1

The Case study: „Ex post evaluation of Leader approach delivery”

Case study Nitra, 2014 Final Report

1. THE CONTEXT

This case study is an organic part of the 2 - year Course in International MSc. in Rural Development - IMRD (supported by the EU Erasmus Mundus Programme) organized by the Network of Universities led by Ghent University (Belgium)1 for international students. The qualification obtained by IMRD is an internationally recognized Master of Science degree jointly awarded by 5 universities of the IMRD consortium. Important compulsory part of the IMRD study is a practical four-week case study, which has to be attained by students after the 1st year of the Master Study, with the award of 10 ECTS. The Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (SUA) is one of the participating universities, which offers this possibility on annual base. Among important learning objectives of the IMRD is to:

• Gain knowledge of different approaches to rural development and skills to apply them in diverse situations in developing, developed and transition countries

• Learn about instruments, methods and innovative tools to analyse, evaluate and solve problems related to rural development and countryside management

Reflecting these two learning objectives of the IMRD the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (SUA) has prepared the case study on the ex post

1 Other involved universities and institutions: Agrocampus Ouest Rennes (France), Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany), University in Pisa (Italy), SUA in Nitra (Slovakia),

2

evaluation of effects of the Axis 4 delivery on the implementation of the

EU Leader approach in Slovakia. Organizers of the Case Study in Slovakia were:

• The Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development – IMRD Local Coordinator – prof. Anna Bandlerová, PhD., the Dean of the faculty

• The Centre of International Programmes of the Faculty of EU Studies and Regional Development, SUA (Mrs. Loreta Schwarczová, The Head of the Centre of International Programmes)

The case study of 2014 was built on previous experiences in assessing the practical implementation of Leader approach in Slovakia2, when students have evaluated local development strategies and local action groups as public-private partnerships in rural areas.

2. OBJECTIVES, PORTFOLIO AND TASKS OF THE CASE STUDY

NITRA 2014

The teaching objectives of the case study were:

• To learn the EU Leader approach, • To learn the practical application of Leader Axis in Slovakia and Nitra

self-governing region, • To learn practices in integrated governance in rural development in SR, • To be familiar with common monitoring and evaluation framework for EU

rural development, • To experience the design and use of qualitative evaluation tools

(interviews, focus groups), • To learn how to work in teams and perform results in synthetic way

In 2014 the case study portfolio was extended into: • Assessment of the Axis 4 delivery mechanism, its institutional and

administrative background, • Analysis of effects of the delivery mechanism applied in the Slovak

context on the implementation of 7 features of Leader approach: area based and bottom up development, public private partnership, multi-sector strategies, networking, cooperation and innovation,

2 Case study 2009,2010,2011

3

• Identification of strengths, weaknesses, opportunity and threats of

the implementation of the Leader approach in SR in light of 7 features of Leader,

• Provision of conclusions and recommendations for the RDP and LAG

level to improve Leader delivery in favour of better implementation of Leader method.

The major task of the students was to answer the leading evaluation question: “To what extent is delivery mechanism (at RDP and LAG level) supporting

the implementation of 7 features of Leader approach?”

To answer the evaluation question students had to accomplish the following tasks:

1. To study Leader approach and common monitoring and evaluation framework for rural development of 2007-2013 in the EU.

2. To study the guidelines for Leader Axis implemented under RDP in Slovakia

3. To design the evaluation framework to assess the delivery mechanism against 7 features of Leader

4. To develop and test evaluation tools: interviews and focus groups, 5. Conduct the field research in selected local action groups and examine the

practical implementation of Leader and its influence on the performance of 7 features of Leader in the Slovak context,

6. To conduct the SWOT analysis on the implementation of Leader approach in SR,

7. To draft conclusions and recommendations in relation to Leader approach in the SR for RDP and LAG level,

8. To prepare and present PPT on case study findings and present them in plenary (final event of the case study),

9. To draft the final report on case study findings.

The biggest added value of this year case study was that students have actively participated in the development of evaluation framework for LEADER delivery effects, design and testing the evaluation tools (interviews and focus groups) and conducting the field research directly in LAG territories. The close touch with practice was one of the main asset of the this year case study. Results obtained during the case study were offered to local action groups and other stakeholders involved in Leader during the final presentation on 8 August 2014.

