary to have about
2000 farms.
The rural tourism has developed into an independent business recently. The government
contributed a lot to promoting this type of business among local population. Besides, over
2 million litas (0.6 million euros) were allocated to rural tourism development in
Lithuania under the EU programs of SAPARD and PHARE. The EU funds are used both
for financing large and small projects.
II.
Objectives of the case study and case study hypotheses
In order to address The General Research Hypothesis of Work Package 3 is that the more
frequent and complete the communication between agents, the greater the cooperation,
secondary effect of the process, social capital were increased, communication affects
(enables or disables) the enforcement of social contracts between individuals. That is why
this research is trying to find answers to four main theoretical questions:
(a) How do trust, reputation and reciprocity, within a rural development sphere,
contribute to transaction cost theory in a non-market setting?
(b) How are power structures manifested and reproduced through collective action
within CEE rural development?
(c) How do different communication structures and strategies affect cooperative
outcomes in CEE rural development?
(d) How do agents learn to use information within the CEE rural development
process?
The aim of the is to make analysis of the project ‘’The tourism infrastructure for the Jura
river waterway’’. The research will seek to find out how the use social capital helped to
reach positive changes. The main attention was paid at the facts, how different initiators’
groups were able to cooperate with other groups, inside of every group in the period of
6
the project implementation. It were desirable to find out, who was the “moving force” of
the project idea, what other (if any) leaders showed up in the process of project creation
and implementation:
•
what sectors (governmental, business, NGO) they represented;
•
what methods they used to motivate and coordinate other participants in
work process.
It is important to answer the question, if leaders were tended to accept decisions alone or
tried to involve in the process of finding solutions as many people as it was possible. In
what extent participants were accepted the most important decisions?
The case study research will try to overlook social infrastructure: what institutions,
organizations participated in the project (for example, community centers, the association
of rural tourism, church, etc.). It were viewed the scheme, representative, what is
institutions function in the territory, which the project is covering, and how many from
these institutions directly or indirectly participated in the project: gave information or
ability to use computers, consultations, finances, etc.
Not only partnership relations inside one sector or with other sectors can reveal
cooperation between representatives: it is important to investigate, what proportion of
men and women, the youth and the older people were involved in the project. It is so
interesting to know, what motives stimulated different groups of initiators to participate
in the project: which motives were common, and which were single, individual. Did all
people understand alike and agreed with common goals?
The research will attempt to know, what contribution of different groups or persons was
to joint work. Maybe one group functioned in the project actively, and other groups were
more passive? In such way cooperation was unequal, and it is important to find out, for
what reasons it so happened: unequal physical and social capital, lack of motivation, one
group advantage over other groups, ability to trespass of one group’s weakness, etc.
7
It is important to evaluate social and physical capital of every group before the beginning
of project implementation and to see, in what ways people and capital were mobilized for
joint work in order to achieve goals. It is necessary to answer the question, how people
distributed their functions during planning and implementing the project and if decisions
were made democratically and accepted by common agreement?
As it was mentioned earlier, there is a probability, that there were some participants in the
project, who heavily and passively looked at the project and joint work. So it is important
to identify, if such people were stimulated to change their attitude and to participate more
active. If yes - by what measures.
For the reason that aspects of partnership would not be revealed jug-handled, it is
necessary to ascertain opinion of different groups about cooperation question: how
cooperation during project planning and development appreciate authority’s, NGO’s
(rural communities), businessmen. It is important to evaluate what the main obstacles
troubled or/and helped to cooperate, was it difficult to find compromise?
The research will try to find clear, what things every group in the project has learnt, if the
common and segregates goals of every group were reached, if groups achieved desirable
results. It is intended to find out if participants of the project are looking for the
partnership and cooperation in the future, if so - cooperation within old group or
interested in attracting new members.
The objectives and questions of research, mentioned above, include specific questions,
which are stated in Description of Workpackage 3:
•
Is there a mistrust of the State by the case-study community?
•
What levels of cooperation are evident between the State, local administrations,
community groups and other stakeholders?
•
Do people within the community trust each other?
•
Is there a redefinition of regional or community identity through the process of
participative rural development?
8
•
Do members of the community share similar perspectives on the development
process (is there evidence of sharing mental models, and collective learning?)
•
Which stakeholders are happy with the rural development process?
Study was be done by using questionnaire which is provided in the annex.
III. Unit of analysis - Presentation of the Region of Taurage
county
On June 19, 1994, the Seym of Lithuania enacted the law of Lithuania territory
administrative units and their limits. According to that law, the territory of Lithuania was
divided into administrative units, which consists of inhabited localities. Ten counties
were validated in Lithuania according to the law; they were the counties of Alytus,
Kaunas, Klaipeda, Marijampole, Panevezys, Siauliai, Taurage, Telsiai, Utena and
Vilnius.As it is very clear from the administrative map presented below in Lithuania are
sixty big municipalities.
9
Akmene dist.
Alytus
Alytus dist.
Anyksciu dist.
Birstonas dist.
Birzai dist.
Druskininkai
Elektrenai
Ignalina dist.
Jonava dist.
Joniskis dist.
Jurbarkas dist.
Kaisiadorys dist.
Kalvarijos
Kaunas
Kaunas dist.
Kazlu Ruda
Kelme dist.
Kedainiai dist.
Klaipeda
Klaipeda dist.
Kretinga dist.
Kupiskis dist.
Lazdijai dist.
Marijampole
Mazeikiai dist.
Moletai dist.
Neringa
Pagegiai
Pakruojis dist.
Palangos
Panevezys
Panevezys dist.
Pasvalys dist.
Plunge dist.
Prienai dist.
Radviliškis dist.
Raseiniai dist.
Rietavas
Rokiškis dist.
Skuodas dist.
Sakiai dist.
Salcininkai dist.
Siauliai
Siauliai dist.
Silalė dist.
Silutė dist.
Sirvintos dist.
Svencionys dist.
Taurage dist.
Telsiai dist.
Trakai dist.
Ukmerge dist.
Utena dist.
Varena dist.
Vilkaviskis dist.
Vilnius
Vilnius dist.
Visaginas
Zarasai dist.
Taurage county includes the territories of Taurage, Silale, Jurbarkas districts and
Pagegiai regions municipality. Taurage is the administrative center of the county.
According to the population the county is the smallest in the country, and according to
the size of the area it is next-to-last before Telsiai.
According to the population census taken in 2001 the population of the county was 134
273. The density is 30,4 citizens per1 sq. km; 47,6% of them are men, 52,4% - women.
Taurage district is an agricultural land. Forests occupy about one third of the territory. As
for production and export, dressmaking, food and drink, woodwork and timber
processing are the most important branches of industry. In 1998 Taurage County has been
accepted to the Assembly of the European Regions. The county is the member of the
Euro-region “Saule” since 1999.
Taurage County covers the southern part of the ethnographic region of Zemaitija. Total
county area is 4411,5 sq. km, 96 sq. km of which are towns and villages, 75 sq. km –
industrial enterprises and roads, 2480 sq. km –agricultural areas, 1289 sq. km –forests,
103 sq. km –water, 368 sq. km – other areas.
Geographical position of the district is excellent: the territory is crossed by the railway
Radviliskis – Siauliai – Sovetsk (Russian Federation), there is also a good
10
communication with Latvia – only 230 km to its capital Riga and 180 km to Kaliningrad.
The highway Vilnius – Klaipeda goes beside the northern periphery of the county; the
Nemunas, suitable for river navigation, flows beside the southern periphery; motorway
Saint-Petersburg – Siauliai – Taurage – Kaliningrad goes to the north – southwest
direction, crossing the center of the county – Taurage. It is important not only as a means
of communication, but it also has a historical meaning as the “Hanza” merchant route.
Jurbarkas district, occupying the area of 150,8 thousand hectares, is situated on the
rightward bank of the river Nemunas. According to the population census taken in 2001
there were 37 786 citizens. There are 25,1 citizens for 1 sq. km. Jurbarkas is the centre
located in the confluence of the rivers Nemunas, Mituva and Imsre. The region is divided
into 11 neighbourhoods. Larger settlements are approximately 10 km apart from each
other.
