Oct. 12-13Przemyśl, Polska

One LAG, one lifeRobert Lukesch

International LEADER Conference

1. How shall the LAG be structured?

2. Which criteria shall be used for acknowledging a LAG?

3. Which rules and criteria shall be used for selecting projects?

Guiding questions

1. How shall the LAG be structured?

Local partnership

Ba

rga

inin

g

spa

ce

Conception space

Ste

erin

g

bo

dy

Party space

The local action group, a multi-purpose local development partnership, is a (potential) asset in the social capital of an area.

Pierre Bourdieu (1983): „Social Capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.“

Robert Putnam (1995): „Social Capital refers to the collective value of all ‚social networks‘ and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other".

Mainstream programme

The place of LEADER in rural development strongly influences the place of a LAG in local development

LEADER

Programme

Programme

Programme

Rural Policy

ProgrammeL

Programme

Programme

Programme

LAG

LEADER

Local combination and costumisation of different

programmes and support schemes

Incubator/pathfinder or niche specialist

The pounding heart of mainstream rural policy

Global grant system

Managing authority

LAG

Project promoter

LAG is Final Beneficiary

LAG

Projectpromoter

Managing authority

IntermediaryBody

Quasi global grant system(external FB)

Managing Authority

LAG

Projectpromoter

Intermediary Body is Final Beneficiary

Operational programme

system

Intermediary Body

LAG

Projectpromoter

Managing authority

IntermediaryBody

Intermediary body is Final Beneficiary

Quasi global grant system

(Internalised FB)

The degree of autonomy for the LAG decreases from left to right

StrategicSteering

Operational Steering

Normative Steering

Man

agem

ent

staf

f (p

rofe

ssio

nal)

negotiates

dominates

Monitoring and supervision

Technical implementation

Mandate

Decision making on strategies and projects

Loca

l par

tner

ship

(v

olun

tary

)

dominates

1234M („one-two-three-four-model“)Governance Model for Partnership-Based Local Development

Th

ree L

ead

ersh

ip L

ev

elsF

ou

r S

tee

rin

g T

ask

s

Two Steering Bodies

negotiates

One LAG

negotiates

Professional staff

Political

Non-public

Remunerated„Truly voluntary“

Voluntary partnership (LAG)

Administrative

Public

LAG Manager, project staff,

contracted experts administrative

personnel

Non-profitBusiness

The secret of viable partnerships is a good balance over time

•How is the balance of influence between public and private partners?•How is the balance of influence between voluntary partners and the LAG management?•How does the LAG assure that it responds to the needs and aspirations of local people?•How does the LAG assure monitoring and supervision functions?•How are decision-making processes organised (To what extent do real processes match the formal design)?•How significant are „genuinely“ voluntary contributions and how are they appreciated?•How is the LAG represented towards the local public?•How is the LAG represented towards the outside world and the public authorities?•Where do voluntary partners put their main focus of activities?•Where does the LAG management put its main focus of activities?•Who works on strategic issues and how is this organised?

2. Which criteria shall be used for acknowledging a LAG?

Loca

l

deve

lopm

ent

stra

tegy

Territory

Partnership

Other target groups

Participation methods

<50% public partners

<population>(number, density)

Contiguity

Territorial coherence

Viability and sustainability

Specific target groups (women, youth)

Juridical structure

Managementand financial

capacity

Communication policy

Composition and representativeness

Complementarity with other

programmes/ interventions

Internal coherence

Coherence with territory

Balance betweenindividual and

collective operations

Multi-sector approach

Pilot character/ innovativeness

Quality assurance

system

Transferability of actions

Self-evaluation

Example (France) for the criterion „pilot character“:

•In terms of new products and services•In terms of new methods to (re)combine territorial resources•In terms of combinations and linkages between usually separated economic sectors•In terms of peculiar forms of organisation and participatory practices•In terms of considering specific target groups

The criteria shall be operationalised, in order to facilitate the evidence procedure

Example (Wales) for the criterion „target groups“:

•Young people (including young farmers)•Micro and small enterprises (including farming families)•Welsh speaking communities•Black and minority ethnic groups•Children•The elderly•The under-employed

The list is neither put in order of priority nor exhaustive. LAGs are encouraged to add additional target groups to address the needs of specific areas.

The operationalised criteria should be weighted.

3. Which rules and criteria shall be used for selecting projects?

The criteria used for selecting projects should mirror the criteria used for assessing the quality of the local development strategy:•Coherence with the local development strategy•Financial viability•Management capacity of project owner•Social and environmental sustainability•Pilot character/ Innovativeness•Synergy with other actions•Transferability•….

The selection of projects should be entrusted to a jury which is composed of LAG board members and external experts

Selecting projects is not an end in itself. It should be a key elementin a coherent monitoring and quality assurance system

…it is therefore the monitoring andquality assurance system on which

the main focus should be put

Example (Austria): Quality Assurance in LEADER

Resu

lts Res

ou

rces

Implementation Processes Learning & Development

Gender balance in respect to participation

Youth participation

Participation and cooperation of municipalities

Se

lf-s

tee

rin

gQ

ua

lity

as

su

ran

ce

(L

AG

fu

nc

tio

ns

an

d p

roje

cts

)C

oo

rdin

ati

on

pro

ce

ss

es

Inn

ov

ati

on

Inte

rna

l c

oo

pe

rati

on

Te

rrit

ori

al

co

op

era

tio

nB

ala

nc

e o

f p

roje

cts

in

re

sp

ec

t to

pri

ori

tie

sM

ark

eti

ng

an

d c

om

mu

nic

ati

on

s

Pa

rticip

atio

n in

the

LE

AD

ER

ne

two

rk (E

U, n

atio

na

l, reg

ion

al)

Ca

pa

citie

s o

f loc

al a

cto

rs

Info

rma

tion

an

d k

no

wle

dg

e

Jobs created/maintained

Targets (expected results) derived from the Local Development Strategy

Steps towards building the Quality Assurance System

• Set the criteria (see the previous Scorecard)

• Operationalise criteria into indicators

• Describe degrees of fulfilment for each indicator (e.g. from 1 to 5)

• Monitor development of indicators regularly (in the course of ongoing evaluation and/or self-evaluation)

• Revise criteria and indicators, if deemed necessary

Use the evaluation meetings to assess the advancement according to the Process Monitoring of Impact (PMI) method

Input ImpactOutput Results

If it were so easy.....

Output

Priority

Specific Objective

Activity

Expected Result

Results

Financial and technical

programme advancement

Assumption a

Impact(Indicators)

Indica

tors

Activity Indicator

Indicator

MC debates and decisions

Op

era

tio

na

l O

bje

cti

ve

Activity Indicator

Activity Indicator

Assumption b

Assumption c

Result IndicatorsUSE OF OUTPUT

Output indicators

Process Monitoring of Impacts (PMI)Monitoring Chart

The assumptions are the key element for ongoing and self-evaluation, because they stipulate how the local development strategy will generate the expected outcomes

•How is the advancement of activities monitored?•Are there practices of periodic self-reflection or self-evaluation?•On the basis of which parametres is the functioning of the local partnership appraised?

Is it appraised at all?•How does the local partnership get feedback from target beneficiaries (local actors and

project promoters)?•How is feedback from target beneficiaries appreciated and processed?•How are deficiencies and wrong decisions dealt with? •Is there a systematic exchange with programme administration upon the quality of

programme delivery?•Is there a systematic exchange with other LAGs in order to learn from good practices?

Thanks.Robert Lukesch

www.oear.at

Download (on the European Contact Point Website): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/library/methodology/lukesch_handbook.pdf