4

3. DYNAMICS OF THE CASE STUDY

The case study was divided into following parts:3

� Theoretical lessons – general orientation in Slovakia, macroeconomic situation, the EU rural development policies, the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of Rural Development Programs, the EU Leader Axis, the state of the art of the Leader Axis in Slovakia. Leader Axis implementation guidelines and Leader implementation in Nitra self- governing Region as example of the regional best practice in the field.

� Development of evaluation framework – discussing the Leader guidelines and identification of key steps in Leader delivery at RDP and LAG level (Annex 4.), defining the 7 features and their benchmarks, linking steps to 7 features outlining major links among them.

� Design of evaluation tools (interviews and focus groups, both in Annex 5 of this report) and testing them in small local action groups supported by Leader programme of Nitra region (LAG Tribečsko and LAG Dolný Žitný ostrov). Fine tuning evaluation tools after testing.

� The field research – application of evaluation tools in two selected local action groups in Eastern Slovakia: local action group LEV (district Levoča and region Prešov) and local action group KRAS (district Rožňava, region Košice). Conducting interviews (17) and focus groups (no of participants in LEV: 14 and in KRAS: 16). Collection of evidence and elaboration of evaluation findings.

� Conducting the SWOT analysis on current strengths and weaknesses of Leader approach delivery in relation to 7 features of Leader, as well as opportunities and treats for its future development (Part 8 of the report)

� Summarizing findings: o Organizing and conducting the final presentation for

representatives of local action groups and other Leader related stakeholders on findings, SWOT, conclusions and recommendations in relation to delivery mechanism ad its effects on 7 features of Leader.

o Developing final reports (one for group working in LAG LEV and one for the group working in LAG KRAS), summarizing evaluation findings, SWOT analysis, answering evaluation question, including conclusions and recommendations for LAG and RDP level.

3 In detail see part 3 of this report

5

The outline of the case study method, dynamics and process to answer the above evaluation question can be illustrated with the following figure: Figure 1 the outline of the case study method

The complete agenda can be found in Annex 1.

6

4. PARTICIPANTS AND DIVISION ACCORDING LOCAL ACTION GROUPS

5. OUTCOMES OF THE CASE STUDY

The following outcomes of the case study 2014 have been produced during the case study and used in writing the final report:

• Reports (two reports linked to researched LAGs, one prepared by group working in LAG LEV and one by group working in LAG KRAS)

• Final PPT presented at closing event of the case study • SWOT analysis on Leader delivery mechanism

6. THE OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

The method of the case study was based on series of interactive exercises and can be outlined as follows:

• Information sharing • Desk research • Constructing evaluation framework • Developing evaluation tools • Testing evaluation tools • Field research • Analysing evaluation findings • Reporting including conclusion and recommendations

LAG KRAS

LAG LEV

Monika Bumbalová Slovakia Ivan Takáč Slovakia AMAYA ORTIZ, Luis Fernando Colombia Martin Valach Slovakia AMPONY, Divine Koku Ghana BUMAH Ateh Marie Estelle Cameroon DEPIO, Sheilla Anne Uganda BENYEI Petra Spain LEVESQUE, Philippe Canada CANGONJA Alisa Albania MERLO, Juan Ecuador GIALLOMBARDO Carlo Antonio Italy SOLETO, Ivan Spain KARIM Md. Rezaul Bangladesh YAGOUBI, Jihad Morocco NARAYANARAO Bhuvana India ZWART, Tjitske Anna Netherlands RODRIGUEZ Karla Ecuador

7

Information sharing happened during the first week of the case study, when students have received the information on the overall situation in Slovakia with special attention to the macroeconomic context and rural development. Further the EU rural development policy was explained, as well the EU Common monitoring and evaluation framework for rural development. Leader Axis was elaborated in more detail, with the specific focus on its implementation in the Slovak Republic. The best practice case of Nitra Regional Self-government contribution to the successful implementation of Leader Axis in local action groups of Nitra Region was presented. Methods used during this part were as follows:

a. Interactive presentations complemented by plenary discussion b. Interactive discussion sessions

In order to facilitate the subjects, the following literature as compulsory reading prior the Case study has been proposed:

• European Council 1698/2005 on support for rural development by EAFRD • Commission Regulation 1974/2006 laying down the detailed application of

the EC Regulation 1698/2005, • Annex VIII of the Commission regulation 1974/2006 – The Common

Monitoring and Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) for the EU Rural Development Programs, Handbook and Annexes – A, B, C, E, 2006