The total area of Silale district is 118,8 thousand hectares. Agricultural area occupies 68,3
thousand hectares, forests – 29,5 thousand hectares, water – 3,0 thousand hectares. The
population is 31 570. Overall majority is Lithuanians (99%). Centre of the district is
Silale.
Taurage district covers the area of 118 thousand hectares. Its population is 52711.
werewereLocated in the Pajuris lowland near the river Nemunas, Pagegiai municipality
occupies the area of 53,7 thousand hectares. It is a part of Taurage County and it is the
youngest municipality of the county, as it was established on the 21st of December 1999.
According to the population census taken in 2001 there were 12 244 citizens. Pagegiai
municipality is divided into five neighborhoods, integrating 110 villages.
Regional development is the most important of all administrative activities of the County
Governor. In 2003, the administration of Taurage county prepared a new development
plan for Taurage region for 2004 – 2006, which meets the requirements of the Lithuanian
Single Programming Document. This plan endeavours to reconstruct the economical
11
system of the county and to assure a harmonious social and economic development in the
context of the integration of the country in EU.
Regional waste management system, which meets the requirements of EU, is 70%
financed by EU ISPA programme, and is being established in the county. The
Administration of the County Governor successfully implements PHARE 2000
Economical and Social Cohesion Programme. At the moment 32 projects are being
implemented in the region. They have received 6 million LTL. subsidies from PHARE
Programme. Agriculturalists and businesspeople of the county efficiently use the support
of EU SAPARD: they have applied with 61 projects for 62 million LTL.
Material investments grow annually in the county: in 2002 they made approximately 100
million LTL. Direct foreign investment fluctuates very slightly. Annually it forms about
20 million LTL. Investors are expected in the following sectors of the region: timber and
furniture, textile, food and beverages, tourism, trade, building and country tourism.
It is expected that implementing the project financed by PHARE 2000 ESC
Identification and Promotion of Investment Sites in Klaipeda – Taurage Region” 55 new
selected and estimated sites suitable for purposive investments (“Greenfield” and
“Brownfield”) will improve the investment climate in the region and the number of
foreign direct investments will increase.
The integration of the Republic of Lithuania into EU in 2004 will open the door to new
business development prospects in Taurage county as well. The support of the EU funds
will allow improving the facilities of the region and will give specific support to
agricultural, industrial and other sectors.
The county has been actively preparing for the integration into EU economic and cultural
space during the recent years. In 1998 it became a member of the Assembly of the
European Regions; it participates in the activities of the Euro-region “Saule”; since 1999
it has been identified as PHARE 2000 Economic – Social Cohesion (ESC) Programme
as a target region; it takes part in SAPARD and ISPA programmes, too.
12
The support of the PHARE 2000 ESC Programmes is rendered to 3 target regions:
Klaipeda – Taurage, Marijampole and Utena. The aim of the Programme is to encourage
the development of the country and the regions sustaining economic and social cohesion;
the specific purpose is to stimulate the development of entrepreneurship and the
enhancement of human resources through Business Development Fund and Human
Resources Development Fund giving support for the encouragement of business
development in the target regions.
Enterprises and organizations of the county signed contracts to receive the sum of 4,5
million LTL. (1,3 million EUR) subsidies in Business Development Fund and Human
Resources Development Fund. Taurage, Jurbarkas and Silale businesspeople were
especially active in participating. The gained experience together with new ideas and
projects were helpful now , when Lithuania joined EU and starts applying for EU
structural funds support.
Other 1,5 million LTL subsidies are received after the centralized implementation of
PHARE 2000 ESC Programme measures, i. e. – establishing Women’s Employment
Centres, implementing Distance Learning System, instituting Investment Sites and
executing analysis of Labour Market.
According to the project of ISPA waste mangement system the county receives
approximately 17 million LTL subsidies. Until 2003 17 million LTL subsidies have been
already received from SAPARD Programme. This financial support will undoubtedly
raise the social and economic level of the county and will increase business ventures both
in towns and in villages.
Seeking to receive the support of PHARE 2000 ESC Programme applications were to be
submitted according to separate supported measures. Taurage county business companies,
service providers and public offices applied to receive the support of Business Fund
according to those measures: “Creation of new business start-ups and promotion of
13
entrepreneurship”, and “Promoting competitiveness of existing business enterprises” .
According to the first measure, 10 applications were received in Taurage county. 5 of
them, i.e. 50% were successful. L. Dragunaviciene Individual Enterprise (Jurbarkas), N.
Gorodeckaja IE (Pagegiai), JSC “Taunorva” (Taurage), JSC “Zumpe ir Ko” (Taurage)
and Public Institution Taurage Business Information Centre. According to the second
measure,22 applications were received in Taurage county. Evaluation Committee
positively evaluated 14 of them, i.e. 63%; contracts were signed with those authors of the
projects as well.
Business Development Fund granted 12084800 LTL (3500000 EUR) to KlaipedaTaurage target region. According to the first and the second means, Taurage county
received a 2 456 340 LTL (711 982,67 EUR) subsidy (which is 20,3% of total sum for
the joint region amount).
According to the measure of Human Resources Development Fund “Elaboration of
training programmes, delivery of training, provision of advise services for employers,
employees and unemployed”, Taurage county received 17 applications. 7 projects, i.e.
41%, were positively evaluated; contracts were signed with the authors. Total sum of the
subsidies given to Taurage county from this fund is 927 025 LTL (268 485 EUR), i.e.
31,58% of the whole 2 million 935 thousand LTL sum of the joint target region amount.
Another one measure of Business Development Fund in PHARE 2000 ESC Programme
is Tourism Development, the aim of which is encouraging economic development in the
tourism sector. An exceptional attention is being paid to implementing tourism facilities,
as today it does not quite meet the needs of the region.
There were 5 projects in Taurage County submitted by the municipalities of the county. 3
projects were awarded by grant and contracts were signed. Total sum of subsidies granted
for Tourism Development in Taurage County makes 1 million 126 thousand LTL (326
075 EUR), i.e. 42,9% of the sum of the joint region tender.
14
Tourism activities should considerably intensify and tourist flows should increase after
implementation of the projects. Information signs and billboards were installed along
the tourist routes. As it is planned in the projects, after forming concrete tourist routes it
were much easier to control individual as well as organized tourists who will obviously
choose the provided and ready tourist routes. This will reduce “wild” tourism, i.e.
holidaymakers who travel to preserved areas, foul and desolate nature, ignoring
prohibitions and warnings.
All in all 28 projects, either wholly or partially financed by PHARE 2000 ESC
Programme, have started to be pursued in 2002 – 2003 in Taurage County. Total sum of
the subsidies granted to the projects in Taurage county amounts 4 495 130 LTL.
European Union exercises politics the aim of which is reducing the differences between
the economic and social development in EU countries. Taurage county being chosen as a
target region while implementing PHARE 2000 Programme, participation in ISPA,
SAPARD and TINA programmes, raising foreign investments by the means of preparing
objects, building new companies and organizing facilities, makes a great influence on the
further development of the county. A significant attention is given to the enhancement of
the human factor and to implementing information technologies so that the citizens of the
county would learn to take care of themselves just like people in EU as well as in the rest
of the world do.
One of the main prerequisites for improving the economic – and social situation after
becoming a member of EU is getting the support from EU Structural funds. This support
were provided on the basis of Single Programming Document ( SPD) prepared by
Lithuania. The financial support provided on the basis of SPD through Structural funds
gives regions much wider financing opportunities than the present PHARE “Economic
and Social Cohesion Programme”, ISPA and SAPARD – not only due to a much larger
extent of support, but also due to much wider range of financed areas. The experience of
the officials of the county, business subjects and non-governmental organizations
implementing PHARE 2000 ESC, SAPARD and ISPA programmes significantly
increased the county administrative and human resource abilities while administrating EU
15
support. Therefore, Taurage County rendered many serious projects to Lithuanian SPD
for 2004 – 2006 according to all 12 SPD trends. The experience gained while
participating in different EU programmes were a great help in implementing new projects
financed by EU Structural funds and will raise economic, social and cultural level of the
county.
