Leader+ Steering Committee 31 January-1 February Bruxelles Cooperation in Leader+ The actual benefits for the local areas European Commission

Objectives of the ongoing study  Show the benefits of cooperation  Spending time and money on a cooperation project is useful  Illustrate that what has been achieved through cooperation would not have been otherwise possible

Method used for the study  Define (with the NNUs) a sample  cooperation projects (inter-territorial & transnational) having had interesting and tangible outputs and results  Process projects from this sample through a reading grid (initial objective, tangible outcome, added value of cooperation, lessons)  Also: use all the information available on cooperation (databases, guides, pilot actions & good practices) to enrich the analysis

The objectives of cooperation…  take advantage of similarities (geographical characteristic, specific production, cultural asset, historical context...)  take advantage of complementarities (geographical assets, natural complementarities, management of complementary know-how)  reach critical masses (new markets, economy of scale…)  bring a tangible value added to the areas & actors involved... how about the tangible benefits & results?

Why have LAGs cooperated in L+?  because they have to! (compulsory / top down)  to get further granting  because other areas do it / for the image of the LAG (prestige and visibility)  to reinforce existing contacts (internal to the LAG or with external partners)  to aquire knowledge, learn from the partners: transfer and exchange of ideas and good practices  to exploit new markets for regional products  to broaden the horizons and open up minds to Europe  to create a working basis for the future

Some tangible benefits Assessment of spontaneous (transnational) Leader I cooperation --> 5 possible types of cooperations… still up to date! Types of cooperationMain inputs for the participants 1) Exchange of experienceNew perspectives Awareness-raising on a particular theme Confidence 2) Training and human resourcesBetter qualifications of the people involved 3) Innovation transferApplication of new expertise, technology and/or working methods 4) Joint business managementAccess to new markets 5) Participation in a thematic network Definition of common norms and methodologies Collective management

What have L+ LAGs got out from cooperation? further to what they were expecting Some general ideas…  better management skills  finding new solutions  a direct (sometimes economic) return for the local actors involved  strengthen local strategy  boost motivation of the actors involved  create a cooperation culture … and some tangible outputs

Some tangible outputs (1) already possible to partly identify after Leader II Definition and development of new products / services and technical assistance  many joint training courses  joint design of products and services --> plan and implement experimental programmes and carry out tests / development of quality management methods  jointly develop and use software, internet sites, computer systems, etc

Some tangible outputs (2)  Joint production of goods and services: common action in the stricter sense  the notion of common action: put forward by the Commission, understood in various ways  joint production of goods is difficult (logistical, economic and legal obstacles). Yet development notably in tourism (routes) and culture (festivals, exhibitions) sectors  consolidation of production in the local areas involved

Some tangible outputs (3)  Joint promotion of products and services  many classical activities (leaflets, CD-ROMs, logos, internet sites, fairs...) mainly in the tourism, crafts and cutural sectors (more favorable?)  food or agriculture products: diversity (products, contexts and outlets) --> effective joint promotion actions are difficult --> either more generic type of promotion (around all regional foodstuffs, specialities and recipes) or promotion around a single product (truffle, specific type of tree...)

What L+ has most changed concerning the results of cooperation  More professionalism  more experience (LAGs & local actors) --> mature projects with tangible results at different development stages  A longer term vision (phases, greater ambition, economic turnover…)  Tangible outcomes in more sectors than before: from (nearly) tourism only to tourism + culture + craft + economy  More proactivity of the local actors: not only as participants but involved in definition, implementation and development of the projects (real bottom-up)  Stronger partnerships:  local, specialized partnership (women entrepreneurs, typical quality craftsmen, specific tourism provider...)  between areas involved around 1 project, then another, then another --> the spiral of cooperation  Into building strong basis for the future

What next?  Complete the sample of projects  Continue the analysis around the issues mentioned, complete the list of issues if needed  Envisage a format of publication which would touch both decision makers in LAGs (sometimes difficult to convince) and local actors (for whom things sometimes seem complex)  little theory and a lot of short project description outlining results achieved, interviews, pictures and drawings?