• Commission Regulation 434/2007 amending Com. Reg. 1974/2006 • Leader approach – the basic guide, EC Fact sheets, 2006 • European court of Auditors – implementation of Leader approach for rural

development , special report No5, 2010 • Guide for the application of Leader Axis of the rural development

programmes 2007 – 2013 funded by the EAFRD,EC 2007 • The Working paper on Capturing impacts of Leader and of measures to

improve the quality of life in rural areas, Helpdesk EEN RD 2009 • European parliament and Council Regulation 1305/2013 • European parliament and Council Regulation 1303/2013 • Common guidance of EC directorates general AGRI, EMPL, MARE and

REGIO on community – led local development in EU structural and investment funds, April 2013

• Guidance on community-led local development for local actors, April 2014 ENTATION OF THFORRURALEVELOPMENT The suggested additional reading prior coming to the Cases study was:

• European strategic guidelines for Rural Development, 2005

8

• Europe 2020 For very advanced readers the following literature was also proposed:

• TEPA team of authors: Animating local partnerships in rural areas – a practical guide, 2008

• The guidelines on the mid-term evaluation of rural development programs, EEN, 2009

• The Working paper for assessing Impacts of the Rural Development Programs in the context of multiply intervening factors, Helpdesk EEN RD, 2009

• Web page: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/evaluation/

As for desk research, students have discussed the guidelines for the implementation of Leader axis in the Slovak Republic, published and up dated recently by the Agriculture paying agency. Desk research was done interactively as the consultation with Slovak resource persons, who facilitated information exchange. PPTs of presenters from Managing authority and paying agency have been also used as the source. Attached to this session was the exercise on outlining the key steps in the Leader implementation at LAG and RDP level. Method used during this part was interactive discussion, brainstorming and group work. In constructing the evaluation framework students have discussed first seven features of Leader, providing definitions for each of them and consequently developed benchmarks, which illustrated ideal format of each of seven features. This exercise helped students to understand and frame the evaluation subject and consequently link it with delivery steps, both at LAG and RDP levels. The framework was the substantial step in development of evaluation tools. Methods used during this part were interactive discussion and brainstorming first in couples and plenary exchange and finalisation of outcomes (see the table in Annex 4) In developing evaluation tools, students have used previous exercises in designing the interview and the focus group screenplay (Annex 5). The work was organized in two small groups followed by plenary exchange and finalizing both tools.

9

Method used during this part was interactive discussion and brainstorming in two small groups and plenary exchange and finalisation of outcomes. Students tested the evaluation tools in two small local action groups in Nitra region (LAG Tribečsko and LAG Dolný Žitný ostrov), where they conducted series of interviews with LAG managers, chairpersons, members of board, beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, members of selection committees. They tested the functioning of the questions, interview process and target group. The same time students have organised the focus groups in both territories and tested the process and the FG methods, as well as construction of participants. Method used during this part was interviews and interactive focus groups sessions. After testing tools, students have gathered and fine-tuned both tools based on findings from testing. Students worked in small groups, using the discussion and plenary exchange and finalisation of outcomes (see the table in Annex 5). During the field research students have collected evidence to answer the evaluation question via using interviews and focus groups. Method used during this part was interviews and interactive focus groups sessions. Students have analysed evaluation findings on the effects of Axis 4 delivery on Leader method and its seven features using the SWOT analysis. In the SWOT analysis, the SW have been looked at from the point of current development and OT from the point of future of Leader approach. Method used during this part was small group work and plenary discussion including finalising the SWOT findings. Students have received the structure of the report, in which they elaborated on all steps above including answering the evaluation questions and drafting the conclusion and recommendations for future design of the delivery mechanism friendly to seven features of Leader. Results of the field survey, SWOT analysis, conclusions and recommendations have been presented during the final presentation of the case study.

10

7. CASE STUDY OUTCOMES

During the Case study students have evaluated effects of Axis 4 delivery on the seven features of Leader approach in the Slovak Republic. The main task was to answer the evaluation question: “To what extent is delivery mechanism (at

RDP and LAG level) supporting the implementation of 7 features of Leader

approach?” broken down to sub-questions along the 7 principles of the EU Leader: Area –based strategies, Bottom-up, Partnerships, Multi-sectoral integration, Innovation, Networking, and Cooperation. During the case study students have visited 4 territories of various local action groups. Two of them were located in Nitra region, not officially recognized by the Managing Authority of the RDP Slovakia, in which students have tested evaluation tools (interviews and focus groups):

• Local action group Tribečsko and • Local action group Dolný Žitný ostrov

Two other local action groups were located in Eastern Slovakia, and they were officially recognized by the Managing Authority of the RDP Slovakia:

• Local action group LEV in Levoča district, Region Prešov • Local action group KRAS in Rožňava district, Region Košice

Students have analysed these local action groups for the purpose of the case study, using the evaluation tools and collecting evidence to answer the evaluation question. The main outcomes of the case study can be summarized as follows: 7.1 Development of steps in Axis 4 delivery mechanism at RDP and LAG

levels

The following steps summarized in the table below have been identified in the delivery mechanism at both – RDP and LAG level.