Three municipalities of the Taurage county – Taurage, Silale and Pagegiai – are
implementing the project financed by PHARE 2000 ESC Programme. The “Tourism
infrastructure for the Jūra river waterway” is part of the main tourist route in Klaipeda –
Taurage region, Nemunas way. Implementing the project will include forming a new 140
km water tourism route via the rivers Jura and Nemunas, and creating the necessary
facilities: establishing of 4 equipment rental points, building of 12 new campsites,
buying 10 one-person and 10 two-person kayaks, and 20 canoes. Besides, 4000 flyers
about the new water route are published in Lithuanian, English and Russian. This project
will largely contribute to the development of a neglected field in tourism – river tourism –
in western Lithuania. The new route is expected to increase the tourist rush by 30-40% in
Taurage and the surrounding regions. Probably the greater part of tourists were
Scandinavian, German, Polish, Latvian citizens and people from Kaliningrad as well as
tourists taking Hanza way. The project will have a positive impact on the development of
small and medium business (especially accommodation and dining.
This is the largest project on tourism development in the Taurage county, the
accomplisher of which is the administration of the administration of Jurbarkas
municipality. It intends to start the construction of a stationary pier in Jurbarkas. The
construction fits into the National Programme of Tourism Development, which includes a
project of reconstruction and development of passenger water transport facilities in
Kaunas, Taurage and Klaipeda counties. Forming Nemunas way facilities will encourage
the development of inland water transport and passenger – tourist navigation, and will
stimulate the development of country tourism in the Nemunas riverside regions. The total
value of the project makes 1 322 110 LTL.
16
The project of the administration of Pagegiai municipality won the tender for financial
support, which is now used in tourism infrastructure development in Rambynas regionalpark. During the project implementation period 2 parking and information lots were
constructed near the most popular resorts, 1 riverside resort in the recreational zone and 2
short-term recreation resorts near Bitezeris. There are plans in the project to renovate 1
km length road and to install a 200 m bridge to enable tourists approach the natural
monument “Raganu egles”, also to project a 6 km skiing track on the Vilkyskiai ridge. 6
information screens were built in the park as well as 50 information-directive signs.
The most industrialized part of the county is Taurage; other parts of the county are
agrarian. About 10% of all employable citizens of the county work in industrial
companies. The most important parts of the industrial production are these: peat,
industrial wood, furniture, meat and milk, bread and confectionery, dressmaking industry
production, bricks for building and drains. The sale of the industrial production of the
county as well as export has significantly grown during past years. In 2001 the industrial
production was sold for 234 million LTL, and the export made 109 million LTL.
Taurage county is the land of both intensive agriculture and stock raising. There are 248,3
thousand hectares of agricultural land in the territory of the county, 196,8 thousand
hectares of which are arable, and 48,5 thousand hectares are meadows and pastures.
Approximately 18% citizens work in agricultural sphere; more than 5,5 thousand farms
are registered. The most fertile land suitable for farming is in Jurbarkas region. Silale and
part of the Taurage region together with Nemunas water meadows in the Pagegiai
municipality are lands of less favourable farming, therefore milk farms are being settled
in those areas. Berries are to be reared there, and infertile land is going to be planted with
forest.Two large pig-breeding complexes are successfully working in the area: SC
“Dainiai” (Jurbarkasdistrict ) and SC “Vingininkai” (Silale district).
Civil servants of Taurage county municipalities were the main actors representing
municipalities on county and district level in this study. They were from Taurage, Silale
17
and Pagegiai. Their work was in economy departments of municipalities. Their roles
were divided between county and district level.
Local officials were persons who are working in the smallest administrative unit
seniunijos. They took part in the project implementation as supporters of the idea. The
same was with politicians. NGO representatives, bussinesmen were not very active in this
field of study. Initiators of the project, Business information Centre, Phare staff involved
in the project also was evaluated and interwieved
IV. Methodology and Analytical Framework
During this research were two levels of analysis: institutional context and detailed case
study of selected project initiative. Mainly was used qualitative approach, only in some
parts quantitative approach was used. The following methodology was used:
Desk research – this would give a more detailed and correct picture of the rural tourism
in Lithuania, Western Lithuania and especially in Taurage county. It was used wereat the
beginning phase of research. Results gained through this are important part of
identification existing new developments in the area of rural tourism. The research was
be based on: publications, working documents, project descriptions other available
documents and reports from different institutions. Especially useful is going to be project
financed by PHARE 2000 ESC Programme “Tourism infrastructure for the Jūra river
waterway”. The description, reports and other available information. Based on the info
collected the questionnaires for interviews were prepared.
In depth interviews with key actors – Sampling method “snow bowl” was used to
identify key actors which are presented in the chapter “Visual presentation of the actors”
in this paper and if confirmed by the results from the desk research were interviewed. The
following interviews were done:
•
Civil servants responsible for economic development in the municipalities of
Tauragė-1, Šilalė-1 , Pagėgiai- 1;
18
•
Local officials- heads of smallest administrative units seniunija: Pagramantis-1,
Žygaičiai-1;
•
Politicians- Head of Taurage county –1;
•
Head of Taurage rajon – 1;
•
NGO’s representative- person working in the office of Lithuanian Rural Tourism
Association –1,
•
Businessman who has a boat renting business –1,
•
Initiator and coordinator of the project – 1,
•
Staff of Business information and tourism information centers –1
Questionnaire – for interviews was used the same questionnaire which is presented in
annex.
Analysis of secondary data. Some reports articles in the local newspapers and other
material from the project was used.
Document analysis. Seeking to have broader view about project participants’
cooperation and about the whole project process was planned to use and analyze
particular documentary: protocols of meetings, documents which attest acceptance of
some decisions. Documents, revealing project participators’ social and physical capital,
are important too (participants’ education, professional position, experience, financial
contribution, etc.). But meetings of the project were not documented that is why was not
possible to use.
V.
Visual presentation of the actors
From the study results is possible to see that Taurage county was very active and
successful to participate in different programs and initiatives which helped them to
receive financial support from different funds. Some of the projects were related with
tourism and specifically in rural areas.
19
It is very interesting to see how three
municipalities of the Taurage county – Taurage,
Silale and Pagegiai – are implementing project
financed by PHARE 2000 ESC Programme
“Tourism infrastructure for the Jūra river
waterway”. The route starts in Silale district and
then the sailing might be done through the
territories of Taurage rural district and the locality
of Pagegiai is possible to reach the river Nemunas.
In this study was examined role of Taurage county
administration, local municipalities (Taurage,
Silale, Jurbarkas) wereexamined. Other institutions
which are interesting to look at are tourism
20
information centres, agricultural advisory service, schools, non governmental
organisations, businessmen. Their role on involvement in this project rural tourism
initiative were be examined. The linkages with preparation and implementation of Rural
Tourism Strategy of Western Lithuania also going to be addressed. Having in the mind
financial possibilities the main study work is going to be in Taurage, but depending on
the need other locations were covered too.
This project is an example of cooperation around a rural tourism initiative, within a
Taurage county. From the preliminary findings is possible to see that were possible to
identify and document the processes of communities cooperation amongst Taurage, Silale
and Pagegiai and possibly to find links with other municipalities. werewere
From preliminary examination is possible to say that this project was and cooperation
emerged as a result mainly because of possibilities of PHARE but the original idea
existed before. The following actors vere recognized as key actors:
1)
Civil servants of municipalities – actors representing municipalities on county and
district level. They were from Taurage but also from Silale and Pagegiai. Concrete
actors in this category were identified through their direct involvement and work
related with tourism, also of their work in relevant departments of above-mentioned
institutions. Main role of this category of actors is ensuring implementation of
directives of Mayors, county Heads and of course Lithuanian Government. They are
participating in the process of establishing and modification of institutional context
is related to executing existing state law on the local level, initiating or facilitating
initiatives related with rural tourism development, keeping contacts with the leaders
of the initiatives, businessmen etc. in the local area. Especially interesting how roles
are divided between county and district level.
2)
Local officials- persons who are working in the smallest administrative unit
seniunijos. The were identified and their activities in connection with the project
these links were described.
3)
Politicians – persons who are elected in the local self government or national
parliament and in one or other way influenced the initiation, preparation or
21
implementation of rural tourism initiatives. Actions made by these actors sometimes
are important and as a result “pushing” forward new developments in the area.
4) NGO’s representatives – the role of “Lithuanian association of rural tourism” and
other (if they are related with project) business associations are addressed in the
study.
