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