11

Delivery Mechanism at the RDP Level

PRE-ASSESSMENT • Gather preliminary information about rural development situation, growth rate, most relevant productive activities, country priorities and most relevant strategies to promote sustainable growth of the sector.

NATIONAL

STRATEGY • Slovakia as an EU member has submitted a National

Strategic plan for 2007 – 2014 setting up priorities for action for European Agriculture Fund of Rural Development (EAFRD), taking into account the guideline, the assessment of the economic, social and environmental situation, specific objectives and the contribution from the EAFRD fund and other sources of funding.

• Develop the rural development programme, in which it decides on thematic and territorial priorities under each axis, including the main quantified objectives and appropriate indicator for monitoring and evaluation.

NATIONAL

GUIDELINES

• Measures of the Axis 4 – Leader to implement in Slovakia (implemented through technical measures of the Axis 3)

• Budget availability. • Procedures and conditions for eligibility of the LAGs • Legal and administrative framework. • Definition of responsibilities of all stakeholders

involved: LAG, paying agency, beneficiaries. • Financial reports

GUIDELINES

UPDATES • Changes on the guidelines (financial, legal,

administrative and program adjustments to the national guidelines).

AWARENESS

CREATION • The Ministry and Paying Agency spread the information

about LEADER National Guidelines through small regional workshops, leaflets, website updates, awareness sessions with key stakeholders at regional level, etc.

CAPACITY

BUILDING • Through providing specific training to the LAGs

interested regarding of operational issues of LEADER, selection criteria, strategies adaptation, financial and legal arrangements and technical issues of the program.

CALL FOR

PROPOSALS • The Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Paying

Agency (APA) are on charge of the process. The APA elaborates the call for proposal based on the LEADER

12

National Guidelines and the Rural Development National Strategy.

• The selection procedure ensuring competition between LAGs no later than 2 years after approval of programs. The Call for proposal specifies the budget, clear indication of selection criteria for the LAGs, planned maximum number of LAGs, planned percentage of rural territories covered by local development strategies, justification for selection areas.

• The templates for present the proposal • Legal and financial requirements. • Timeframe of the tender process.

EVALUATION OF

PROPOSALS

Selection of the local action groups (LAGs)

• Partnership related criteria: i) Be responsible for the implementation of the strategy: ii) Representative of partners from the various locally based socio-economic sectors; iii) At decision-making level representation of the economic and social actors of territory (at least 50% of the total partnership); iv) Ability to define and implement a development strategy; and v) Ability to manage public funds, the size of the territory? (10 000 – 150 000 inhabitants)

• Strategy related criteria: Integrated local action strategy.

• Territory: Coherent area and critical mass to support a viable development strategy.

CONTRACT

SIGNING • Formal agreement between APA and selected LAGs.

Each LAG has to sign in a contract, the strategy and budget.

• Agreement on administrative management of public funds for the LAGs.

• The contract lasts for 7 years. STRATEGY

UPDATES • Each year the measures budget could be reviewed and

adjusted, depending on the implementation. MONITORING OF

THE LAGs • In charge of the PA in annual basis (administrative,

financial and technical issues). EVALUATION • The Managing Authority is in charge of design the

TORs and contract the evaluation. • The Managing Authority of the RDP SK has undertaken

a mid-term and final evaluation of RDP including the LEADER.

13

Delivery Mechanism at the LAG Level

DEVELOPMENT OF

PARTNERSHIP • Include proportionally public and private sector

stakeholders (50% Private and 50% Public). • Include participant that represent different

groups, regions and activities within the territory. SETTING UP

PARTNERSHIP

STRUCTURE AND BODIES

• Constitute legally structure in administrative and financial matters of the LAG.

• Clear selection of the LAG Bodies (Management board, monitoring committee and LAG Management Unit).