5) Businessmen – individuals who were/are participating in the project, were providing
their services to prepare or implement the project. Persons who directly were
involved in the project and are benefiting/using project results. For example renting
boats etc. Other group of businessmen who had possibility/were invited or offered
to participate in the project but were not interested.
6) Initiators of the initiative – persons who had the project idea. It was a Head of
Business Information and tourism information center of Taurage. He was supported
by his colleagues of the Centre.
7) Coordinators of the project – persons who were preparing and implementing the
project. It was the same as project initiator- a Head of Business Information and
tourism information center of Taurage.
8) Staff of Business information and tourism information centers – persons who are
working at Business information or at Tourism information centers. Their role and
opinion about the project and actions. One person was very actively involved as
technical assistant.
9) Phare staff- Person working for Phare office in Vilnius. There was a person who was
assisting with advice to prepare the project documentation.
22
VI. Determinants, Effects and Processes of Cooperation and
Social Capital formation
a.
Role of trust/mistrust and opportunism (social and institutional)
In this section the levels of trust between the actors (informal) and also trust in the state
institutions (formal) are presented. The analysis of the the extent to which trust,
reputation and reciprocity are used as sanctioning mechanisms within the process of
achieving cooperation is done. The hypothesis is tested is that where trust in formal
institutions is low, high transaction costs are experienced in dealing with the State
(formal institutions), and actors will rely on informal institutions to solve their problems
of collective action.
Research question: Are high levels of trust an effective means of reducing transaction
costs within the case study? How important is trust in the development of social contract
theory? Below are comments and interpretations of answers received during interviews.
All respondents said that most of the people that most people can be trusted and only in
some cases they had cases when they had to be careful. But these are criminal cases and
if you are careful unpleasant situations could be avoided.
Everybody did all the best depending on their abilities and nobody felt obligated to
somebody who was involved in preparation and implementation of the project. Some of
the people (coordinator, Head of the Taurage county felt obligated to the PHARE office
for assistance and advice in preparing and advising to implement the project.
Nobody had an experience to have problems in dealing with any members of the Jura
waterway project in the past. That is why was no bad memories or other affect their
behaviour toward them.
23
They also didn’t heard of any other trouble/problems (that they were not necessarily
involved in) between people involved in preparation and implementation of the project.
Only when the project was implemented the initiator of the project left his work at
Information Centre where he was working as Head. The explanation of this might be that
he wanted to initiate new projects and had no support. From other hand for the
administration he was as a person who is difficult to control and who was going beyond
his area of work. Maybe there was opinion that anybody could do the same or better as he
did with the project. But the result is now that no other projects are initiated and he is
working for other organisations as an adviser.
The main reason why people cooperate with other in the project was indicated the need to
prepare and to implement the project. All paper work, support documents and writing,
collecting info, preparing sites etc was done by different people. All of them were
involved because that they were asked to help by project coordinator. The coordinator
was the main “moving force”.
Everybody knew only head of Taurage administration and each other who were working
at Taurage administration. But the rest people related with Jura waterway project prior to
becoming involved with the activities of the project didn’t know each other well. So they
had a chance to know each other during the project preparation and implementation. In
average I can say that knew a few of them. In what capacity did they know these people?
The majority were acquainted with them or had heard of the people but had no contact
with them. They know each other (for those that you knew well, or were acquainted with)
between 1 and 10 years.
The cooperation on this project was necessity. But all in general were satisfied with
working with other members of their community for this project/initiative when they had
to do something. Of course they wouldn’t cooperate with these people if there was no
project. Most of the were public servants but this project was their voluntary initiative. At
least of coordinator it was very strongly expressed.
24
To answer what expectations did you have of people within the project group the answers
were very different depending on the person: to try something new, to realise idea, to see
if it really works etc. Most of them said that they were interested to try to apply and
implement the project under these new conditions related with EU.
Of course
expectations also were different but all had belief that project was successful. The
expectations from each other were that they would do what they are asked to do.
Everybody involved had goodwill amongst the group. Suspicious about the project results
people were outside the group ant it is because lack of info about the conditions and other
organisational things.
What benefits do you get by trusting the people you cooperate with? The answers were
very similar and the meaning was that the result of trust is an exchange of trust. In other
words if you trust somebody this person trust you and in in future you both going to
benefit. There we no relatives or similar ways of relation (for example boyfriend or
girlfriend) among any of the members of the group.
What would be your reaction if persons with whom you were preparing or implementing
the Jura waterway project broke your trust (or did not behave as you expected them to) in
them? It didn’t happen but if this would happen this person would be replaced by other
who would do the work. Of course in administration it is not easy to do especially if this
person would be a head of administration. But in such case other person with similar
authorities and powers would be asked to do the work or cooperate.
There were no objections to cooperate with other people who were not part of the project
group (for example if the group expanded in size). In fact here was no such a formal
group which we might call a group. I am using “group” when talking about people who
were mostly involved in project preparation and implementation.
The geographical distance between people didn’t affects willingness to work with other
people in projects/initiatives such as this. The distance is very relative factor. Of course
25
the easiest way to work was indicated among people who are working in the same office
and can see each other almost every day. Distance is related with frequency of contacts
and if persons are located in different buildings or cities it makes big difference. Among
other factors that would affect willingness to work with other people were mentioned
belonging to the same church or knowing family members or being friends.
Everybody were expecting that the government or government agencies should help to
prepare and implement project and achieve its objectives. It was because of project
nature and because that most or the participants were public servants. There was also
expectation that some of the problems related with the Jura project should be solved by
the national government/local government or state agencies. Of course they also indicated
that man group members also should do efforts to solve the problems by themselves and
only if is not possible to solve them the next step was to ask help from administration.
The group tried to get help from the government or state agencies when was necessary to
ensure lobbying and to guarantee local contribution to the project budget. The result was
not very fast but at the end very positive. There was a believe that the government is
helping or acting in the best interests of the group.
There was not very clear understanding and trust the European Union and its laws more
than the laws from national Government. In general everybody agreed that EU laws are
more democratic but no specific experience and knowledge managed to show.
Most of the persons were public servants and had good knowledge how public
administration is functioning. The criticism was that dealing (transacting) with State
agencies (Ministry of Agriculture, Police, Court System, local government, etc) is slow
process and requires being patient, good knowledge were to find right information or
assistance they need. Knowing right people or hawing friends, former co-workers etc. is
very helpful if is a need to do business with the state agencies. How would they rank the
experience you had with each State agency? Most of the answers were between
somewhat satisfied, what was to be expected and somewhat dissatisfied. But nobody was
26
commenting this issue. Average answers to the question: How much do you trust the
following:
•
Local government officials -to a very great extent;
•
National government officials -to a small extent
•
The European Union (its institutions and officials) -to a great extent;
•
project initiator- to a very great extent.
During the project preparation was a serious problem related with the project co financing
from local government: local contribution of 10 percent. In order to receive this
contribution was necessary to get approval from local administrations. It is a slow process
and there was a danger that it could be to late before project submission deadline. Thank
to support Head of Taurage county administration this question was included into agenda
(normally it could take much longer) and approved.
There were no conflicts in the group. But if to consider minor disagreements among
members of the group it is mainly because most common differences in education and old
and young generations, and differences in information level.
How would you feel if a serious conflict threatened the project/initiative? What would
you do to redress it? These questions were not very clearly answered. One thing was only
mentioned that is necessary to have a meeting and talk about the problem.
Main motivation to participate in the project and to cooperate was to achieve the result:
to prepare and implement the project. To support this idea and to make it real. There was
also possible to receive some financial reward. But this possibility was only for the
coordinator and people who were technically helping to prepare project documents and
later to implement the project.
How did you become involved with the project/initiative? (were they the initiator,
approached by someone, heard about it through a friend/colleague?) The main person was
coordinator who was playing the main role. He knew some people in the admistrations
27
who were supporting his idea. Mainly he build up the network and group who was
working on this project. The rest were asked to help in different ways.
What does the following sentence mean to you? ‘I am part of the Jura waterway
project/initiative’. Coordinator said that it is his “child”. Most answered that, now when
the project is implemented they are proud that had a chance some how to implement this
project. Most defined their involvement with the Jura waterway project/initiative as usual
work where they did something unusual.
