Are stakeholders ready for CLLD? Case study Nitra 2015 International Master in Rural Development 1 OUTLINE 1. Introduction 2. Attendance statistics 3. Key success factors 4. Evaluation tools 5. Findings from the field research 6. SWOT analysis 7. Conclusions and recommendations 2 INTRODUCTION Nassim Tyler Enrique Katarina Kazusa Maria Gabriel Matteo Emily Kamrul 3 4 ATTENDANCE STATISTICS ● 1. 2. 3. Three interviews covering: Management Authority Paying Agency Nitra Region Administration ● 7 LAGs ● 78 people together 5 Number of people ATTENDANCE STATISTICS 6 Framework of finding key factors Leader Seven Principles Bottom-up Publicprivate partnership Area-based Multisectorial design Innovative approach Networking Cooperation Preparation for LAGs/LDS Implementation of LDS Monitoring and Evaluation Key success factors - National level Principle Key factors Bottom up Training actions and promotion of linkages among local stakeholders. Public-private partnership High transparency and clarity in rules and governance Area based Evaluation and diffusion of multiplier effect, side effect, long term effect for development of the area Multi-sectorial design Wider range of measures for a higher number of beneficiaries from different sectors Innovative approach Transfer of good practices (workshops, database…) Networking of local partnership Prioritization of strategies that are already involved in networks/coop. projects Cooperation projects Promotion of conditions for transnational projects Key success factors - LAG level Principle Key factors Bottom-up Ensuring the open access to all stakeholders Public-private partnership Emphasaizing networking across private & public sector Area based Selectting projects which promote regional identity and higher use of local resources Multi-sectorial Attracting and involving all the sectors in the decisionmaking process and implementation Innovative approaches Ensuring that projects include the factor which is new in the territory Networking of local partnership Facilitating interaction between different institutional levels horizontally and vertically Cooperation projects Ensuring that knowledge is transferred with other interregional and international LAGs EVALUATION TOOLS Interviews Focus groups Followed by an Analytical Method Qualitative data collection Participatory approach to collect data from different stakeholders gathered Questions under 3 sections 1. LAG preparation, selection and contracting 2. LDS implementation 3. Monitoring and Evaluation Questions under 3 sections 1. LAG development 2. Development and implemention of LDS 3. Self-assessment and Evaluation 10 FINDINGS - INTERVIEWS - Networking as buzzword for the Capacity Building. What about the NRN? - Participatory Approach for desiging the call for proposal. Is it well organised? - Selecting LAGs. What are the Critical Factors? - Supporting the implementation of the LDS. Is money everything? - Evaluation system. How can we use it better? Average “Perceived” degree of readiness for CLLD in Slovakia? → 7 11 FINDINGS – FOCUS GROUPS ● Bottom-up and area-based: Local stakeholders initiated LDS to form LAG in the local territory. ● Partnership: Mayors, NGOs, schools, entrepreneurs, farmers and other stakeholders formed LAG with partnership. ● Multi-secotoral: Projects like agro-tourism, agricultural diversification combine multiple sectors such as health, education, economic and cultural sectors. 12 FINDINGS – FOCUS GROUPS ● Innovation: New projects (outdoor gym, museum) have been introduced in the area. ● Networking: Knowledge exchange has been enhanced through interaction among managing authority, paying agency, LAGs and other stakeholders. ● Cooperation: Projects related to heritage and agro-tourism have brought together different national and transnational partners. 13 National Level SWOT Analysis LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Public Multi-sectoral Private Cooperation Area Networking Bottom Innovation Based Partnership strategies Up • Support LAG/LDS selection Prioritizefor LDSs that Financial support to Training/workshops criteria includes the have for LAGs cooperation to educate LAGs LAG’s orientation higher geographical projects (move to of (build MA non-public sector impactcapacity; (e.g. regional weakness or and • Integration level)RA) of opportunity) Regional Policy for tourism/regional brand with the LEADER program • Designing of call Lack of influence on of of No evidence human proposal are mainly theencouragement Public interest in offering strategic capital of vision for o top attracting down Procurement for • done supporting Low ftools a strong involvement TNC of • Lack of control for Legislation (cross collective/individual Language the coordination NRN barrier and tools for sectional) private investors • supporting (don’t Lack connectivity ofspeak among Deficient building formal • capacity Complexity of than languages communication different other (training/workshop) evaluation3toagencies: bureaucracy, high Slovak) (between organizations • Perception of LAGs: determine regional administrative burden MA, (University, PA, and Farm RA) information impact and delayGroup, inand Advisory knowledge transfer is payment, Center, Research not sufficient discouraging private etc.) (cross-cutting) investors Strengths Weakness es LAG Level SWOT Analysis LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Public Multi-sectoral Private Cooperation Area Networking Bottom Innovation Based Partnership strategies Up Wider range of that • Unexpected Public procurement Use of formal Distribution of fundsof • Favoring Higher European New Overall measures participation improvement the Innovation Uneven distribution changes measures allow (crossevaluation (including is dependent Partnership allow selection of NRN pro-active