STRATEGY DESIGN AND

APPROVAL • Assure widespread participation in strategy

design and good knowledge among partners about Local Development Strategy.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS • Carry-out capacity building for local actors. • Draw up project selection criteria • Assess and select operation for financing under

the Local Development Strategy (LDS). • Ensure that all the stakeholders and potential

beneficiaries are informed about the call for proposals, the measures included, the selection criteria and procedures to access funds.

• Provide technical assistance to potential beneficiaries in project design and preparation process.

SELECTION COMMITTEE

EVALUATION/SELECTION • Establish selection committee and equip it with

information and all necessary documents • Establish a clear set of parameters to assess in

equal manner all the project proposals presented for each measure.

• Provide the evaluation score to the LAG Management board in order to approve or not approve the projects.

• Provide feedback in order to improve the quality of projects before that be submitted to the Paying Agency.

PROJECTS APPROVED BY

PAYING AGENCY (APA) • Technical and financial clearance.

INFORM BENEFICIARIES • The LAG is in charge of informing the beneficiaries and guides the process.

SIGN CONTRACTS WITH

APA FINANCIAL BODIES • Contract signing (if the project is finally

approved).

14

STRATEGY UPDATES • Every year the Management Board reviews with support of LAG Management staff the implementation of the LDS and review the possible updates (following LEADER National guidelines).

• In the case of updated, LAG´ General Assembly is in charge of the approval.

• The update should be submitted to the PA. MONITORING

EVALUATION • The LAG is accountable for review the

implementation of each project (as per the LDS). This task should be coordinated with the APA.

7.2 Definition of seven features of Leader approach and their benchmarks

Students have defined the seven features and provided benchmarks for them. The overview of results can be found below in the table.

15

7.3 Design and testing the interviews a focus groups

Draft evaluation tools have been prepared by students on 22nd July 2014 after definition of seven Leader features, features benchmarks and identifying links between features and Axis 4 delivery steps. In the case of the interview, both open and closed questions were used, each of them aimed at addressing the features of LEADER. In the case of the focus group, three activities were designed with the purpose of retrieving in-depth and comprehensive information pertaining each feature of LEADER that would complement and/or build on the information provided in the interviews. Both tools have been tested in LAGs of Nitra region. This allowed students to establish if (1) the schedule is clear, understandable and capable of answering the questions and (2) if the activities designed for the focus group were reliable, engaging and allow for in-depth and dynamic discussions. Testing also helped to identify errors, poor wording or ordering of questions/activities and determine problems caused by the respondent’s inability or unwillingness to answer the questions in the case of an interview, and the group’s lack of interest in actively participating, in the case of a focus group. After pre-testing, the results of pre-test were reviewed and re-discussed by group exercise on 25 July 2014. During group exercise by the students, necessary corrections, alterations, modifications and adjustments followed in order to prepare the final questionnaire and focus group based on pre-test responses and activities. The final version of the interview and the focus group screen play can be found in the Annex 5.

7.4 Collecting evidence to answer the case study evaluation question and

producing evaluation results

Interviews and focus groups have been conducted in 2 local action groups in Eastern Slovakia. The following types of beneficiaries have been interviewed: LAG managers, LAG chairmen and board members, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, members of selection committees etc. All together 17 people have been interviewed on both LAGs. Focus group has been organized in both LAG territories. In LAG LEV 14 LAG members and non-members took part in the focus group, in MAS KRAS there were 16members. Results of data collection can be found in group reports, Annex 7.

16

7.5 Development of SWOT analysis on effects of Axis 4 delivery on Leader

approach

Area Based Strengths • The territory has common identity and there is adequate

information available about the potential of area. • LEADER funding has enforced identification to the

territory and it has facilitated the increase of awareness for the development of particular areas.

Weakness • Limited human resources in terms of knowledge, skills, innovations, information etc.

• Lack of understanding between ethnicities within territory. Opportunities • LEADER can promote strong socio-economic linkages within

the territory which creates economic virtuous circles and provides local heritage preservation.

• Enforcing socio economic strengths encourages immigration which maintains and encourages population retention within the territory.

Threats • Limited prospects for a better integration and communication due to ethnic conflicts within the territory. This lead to improper diagnosis to reflect the real situation.

• Limited local financial resources. • Public procurement law: lowest bid wins (cooperation to

arrange the competition in the interested individuals’ favour). This is due to the guidelines which limit the numbers of measures implementable.