For coordinator it was very much time consuming work because that many things were
new and he spend much time learning.. especially PHARE procedures are complicated
and takes much time to understand all this paper work required to do. Some of this makes
no sense to do but the procedures are requiring and not much is possible to do. The main
comment from others were that should be much simply way to prepare the project. It is
one of the main criticism to EU: loads of useless paperwork or documents. It is necessary
to be very patient and not to drop everything in the middle of the process. Coordinator
said that he expected that results could be better as it was. He was expecting that project
would have second stage or could get more finances. But the rest were very satisfied.
What do you understand by the statement ‘the Jura waterway project/initiative has had a
positive change for me’? All answers were very similar and had relation with learning
new things starting with paper work and ending with knowing about new financial
possibilities.
Statement ‘the Jura waterway project/initiative has had a positive change for the local
community’ by all was understood in the same way: that new tourist route was developed
and that this project is going to be followed by other similar projects. If this project is
going to attract tourists it also has had a positive change for the competitiveness of the
area/region. If the project were beginning again, and knowing what that now know about
how it works, they would still join it again. Especially project coordinator was positive
about this.
28
Some of the administration people were thinking that coordinator within the group was
benefiting the most and was benefiting dis-proportionally from his involvement. But he
said that some people were jealous. He was doing most of the work the rest were only
assisting. That is why people involved in the group were not equally committed to the
objectives of the group and doing the work. The only way which was indicated how to
insure that others in the group do not take advantage of you was to do if they are asked
and felt that it is right. The feeling, if somebody is using or not was: neither important nor
unimportant.
To the question: what would you do if you thought that someone was treating you
unfairly within the group? Answer was that they would try avoid communicating with
this person.
On the base of present knowledge and experience, what people would change in
functioning of the project/initiative in order to improve and make it more profitable for
all participants the answer in one or another was the same: have more discussions.
The ranking the relative importance of the following factors affecting [the cooperation or
conflict, which is the focus of the case study] ?
‫־‬
High levels of trust within the community- somewhat important
‫־‬
Past experiences of all stakeholders with working together- not important
‫־‬
Having a highly motivated group of people/community who are willing to
cooperate- somewhat important
‫־‬
Having good communication between all actors- Very important
‫־‬
Keeping well informed and having enough information to make decisionssomewhat important
‫־‬
Actors understanding each other and sharing the same objectives- somewhat
important;
‫־‬
Involvement of governmental agencies in the process- Very important
‫־‬
Active involvement of the local community- not important;
29
‫־‬
Market driven incentives for cooperation- Very important.
Conclusion: High levels of trust an effective means of reducing transaction costs
within the case study. The trust was an important factor in all situations. It is an
empirical conclusion based on observations and answers from actors who were
communicating informally in very formal and bureaucratically organised institutions.
b.
Role of communication and learning
This section will detail the communication structures in place, which facilitates
cooperation. The hypothesis that the more frequent and complete the communication
between agents, the greater the cooperation is tested.
Research questions: Is communication used as a source of power by central actors within
the case study, in terms of opportunism by limiting access to information? Is there a
process of inclusive collective learning amongst all actors (social learning and sharing
mental models)? How do actors learn to use information within a changing institutional
setting? Below are presented and commented answers from questionnaire.
The discussion among all actors were not very frequent about issues relating to the
project/initiative. Only when was a need to meet the meeting was called of few persons.
The usual work was done by coordinator who was meeting other people involved in the
project. In reality there was no formal group formed.
Coordinator said that probably he spent too much time on the project. But at the same
time he said that is was a learning process and tagging into account this learning
factor/benefit is a fair/ok amount of time. The rest of interviewed said that probably they
spent too little time but there was no need to spend more. All would you be willing to
give up more time to achieve the objectives of the project if there would be a situation
which would demand this. There was no intensive dialogue amongst the group members.
30
Only on rare occasions were discussions were several people were present. Usually
communication and discussion was among coordinator and some people.
The project idea was simple and all felt they are sharing common understandings with the
other people related with the project/ members of the group. Probably not everybody in
detail understood toward what the project is trying to achieve, how it should be achieved,
and what others within the group think of this process but they didn’t feel a need to know
more. They felt comfortable with this.
The main person was a coordinator of the project who kept everyone within the group
informed of any changes or developments. He was keeping contact with others by
meeting them, sending and sharing info, making phone calls etc. Everybody felt that there
was enough info to be involved in the project. Form other hand there was no problem to
receive information from other group members if it was necessary for project preparation
or implementation.
There were no meetings either formal or informal, organised to discuss the
cooperation/project/initiative where all involved would be present. Everybody told that
there was no need for this. They felt comfortable with the info and ideas exchange made
via coordinator. The main mode of communication was verbal, written and telephone.
Internet was used to send e-mails in rare cases. The most effective mode of
communication was verbal during the meeting or via phone.
Overall everybody described their level of satisfaction with how the group communicates
as very satisfied. Only coordinator was somewhat satisfied and the reason was that for
him was a very time consuming to meet and inform other members of the group about
new developments in the project every time when he was talking to other people. It could
be much simply if meetings would be organised regularly with all involved. But the
project was not very big and to built structures was no need. That is why the time people
spend going to meetings, sharing information with the group and generally keeping
informed of the groups’ activities was a satisfactory amount of time.
31
The main difficulties they experience in communicating with others in the group were
related with lack of time. Everybody was busy doing other activities and not always had
a time really to be involved or spend enough time to get into details about the project.
They think that there was enough information available. There was no feeling of
disadvantage that others know more than they knew.
There were no similar projects at that moment going on, but Coordinator several time met
and consulted with similar PHARE projects in order to learn preparation and
implementation procedures. These contacts and meetings were very much useful, because
that was not easy to understand all these complicated procedures and to see how they can
be implemented in practice. All this paper work in many cases took most of the time and
efforts. Others were not very much interested in such information and experience and had
no interest to meet similar groups/projects. The main contact people from other groups
were either project coordinators or employed by project (if the project was big enough)
persons.
Members of the group were employed by governmental organisations and of course they
had contact with government agencies. Concerning project activities they also had to
work with governmental agencies. The main person to keep these contacts was from
within the group was coordinator.
Besides coordinator other members of the group had no contact with other people who
were preparing/ implementing similar projects. They didn’t feel a need to do this because
that everything very efficiently was done by coordinator. The reason why coordinator had
to communicate with these groups was to get advice how to prepare and implement
project in practice. In other words it was a form of learning and the main benefits was
knowledge.
Among the most important sources of new ideas for the group were visits in other regions
and especially in foreign countries. Especially it is important to see similar things about
32
tourism in the places were this industry is already developed. Another important source
of ideas was workshops and conferences.
There were not specific groups or people identified that the project/initiative would
benefit from through greater collaboration. There also was no identification a blockage in
the sharing of information, where cooperation could be enhanced or achieved if there was
more information.
The language was used Lithuanian. But language was not a barrier to communication in
the broadest sense of the word. All members understood what is being discussed. Only at
the beginning new terms like “project” some PHARE procedures were not clear and took
some time to understand. The policy context within which they are operating was not a
problem.
Nobody mentioned that there were some people within the group who withhold
information. Everybody who living within the community who was asked to help the
project if they had time and resources available they did all the best and helped. They
were not a part of the group at that time.
Most of the information which is being communicated between the group was technical
information. This was considered as the most important information that requires
communicating amongst the group. By technical information was understood necessary
documents which needs to be filled according to PHARE rules. Most of the information
had coordinator but this didn’t affect the activities of the group.
Only coordinator knew all group members. The level of knowing was different. Basically
he knew who these people are and what they can do for the project. He was interested in
their abilities and limitations. Very often it was related with their position in the
administrative structure. The rest of the group members knew others on lover level:
basically they know the name and occupation besides the project.
33
Group members had a possibility to meet each other and to learn more about each other
during the project. But this was more or less formal. It didn’t affect or changed their
behaviour since joining the group/project/initiative. Only coordinator, who was very
intensively involve was affected the most. He also changed a little his attitude toward
your community since joining the group/project/initiative. When the project was
successful he was inspired to prepare and implement more projects. But later when
disagreements with administration appeared he focused his interest and work in other
regions and is happy about it.
The most important thing what was learned was indicated experience to prepare projects
and use PHARE and similar EU funds money. It was important now when Lithuania is
joining EU to know what kind of rules and possibilities are working. All indicated that
this experience is very important going to be in the future. There was no big problems in
understanding people within the group/project/initiative. All members of the group have
very similar opinions about the direction that the project/initiative should take. At least
nobody was arguing that project had to be different.