diverse (activities, ofthat LDS linkage types and with of to legislation in not authorities requirements and of more noncutting) the participatory upon the legislation number of foster regional engagement a experienced high innovation degree cooperation LAGs and of at in institutional National governmental approach) self- • Public participants/beneficia LAG networking) multi-sectoral the design level and andLOCAL organization procurement between participation assessment to of ries regions. in a LAG • implementation Higher cooperation amount of the legislation the (cross• program High determine regional resources Wider range allocated of cutting) acknowledgement of impacts to measures this measure that market • new Selection of LAGs increase job opportunities (ecobased on unique in and tourism) from the strategicsectors natural several LAGs resources • Improving the access to funds Opportunit ies Threats LAG Level SWOT Analysis LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Public-Private Multi-Sectoral Cooperation Area Networking Bottom Innovation Based Partnership Strategies Up Enthusiasm and Working groups among LAGof • Lack • Trust Innovative High Ability Mutual Common use toexchange reach of project services local Largeofnumber Dominant position ofdidn’t of development of include all inhabitants members resources compromise information and among products multi-sectoral (natural between and communication small mayors municipalities possibilities • between People not interested • Development of beauty consensus LAGs stakeholders • E.g. Passport of territory; in- better the future for and in public affairs - hard and • cooperation historical/cultural community Increased stamps (common wool stakeholders and communities to get feedback partnerships; heritage) vision) experience mill in- agrimanagers extend the motivation • exchange Existence Partnerships tourism of microtime to reach a • knowledge High awareness (with regions strengthened in consensus amongas stakeholders; international region compared farmer partners) to in theinitiatives past Increased between • Cooperation participation of experienced and new beneficiaries and LAGs Strengths Weakness es LAG Level SWOT Analysis LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Principle: Public-Private Multi-Sectoral Cooperation Area Networking Bottom Innovation Based Partnership Strategies Up Local branding • Broader International Community Enhanced Wider range contacts privateleaders of with • Problematic Bureaucracy Lack Competitiveness Paying of agency interest diversity public -oftime of Preserving • cooperation More public measures experts proactive partnership in the tohistorical be field procurement public multi-sectoral among lapse • Administration of sectors different and cultural traditions involvement implemented • Visit other ofvia LAGs local LDS competition projects LAGs money, problem and recalling difficulty to • stakeholder Extension of territory • Compliance • External Lack conduct payment, changing of financial the difficulty strong of to rules, the to - more territory consultants resources lobbying collect strict procedure rules decent of public More experience • Potential increaseinin amount of money at procurement local development social capacity the initial stage and feeling of identity • Low sustainability of of local people projects - difficulty to cultural and local keep running Opportunit ies Threats CONCLUSIONS: Area-Based Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Strong regional promotion of brands and services Complex public procurement requirements Conclusions Recognition of unique regional factors Improvement Restrictive of quality of requirements life Recommendations Better marketing – country-wide Less restrictions for smaller projects CONCLUSIONS: Bottom-up Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Existing training and support systems Trust and reciprocity Conclusions Supportive training exists LAGs are accomplishing projects Better tailored support Continue to increase regional involvement Recommendations CONCLUSIONS: Partnership Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Disillusioned private sector Conclusions Project bias Belief that towards funds are for public sector sector public Minority Funds groups directedare to involved not LAG members represented Organization of collective private investors Include Foster minority entrepreneurship and private groups in the investment LAG Recommendations CONCLUSIONS: Multi-Sectorial Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings High potential to promote multi-sector projects Conclusions Priority – but not effective Allowance for wider range of measures Recommendations Improvement of integration between policies Activities aimed at transferring of knowledge and experience CONCLUSIONS: Innovation Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Uneven distribution of organizations among regions Conclusions Disconnect between extension, research, and stakeholders Recommendations Participate in networks fostering new ideas and new innovation High level of social and cultural capital CONCLUSIONS: Networking Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Weak connection and inclusiveness Conclusions Strong networks within the LAG LAGs NRN not creating own meeting needs network Recommendations Improvement of effectiveness of the NRN LAG Lobby Peer-to-peer Body evaluations CONCLUSIONS: Cooperation Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? Key Findings Binding competitive nature Regionfocused Conclusions LAGs ‘competing’ instead of cooperating Concern with own region and not bigger picture Recommendations Collective action to tackle main problems Promote multi-level governance CONCLUSIONS Are stakeholders ready for CLLD in Slovakia? 26