Bottom Up

Strengths • All members of community can be engaged in decision

making. • Incentives to direct participation of local population in

development of the territory exist. Weakness • Lack of capacity to include all individuals in the process as

to achieve full participation. • Unintended exclusion of non-members as they do not

benefit much from LAG projects. • Apparent information gap for people not involved in the

LAG.

17

Opportunities • Generation of linkages and capacity building for local development will improve better communication thus leading to greater participation.

Threats • Top-down decision making. • Tendency to create elites within the territory. • Discouraging processes and high bureaucracy: especially

APA. • Guidelines impede the participation of local stakeholders.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP)

Strengths • Existing framework for collaboration between both public

and private sectors. Weakness • Administrative burden/complicated control mechanism

decreases incentives for involvement of private actors. • Low level of awareness of private sector of their role in

the partnership and development of the region. • Private sectors failing to realize that the visibility is an

important aspect of their participation. Opportunities • Creation of synergies between sectors, pooling of

resources results in inclusive development of the territory. • It will be better for the future projects provided stronger

PPP. Threats • Limited choice of measures (RDP): Private actors are not

necessarily interested in the chosen measures under RDP level

• Limited available funding (RDP) • 50% private funding (RDP), 50% private fund: less

incentives to launch future projects • Limited available funding (small projects): less involvement

of private actors (mentality private actors not in line with LEADER-direct profit based vision of private actors) to the borderlines and giving wrong idea about LEADER through its budget allocation.

• Eligibility costs strengthen borderlines between sectors.

Multi-sector design

Strengths • The approach in itself is integral which meant to integrate

all/many sectors with strategic thinking at the designs of LDS.

18

Weakness • Restrictive choices of initiatives because only Axis 3/4 measures are allowed.

• Lack of possibilities to integrate initiatives in different sectors, due to the guidelines and measurements covered by LEADER.

Opportunities • There is an opportunity for integration and broadening of all measures

• All sectors can be heard and integrated into common projects.

Threats • No integrated implementation due to guidelines.

Networking

Strengths • Helps actors who would not normally know each other to

connect and work together. • Increases awareness of actors/stakeholders in the area

beyond the municipal level. Weakness • Network takes place at higher level (conflict LAG ≠ Final

beneficiary). • Dynamic impedes inclusion of all actors (it is exclusive as

the strategy implementation is not able to support clusters).

• Limited efforts to foster network among beneficiaries/actors.

Opportunities • Creates initiatives for development of potential markets. • Knowledge and experience exchange between different

regions, territories and countries. Threats • Public procurement law can hinder networking via favouring

the cheapest offers

Cooperation

Strengths • Concrete incentive and measures that encourage exchange Weakness • Bureaucratic burdens (E.g. attempt to cooperate with CZ

LAG, but was made impossible because of heavy bureaucracy and differences in project budgets)

• Unequal funding from one LAG to the other Opportunities • Enhanced visibility from pooling of capacities, resources

and exchange of knowledge. • Broadening the scope of cooperation beyond LEADER, from

LAG level to independent level.

19

Threats • Bureaucratic burdens have been increased substantially which has threated the cooperation (e.g. attempt to cooperate with CZ LAG, but was made impossible because of heavy bureaucracy).

Innovation

Strengths • Willingness of LEADER to implement innovative project in

territory (LEADER includes concepts for innovation). • Existing resources used in an innovative way which

generates capacity to get support for the territory. Weakness • Relativity of the definition of "innovation" concept and lack

of capacity at territorial level to be innovative, therefore few projects are implemented.

Opportunities • LEADER fosters capacity to support innovation. New ideas can bring in more investments, encourage creativity and make better use of resources

Threats • Limited choice of innovation approach in the guidelines threatens the innovation.

7.6 Conclusions and recommendations

Area-based

Question: Do LEADER interventions reflect the needs, diversity and interest of the territory?

Conclusions LEADER is supporting the territorial cohesion and self-identity of the territories, being a useful tool to integrate different types of visions, opinions and interest towards to boost development and social cohesion in rural areas. The LAG is able to identify the real needs and expectations of territory actors; however, the participation of different stakeholders is not as broad as it could be. One of the main reasons for this could be the reduced spectrum of available measures to implement through LEADER. The reduced availability of qualified human resources endangers the capacity of LAG to implement comprehensive interventions that address efficiently the identified needs (high dependence on LAG Manager). LAGs are allocating funds to restore/improve public goods (municipal houses, small roads, bus stops, etc.) instead of target more strategic interventions towards to strengthen local development. This situation misleads the purpose of LEADER, creates a distortion on public funds responsibilities and discourages the participation of other private and society actors.