Concerning sources of information about what is happening within community the main
sources were indicated on the local level (on the top is most important):
‫־‬
Neighbours, relatives, friends and family;
‫־‬
Business or work colleagues
‫־‬
local newspaper
‫־‬
Local market/local shops
‫־‬
Government agencies
‫־‬
Political parties I am involved with
‫־‬
Television
‫־‬
Groups or associations I am involved with
‫־‬
Internet
‫־‬
Community leaders
‫־‬
National newspaper
‫־‬
Radio
34
‫־‬
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
Conclusion: communication is not used used as a source of power by central actors
within the case study, in terms of opportunism by limiting access to information. People
had good access to all info they need. It is difficult indicate a process of inclusive
collective learning amongst all actors, but this learning is happening by individual
learning. If people want to be efficient and to work in this fast changing institutional
setting they need to learn new things very fast.
C: Role of transaction costs and governance structures of cooperation
Transaction cost theory argues that the attributes of transactions matter for explaining the
governance structure (here the governance structure of cooperation in the project). He is
an attempt to analyse how cooperation is adopted by actors as a strategy for reducing
transaction costs. Research question: How does transaction costs affect the choice and
changes of governance structures?
Everybody who was interviewed knew the project implementation cost. Not everybody
could tell the exact figure but they were very close to the right amount. It was officially
announced in newspapers etc. But was difficult to evaluate the cost of project preparation.
The preparation process was considered as part of public servants work and nobody really
could tell how much it cost. Most of the work was done by coordinator but even this
work is difficult to evaluate because that nobody was calculating.
As a public servants they received the payment in form of salary and we can say that they
were compensated for their work and participation in the project. Local businessman as a
result of his participation at the end is benefiting by renting boats from the project. There
was some money available in the project to pay for the project administration and this
money was used by project coordinator and technical support staff. It is something like
extra bonus or premium on the top of their salaries which were not very high.
If some group members would refuse to cooperate would be alternative people found.
That is why not much would happen if the group members did not cooperate. It might
35
case some delays but if project coordinator would be active the problem would be solved.
There was always a possibility failure of the project, but since it was a very new
experience it wouldn’t increase suspicion amongst the group or create other problems.
Conclusion: When people are driven by the idea and working together the transaction
costs are very low and not necessary to have efficient governance structures to do the
work. One central person in the project could pass the information and controls the
information outflow and of course is a potential to use this as power here. But this
person is using this possibility for reaching project goals. This work is efficient.
c.
Role of the State – National, regional, EU laws – and the formal
institutional environment on cooperation
This section is detailing the formal institutional environment within which the
cooperative process takes place. Research question: To what extent can the State and its
formal institutions enhance cooperation?
In former soviet times were no similar like this Jura water initiatives. Everything was
financed by state. There is possible to find some similarities since PHARE in a way was
presenting state interests and the project was targeted to provide public goods. At that
time market was not existing, but was no problem with trust or motivation to cooperate.
The people’s attitude toward each other, and how they interact with each other changed
since socialist times. The income level became very different up to several times, people
are not spending much time just talking to each other, everybody is trying to be more and
more competitive, they became more materialistic. This is not easy to explain by project
initiative example but main difference would be lack of time to discuss and to enjoy the
results.
Concerning trust and state now and than in socialist times is almost no difference.
Exception is business where big money are involved. Sometimes money becaming more
36
important that other values. In soviet times were no big money circulating and it was not
creating much problems as they are now. Businessmen are trying to influence elections
by promoting their supported candidates which is resulting in scandals later. The most
known fact was that President who won last election was supported by one businessman
who was asking position in his office and trying to do other influences. As a result
President was kicked out from the office by Constitutional court. This the most known
fact but there were more cases in different institutions of corruption or similar things and
that is why people don’t trust politicians and government.
People had some good or bad experience with state institutions in the past. But they
didn’t want to talk about it in the formal interview. Most of them voted in the last local
and national elections. No changes of accession to the EU concerning affect people’s
behaviour within the case study was observed. Most of the people are sceptical about EU
institutions rather than national ones. Brussels they are comparing in a way with Moscow
in former times and waiting for instructions to come which might be followed or not.
The main sources of information about what the government (both local and national) and
the EU is doing are presented below (most important on the top):
‫־‬
National newspaper
‫־‬
Radio
‫־‬
Television
‫־‬
Internet
‫־‬
Community or local newspaper
‫־‬
Business or work colleagues
‫־‬
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
‫־‬
Local market/local shops
‫־‬
Community leaders
‫־‬
Groups or associations I am involved with
‫־‬
Government agencies
‫־‬
Political parties I am involved with
‫־‬
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
37
‫־‬
Community bulletin board
Conclusion: State and its formal institutions is trying to stimulate cooperation but it is a
long process. Informal cooperation is going on well but with formal forms of cooperation
is problematic. It is because of history during soviet times when people were forced to do
things collectively. Now everything what is remaining this and especially in formal way
is not well accepted by people.
d.
Role of communities, social networks and informal institutions on
cooperation
This section will analyse how social capital can be explained by an individual’s
embeddedness within their communities, and their access and utilisation of their social
networks. Research question: Are informal institutions a necessary determinant of
achieving cooperation?
The strongest communities are in the rural areas where people are very much interested
about each other, helping to work in the farms etc. People who live in towns are mainly
communicating with their coworkers or relatives. Neighbors are also important but it
depends on the area and social status. In some districts is a mixture rich and not so rich
status and it is left from old times.
Social networks are not very well established and active. But people work together,
socialise and interact with one another. People are not interested to be part social
organisation. Even when they belong to the same church they are not attending meetings,
only participating during service. Recreational groups are not popular except occasionally
people are going to festivals or camping. Voluntary organisations were popular during
soviet times but not any more. Non-governmental organisations are form of activities
where people sometimes are working. People were more socialising during the soviet
times as it is now.
38
If a community project does not directly benefit you, but has benefits for others in the
community people mostly would be willing to contribute time but not money, unless they
are rich and don’t have enough time.
All interviewed were very positive about coming and working together if there was a
problem within their community which required different people coming together to
solve it. It is difficult to say how successful it would be, but more serious problem more
likely people would join efforts. Simple example could be joint work to clean around
houses in spring time. Such joint actions are organized spontaneously and there is no
need for any formal institution. What is important – should be a person who would
initiate and lead this process. Of course not everybody is capable to do it but somehow
naturally such leaders appearing. It is very similar situation as it was with initiation of
this project.
Conclusion: Informal institutions are necessary for achieving cooperation but they are
not very popular in Lithuania now.
e.
Role of the market and competition in fostering/hindering
cooperation
This section is exploring the interplay between cooperation and competition within the
case study. Research question: How does the market environment affect cooperation?
The tourism infrastructure developed by the project within the market is expected to be
competitive. It is just a beginning and would be naïve to expect that with 100000 euro is
possible to have a real effect. It is more an example which direction to go than a real
competitive product.
The tourism market is growing very fast that is why a market for the developed product is
very secure. It does require some active marketing at the beginning in the newspapers.
39
But later is enough adds such as advertising the area as a tourist destination in Tourist
information Centre or similar.
Conclusion: when people see a good idea they are investing money, time and cooperating
on all possible levels. Money was invested by local administrations as a local
contribution. People who were involved in the project had to do some additional work
which was not paid.
VII. Conclusion
Although top-down rural development may lead to a filtering of benefits to members of
the community within which it is implemented, it is very different in nature from
community led strategies that seek to manage their own development with minimal State
intervention (Herbert-Cheshire, 2004). Governance of resources through community-led
or bottom-up approaches is a means of empowerment of the rural community. It gives the
individuals involved ownership over the process of development. In Taurage, this project
was innovative in terms of the cooperative structures that have been instituted. It required
an adaptive process for the project initiators – adapting to the new opportunities which
arose with PHARE funding. A network was formed, and it can be argued that social
capital was built. Indeed, it was a learning process for those involved in the government
administration, to apply for such incentive led funding. The question remains as to how
encompassing this process is and how inclusive the network was in reality. The main
conclusions:
•
Jura waterway project It is top-down initiative;
•
All involved stakeholders showed their activity in preparing and implementing the
project;
•
Project gave the involved individuals ownership over the process of development;
•
Most of the stakeholders were paid by municipalities but success of the project
was dependent on their initiative;
•
All stakeholders showed an interest to do good for their community;
40
•
This project was innovative in terms of the cooperative structures that have been
instituted;
•
It required an adaptive process for the project initiators – adapting to the new
opportunities which arose with PHARE funding;
•
A network was formed, and it can be argued that social capital was built. It is
because of all these new informal links established between people who are
working for administration and others
•
It was a cooperative learning process for those involved in the government
administration, to apply for such incentive led funding. But will take some time
until they will initiate and implement similar projects;
•
The question remains as to how encompassing this process is and how inclusive
the network was in reality. It is just an experience to work together for reaching a
common goal.
•
The capacity of people involved in the preparation and implementation of the
project has increased. Especially it is true if we are talking about project leader.
After completion of this project he is working for other projects as expert and
assiting in their implementation. The react became more open minded and
innovative of the new ideas and understand now the new funding possibilities.
•
Not many people outside of administration structures were involved in the
process;
•
There is evidence that community groups might be more active and it is important
for the policy making process;
•
This is a crucial phase in any attempt to introduce more participative development
in Lithuania.
It seems there is evidence in Lithuania of endogenous rural community organisations,
who are interested in developing their own communities. The challenge for policy makers
is now how to include such community groups in the policy making process. A
revitalised civil society would offset the power of bureaucracy and of economic elites by
avoiding the emergence of new hierarchies, and enabling participative redistribution
(Kovach, 2000). This is a crucial phase in any attempt to introduce more participative
development in Lithuania.
41
VIII. Annexes
a. Interview Guidelines
QUESTIONNAIRE
Jura waterway initiative project
1. Your name…………….
2. What is your employment status (a businessman, employed by business company,
district, rajon or local, local administration, farmer, or other)
3. Are you or your family members, were born in the Taurage district?
4. How do you see your behavior, with regards cooperating with others, changing
from former socialist times?
5. How do you see that the behavior within your community toward each other in
general has changed, since former socialist times?
A: Role of trust/mistrust (social and institutional) and opportunism
1. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or you can not
be too careful in dealing with people?
2. Do you feel obligated to the other persons who were involved in preparation and
implementation of the Jura waterway project?
3. Have you had any problems in dealing with any members of the Jura waterway
project in the past? If so, please explain. How does this affect your behaviour
toward them?
42
4. Have you heard of any other trouble/problems (that you were not necessarily
involved in) between people involved in preparation and implementation of the
project?
5. Why do you cooperate with these people?
6. Did you know the people related with Jura waterway project prior to becoming
involved with the activities of the project? (discrete options – knew all of them,
knew most of them, knew a few of them, knew none of them)
7. In what capacity did you know these people? (discrete options – whether they
consider knowing them very well; they were acquainted with them; had heard of
the people but had no contact with them; did not know them at all).
8. How long did you know the these people (for those that you knew well, or were
acquainted with)?
9. Are you satisfied with working with other members of their community for this
project/initiative, or would you prefer if you did not have to cooperate with these
people? (Is the cooperation by necessity or voluntary?)
10. What expectations did you have of people within the project group?
11. Do your expectations differ/differ for different members of the group?
12. What do you think others in the group expect of you?
13. Can you identify goodwill amongst the group, or are some people suspicious of
each other?
14. What benefits do you get by trusting the people you cooperate with?
15. Are any of the members of the group related to you?
43
16. What would be your reaction if persons with whom you were preparing or
implementing the Jura waterway project broke your trust (or did not behave as
you expected them to) in them? (Explore whether this happened in the past, and
what the outcome was).
17. Would you be willing to cooperate with other people who were not part of the
project group (for example if the group expanded in size)?
18. Do you think that geographical distance between people affects your willingness
to work with other people in projects/initiatives such as this?
a. If yes, how?
19. Can you think of any other factors that would affect your willingness to work with
other people?
20. Did you expect that the government or government agencies should help to
prepare and implement project and achieve its objectives?
21. Do you think that the problems related with the Jura project should be solved by
the national government/local government or state agencies (rather than by the
group you are working within)?
22. Has the group tried to get help from the government or state agencies? If so, what
was the outcome?
23. Do you believe that the government is helping or acting in the best interests of
your group?
24. Would you trust the European Union and its laws more than the laws from
national Government (if it is possible to identify the source of the legislation)?
25. What experience have you personally had with dealing (transacting) with State
agencies? (Ministry of Agriculture, Police, Court System, local government, etc).
26. How would you rank the experience you had with each State agency? (discrete
options – very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, what was to be expected, somewhat
dissatisfied, very dissatisfied).
44
27. Have you any comments on the delivery of services by State agencies?
28. How much do you trust (on a scale from 1 to 5)1 the following:
• Local government officials
• National government officials
• The European Union (its institutions and officials)
• project initiator;
29. Did you have a serious problem related with the project and if so how did you
deal with it?
30. What are the most common differences between people that cause
conflict/problems within the group? (discrete options – differences in: education,
wealth, social status, gender, old and young generations, long-term residents and
newcomers to the area, political party affiliations, religious beliefs, ethnic
differences etc.)
31. How would you feel if a serious conflict threatened the project/initiative? What
would you do to redress it?
32. What is the motivation for cooperating with the project/initiative?
33. How did you become involved with the project/initiative? (were they the initiator,
approached by someone, heard about it through a friend/colleague?)
34. What does the following sentence mean to you? ‘I am part of the Jura waterway
project/initiative’
35. How do you define your involvement with the Jura waterway project/initiative?
36. Can you identify any problems associated with your involvement in this initiative
(time, money, having to cooperate or deal with others, etc?)
45
37. What is your overall satisfaction with the project/initiative so far? (Very satisfied,
somewhat satisfied, could be better, very unsatisfied)
38. What do you understand by the statement ‘the Jura waterway project/initiative has
had a positive change for me’?
39. What do you understand by the statement ‘the Jura waterway … project/initiative
has had a positive change for the local community’?
40. What do you understand by the statement ‘the Jura waterway project/initiative has
had a positive change for the competitiveness of the area/region’?
41. If the project were beginning again, and knowing what you now know about how
it works, would you still join it again?
42. Do you think that some people within the group are benefiting dis-proportionally
from their involvement?
a. If yes, how and why does this happen?
43. Do you think that you benefit more than some other people, through your
membership of the group?
44. Do you think that all people involved in the group are equally committed to the
objectives of the group?
45. How do you insure that others in the group do not take advantage of you?2
1
1=To a very great extent 2=To a great extent 3=Neither to a great nor small extent 4=To
a small extent 5=To a very small extent
2
This is intended to explore trust beyond calculated self interest
46
46. What would you do if you thought that someone was treating you unfairly within
the group?
47. On the base of your present knowledge and experience, what would you change in
functioning of the project/initiative in order to improve and make it more
profitable for all participants?
48. How would you rank (on a scale from 1 to 5)3 the relative importance of the
following factors affecting [the cooperation or conflict, which is the focus of the
case study] ?
‫־‬
High levels of trust within the community
‫־‬
Past experiences of all stakeholders with working together
‫־‬
Having a highly motivated group of people/community who are willing to
cooperate
‫־‬
Having good communication between all actors
‫־‬
Keeping well informed and having enough information to make decisions
‫־‬
Actors understanding each other and sharing the same objectives
‫־‬
Involvement of governmental agencies in the process
‫־‬
Active involvement of the local community
‫־‬
Market driven incentives for cooperation
‫־‬
Other
B: Role of communication and learning
1. How frequent/often did you discuss issues relating to the project/initiative with
other members of the group?
2. What is your opinion of the time you spend on the project/initiative (discrete
options: too much time, a fair/ok amount of time, too little time)
3. Would you be willing to give up more of your time to achieve the objectives of
the project?
4. Do you think there is there intensive/good dialogue amongst the group members,
or just on rare occasions?
3
1=Very important 2=Somewhat important 3=Neither important nor unimportant
4=Somewhat unimportant 5=Not important at all
47
5. Do you feel that you share common understandings with the other people related
with the project/ members of the group (toward what you are trying to achieve,
how it should be achieved, and what others within the group think of this
process)?