20

Recommendations

More incentives as a broaden the ‘menu’ of eligible measures, adding funds from other AXIS to the LEADER approach or others that the MA and APA considers feasible could be helpful to strengthen the cohesion of the territory. To keep supporting the activities that promote common identity and collective goals within the LEADER territories. Maintain the concentration of resources at local level, ensuring enough support to develop the local capacities. Analyse alternatives to increase the amount of ‘seed capital’ provided by LAGs to private ventures in the territory; harnessing the local initiatives and creating the conditions for potentialize alternative sources of employment or income.

Bottom Up

Question: In what extent LEADER approach has reinforced participatory approaches based on the subsidiarity principle?

Conclusions The decision making process allows for participation of different actors within the LAGs. However, there is still room for improvement at the moment of sharing information about LAG activities and stimulate the participation of non-members. Despite of the effort conducted by LAGs to spread out the information about strategy and its priorities, there is still scope of improve the capacity to identify the strategic needs of the territory. This situation might lead limited possibilities to participate in the decision making process. Due to existence of intricate bureaucratic processes, the capacities of final beneficiaries are limited to be independent. There is a high dependence on LAG Management structure. Guidelines dictate type of projects and measures and the territories are not consulted during identification of national priorities. This gap between LAG, APA and MA is reducing the possibilities for Community-based organizations and potential beneficiaries to participate in decision-making. Although LEADER approach has been key to provide concrete tools for local stakeholder to address their own development goals, there is still a wide scope of decision that are not respond to the subsidiarity principle (beneficiaries are not always involved in strategy design and project approval instances).

Recommendations

All the actors (LAGs, APA, and MA) should continue maintaining all the different means of information dissemination. However, it is quite important to develop events that ensure widespread awareness about LAG strategies, population needs, procedures and participatory tools. National Guidelines should include measure from other CAP Axis. This adjustment would provide more chances to potential beneficiaries to access funds and technical support from the LAGs. As a result, the

21

Local Development Strategy could be more diverse and adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries. National LEADER Guidelines should include a certain mandatory measures in which the LAGs encourage capacity building activities with potential beneficiaries and members about how to connect the needs of different stakeholders and Local Development Strategy.

Public Private Partnership

Question: How effective has been the collaboration between public and private sectors in LEADER implementation?

Conclusions LEADER institutionalized the collaboration between the private and the public sectors. This framework had a multiplier effect on the public investments. LAGs are allocating funds to restore/improve public goods (municipal houses, small roads, bus stops, etc.) instead of target more strategic interventions towards to strengthen local development. This situation misleads the purpose of LEADER, creates a distortion on public funds responsibilities and discourages the participation of other private and society actors. Nevertheless, the reason for existence of Public-Private Partnership is misunderstood and participation of the private sector is driven by subsidies

Recommendations

Public-Private Partnership should be based on other considerations like shared objectives rather than finances. Analyse alternatives to increase the amount of “seed capital” provided by LAGs to private ventures in the territory, harnessing the local initiatives and creating the conditions for potential alternative sources of employment or income.

Multi-sector design

Question: To what extent LEADER has been able to integrate different sectors? Conclusions LEADER is encouraging the inclusion of different sectors in the design

of the local development strategy. However, in practice, due to the narrow options of measures, it is difficult to bring this feature into action. At the same time, broadening the range of measures to choose from is not the only solution to the weak sector diversification within LEADER projects in Slovakia. In fact, this is also due to financially led motivations of some sectors that cannot derive subsidies from LEADER.

Recommendations

Open a discussion on the possibility of increasing the flexibility of the measures included in LEADER (cf. New EU guidance for the upcoming period 2014-2020)

22

Networking

Question: To what extent LEADER has created linkages between different stake holders involved (LAGs and other organization involved in rural development)?

Conclusions LEADER has created the opportunity to strengthen and develop the linkages within and between the villages in the same territory, but also between the actors directly and indirectly in the LAGs. However, depending on the territories, these networks are more or less strong, in the sense that the work undertaken by the different communities would – or not – continue without the existence of the LAG in the future. Furthermore, there is a contradiction between the encouragement of linkages’ creation from the LEADER side and the strict regulations on public procurement that might not always allow the local competences to engage in the development of their territories.