6. Is there a key person/people who keep everyone within the group informed of any
changes or developments?
7. If yes, who are they and how do they achieve this sharing of information?
8. Are there meetings, either formal or informal, organised to discuss the
cooperation/project/initiative? (or do the actors communicate ad hoc?)
9. If yes, what buildings are used for the meetings?
10. What is the mode of communication (verbal, written, telephone, internet, media)
most frequently used?
11. What do you feel is the most effective mode of communication?
12. Overall, how would you describe your level of satisfaction with how the group
communicates? (discrete options: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied)
13. What do you think of the time you spend going to meetings, sharing information
with the group and generally keeping informed of the groups’ activities (discrete
options – too much time, a satisfactory amount of time, not enough)
14. What are the main difficulties you experience in communicating with others in the
group?
15. As a group member, do you think that you have enough information?
16. If no, do you feel that it is to your disadvantage that others know more than you?
17. If no, what kind of information would you like to receive?
48
18. Do members of the group have contact with other similar groups?
19. If yes, who are the main contact people from within the group, and to what groups
do they communicate with?
20. Do members of the group have contact with government agencies?
21. If yes, who are the main contact people from within the group, and to what groups
do they communicate with?
22. Do members of the group have contact with other people who were preparing/
implementing similar projects ?
23. Why do they communicate with these groups? – what are the benefits?
24. What are the most important sources of new ideas for the group?
25. Can you identify specific groups or people that the project/initiative would benefit
from through greater collaboration?
26. Can you identify a blockage in the sharing of information? (Where cooperation
could be enhanced or achieved if there was more information?)
27. Is language a barrier to communication? (in the broadest sense of the word – do
all members understand what is being discussed, or the policy context within
which they are operating?)
28. Do you think there are there some people within the group who withhold
information?
29. If yes, what type of information do you think they withhold, and for what reason?
30. Do you think there are some people living within the community who would help
the project/initiative but are not part of the group currently?
31. If yes, for what reason?
49
32. How would you describe the information which is being communicated between
the group? (For example: sharing technical information, a policy message,
strategic information that werenefit the group, market trends etc.)
33. What do you think is the most important information that requires communicating
amongst the group?
34. Do you think that some people within the group have more information than
others? If yes, does this affect the activities of the group?
35. Do you think that all the group members know each other well? (elaborate,
especially on what they mean by the word ‘know’)
36. What have you learnt about the other members of the group since you became
involved with this initiative/project?
37. Have you changed your behaviour since joining the group/project/initiative?
38. Have you changed your attitude toward your community since joining the
group/project/initiative?
39. What would you consider the most important thing that you have learnt, through
your experience with the project?
40. Do you think you understand the people within the group/project/initiative now?
41. If yes, do people within the group ‘agree to differ’ with each other, or does it
cause problems for the project/initiative?
42. Do you think that all members of the group have the same opinions about the
direction that the project/initiative should take?
43. If no, how are these conflicts resolved?
44. What are your main sources of information about what is happening within your
community?
‫־‬
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
‫־‬
Community bulletin board
‫־‬
Local market/local shops
‫־‬
Community or local newspaper
50
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
‫־‬
National newspaper
Radio
Television
Internet
Community leaders
Groups or associations I am involved with
Business or work colleagues
Government agencies
Political parties I am involved with
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
C: Role of transaction costs and governance structures of cooperation
1. Do you know the costs of Jura waterway project preparation and implementation?
2. Did you receive the payment in any form or were compensated for participation in
the project?
3. What would happen if the group members did not cooperate? (for example –
failure of the project, increased suspicion amongst the group etc.)
D: Role of the state - national, regional, EU laws – and the formal institutional
environment on cooperation
45. Do you think that this initiative could have been possible in former socialist
times?
46. If no, for what main reason? (market not existing, mistrust, no motivation to
cooperate, etc).
47. Do you think that people’s attitude toward each other, and how they interact with
each other have changed since socialist times?
48. If yes, give examples of how interaction has changed, with reference to the
project/initiative.
49. Do you trust the State more now than in socialist times?
50. Why, and which organizations of the state are they referring to?
51. Have you had any bad experiences with the State and their organisations in the
past?
52. Did you vote in the last local elections?
51
53. Did you vote in the last national elections?
54. How does accession to the EU affect people’s behaviour within the case study?
55. Is there more optimism for EU institutions rather than national ones?
56. What are your main sources of information about what the government (both local
and national) and the EU is doing?
‫־‬
Relatives, friends and family (‘word of mouth’)
‫־‬
Community bulletin board
‫־‬
Local market/local shops
‫־‬
Community or local newspaper
‫־‬
National newspaper
‫־‬
Radio
‫־‬
Television
‫־‬
Internet
‫־‬
Community leaders
‫־‬
Groups or associations I am involved with
‫־‬
Business or work colleagues
‫־‬
Government agencies
‫־‬
Political parties I am involved with
‫־‬
Non-governmental organizations I am involved with
E: Role of communities, social networks and informal institutions on cooperation
1. How do you define the community of people within which you cooperate?
2. How well established and active are the social networks within your community?
(Ask them for their account of how people work together, socialise and interact
with one another)
3. How many different social organisation are you involved in? (including
recreational groups, religious groups, community groups, voluntary organisations,
non-governmental organisations, governmental organisations etc).
4. If a community project does not directly benefit you, but has benefits for others in
the community, would you a) be willing to contribute money (Yes or No)? b)
willing to contribute time (Yes or No)?
52
F. Role of the market and competition in fostering/hindering cooperation
1. How competitive is the tourism infrastructure developed by the project within the
market?
2. How secure is the market the product is operating within? (Does the product
require active marketing – such as advertising the area as a tourist destination)
3. Can you identify any trends within this market?
b. List of Interviews
The following interviews were done:
•
Civil servants responsible for economic development in the municipalities of
Tauragė-1, Šilalė-1 , Pagėgiai- 1;
•
Local officials- heads of smallest administrative units seniunija: Pagramantis-1,
Žygaičiai-1;
•
Politicians- Head of Taurage county –1;
•
Head of Taurage rajon – 1;
•
NGO’s representative- person working in the office of Lithuanian Rural Tourism
Association –1,
•
Businessman who has a boat renting business –1,
•
Initiator and coordinator of the project – 1,
•
Staff of Business information and tourism information centers –1
Literature list
1.
Darbo jėga, užimtumas ir nedarbas 1998 – 2003. – Vilnius: Statistikos
departamentas prie LRV., 2004.
2.
Demografijos metraštis 1993 – 2003. – Vilnius: Statistikos departamentas prie LR
Vyriausybės, 1994 – 2004.
3.
Gyvenimo sąlygos. – Vilnius: Lietuvos Respublikos Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo
ministerija, 2002.
53
4.
Lietuvių visuotinė enciklopedija, T4. – Vilnius: Mokslo enciklopedijų leidybos
institutas, 2003.
5.
Lietuvos kaimas 2002. – Vilnius: Statistikos departamentas prie LR Vyriausybės,
2003.
6.
Lietuvos ekonomikos apžvalga. Lietuvos statistikos departamentas. Vilnius, 2004.
7.
Lietuvos statistikos metraštis 2003. – Vilnius: Statistikos departamentas prie
LRV, 2004.
8.
Lietuvos žemės ūkis. Ekonominė apžvalga 2003. – Vilnius: Lietuvos agrarinės
ekonomikos institutas, 2004.
9.
Specialioji kaimo rėmimo programa. Žemės ūkio ministerija. – Vilnius: 2002.
10.
Paldam, M. and Svendsen, G., 2000, An essay on social capital: looking for the
fire behind the smoke. European Journal of Political Economy 16:339-366
11.
Putnam, R., 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
Tuckman, B. and Jensen, M., 1977, Stages of small/group development. Group
andOrganisational Studies, 2: 419-427
13.
Vanags, A., 2005, Employment, Economic Development in the Baltic States.
Preliminary Background Report. OECD and Baltic International Centre for
Economic Policy Studies. Vilnius: Lithuania
14.
White, H.C., 2002, Markets from Network: Socioeconomic models of production.
Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press
15.
www.phare.lt
16.
http://www.taurage.aps.lt/
c. Statistical Data relevant to case study
WWW.std.lt
----
54