Recommendations

There are two issues that the management of the LAG must work harder in solving: feedback/information flow and the overall involvement of various groups of actors. Certainly there are many attempts to provide information and increase engagement, but there should be more significant and explicit efforts so that the links between people are stronger. At the legislative level, the public procurement clause should be readapted, taking into account the requirements of LEADER in strengthening local networks.

Cooperation

Question: To what extent has LEADER promoted cooperation activities as transfer of information, good practices and know-how between rural areas?

Conclusions Cooperation has been promoted through concrete initiatives between different actors and territories; LAGs have strengthened the linkages and networks that are most likely to keep on working in the future and sustaining further cooperation. This has also enhanced an increased sharing of knowledge, experience and capacities, inside and outside the LAG territories. However, the excessive bureaucratic burdens can compromise the capacity of the LAGs to encourage this feature. In addition to that, the misunderstanding on how cooperation can benefit the territory in other way regardless of the financial one. This issue could discourage cooperation between partners that do not have equal financial support.

Recommendations

Better communication and information tools and activities should be implemented in order to clarify that the LEADER approach is a method more than a fund. Furthermore, programme authorities should strengthen the technical and financial support for the early and latter stages of cooperation, as trying to dismantle bureaucratic burdens to make regulatory requirement more bearable for the LAGs and the final beneficiaries.

23

Finally, it is also important to keep on sustaining and broadening networks that promote and deepen the cooperation between all the stakeholders.

Innovation

Question: Is the innovation clearly understood/embraced by LAGs participants and LEADER beneficiaries? – In what extent LEADER has allowed innovative initiatives in the rural sector in Slovakia?

Conclusions In general, LAGs are supportive to finance innovative projects, but those projects are not able to materialize due to lack of financial support, time constraints and misunderstanding of the concept of innovation. The National LEADER guidelines have not defined clearly the concept of innovation and the characteristics that one innovative project has. The LEADER National Guidelines seem to be not precise on defining the concept and provide illustrative examples to LAGs with concrete experiences. (RDP level). Different definitions of innovation might cause confusion among LAG participants and beneficiaries, misleading the results of LEADER within the areas. (LAG Level). At LAG level, despite of the openness of members to receive innovative proposals, there are not particular promotion mechanisms (within the call for proposals, budget) that encourage beneficiaries to present an innovative ideas. (LAG Level). The low participation of young inhabitants (under 30 years old) in the LAG might lead the decrease of innovative proposals included in LDS and further projects. Limited available measures defined by the guidelines can also be a constraint to develop innovative ideas.

Recommendations

Better communication and information tools and activities should be implemented in order to clarify that the LEADER approach is a method more than a fund. Furthermore, programme authorities should strengthen the technical and financial support for the early and latter stages of cooperation, as trying to dismantle bureaucratic burdens to make regulatory requirement more bearable for the LAGs and the final beneficiaries. Finally, it is also important to keep on sustaining and broadening networks that promote and deepen the cooperation between all the stakeholders.

24

8. REMARKS TO THE CASE STUDY:

All selected local action groups were very helpful and assisted students in obtaining necessary information in using the evaluation tools. The logistics arrangements in territories of local action groups were satisfactory, well supported by local action group managers. Preparatory session and developed evaluation tools were sufficient for carry on the task. Students have shown the high degree of dedication and involvement during the case study and completed tasks in satisfactory manner. They took very positive learning attitude during the whole time the case study was implemented. They have shown the willingness to understand the topic and rural areas of Slovakia, which they could experience personally being present as guests of selected local action groups. Students have learnt about Leader approach and its 7 features and examined its practical implementation in the Slovak context. They have shown sufficient analytical skills and willingness to understand the situation as well as the good group affiliation and positive group dynamics. Presentations have proven satisfactory synthesizing skills. The understanding of the topic was very good.

9. LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1: The Program of the Case study Annex 2: Presentations of Mr. D. Húska, Mr. P. Swarcz, Ms. A. Kuruczová,

Ms. Korčeková and Ms. V. Juricová Annex 3: Presentation of Ms. J. Tvrdoňová Annex 4: Evaluation framework: table linking delivery steps and seven features

of Leader Annex 5: Evaluation tools: interviews and focus group screenplay Annex 6: Final presentation of students Annex 7: Final reports of students

25

Acronyms

CLLD Community led local development EAFRD European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development EP European Parliament EU European Union IMRD International Master for Rural Development LAG Local Action Group LDS Local Development Strategy NR Nitra RDP Rural Development Programme PPT Power point presentation SAU Slovak Agriculture University SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats TEPA Training of European Partnership Animators