Leader+ Observatory Conference: ‘Leader achievements: a diversity of territorial experience’ November 2007, Évora/Portugal Comprehensive report on four (mini) plenary sessions: Portugal, Poland, Swedend, United Kingdom Jean-Pierre Vercruysse European Commission

Achievements Scottish Borders  Method: definition of “Innovation areas” (and not sectorial) as a way of integrating projects. Wood, Water, Land, Culture.  Innovation group meetings (all stakeholders): 156 ideas of projects, 83 projects led by 55 organisations.  Difficulty: to keep people involved  Mainstream: Capacity of the LAG to integrate other policies as they appear  Example: Social Justice and Sustainability  Results: many quantitative indicators of success + increased cohesion (= capacity building + networking)

Achievements Smaland  Method : network of local partnerships in each municipality + involvement of the 3 sectors (public, private, volunteer)  Strategy: focused on 3 sectors representing the economic history of the area (hardwood, crystal, aluminium).  Support for businesses in those sectors (including access to foreign markets, via branding etc), with an element of design  Results:  94 projects, quantitative goals (jobs,..) largely overtaken at mid-term already.  Massive capacity building in project development  Creation of networks and “clusters” between local actors and public authorities

Achievements Kujawsko-pomorskie  Village Renewal programme in 2002  created 30 local groups (village level)  2005, creation of the (informal) local partnership  training of 172 rural leaders  strategy focused on the Notec river and valley prepared  vision: “a good place to live, worth a visit”  Leader+ started with a small budget in Feb 2007  16 projects foreseen (walking, cycling and boating routes; culinary contest, …)  LAG has a network of 15 village associations

Achievements Monte  Method:  Network of 4 Rural Intervention Offices (unification of 4 local development associations)  Decentralised “animation” technically supported by the LAG coordinator  own way of working and establishing the most appropriate partnerships  Strategy  5 axis and goals well beyond Leader (EQUAL, …)  Rural development, Citizenship, Social inclusion, Environment and cooperation  Results:  300 projects (Leader 2 and +), 140 jobs, total investment of over 9 mil Euro since 1996  Leader allowed a diversification of economic activities, what would not have been possible in its absence  Centre for study of bird life, an NGO developing a set of activities around the preservation of birds in the Alentejo region

Difficulties, risks  Partnership:  Three-Tiers partnership is difficult (but also the richest approach)  Difficult to engage young people in local partnerships (emigration, ageing population, etc.)  Leader is a challenge for power, there is a risk to disturb the national/regional bureaucracy  Continuity:  More funding must come before the end of the partnership  The need for a new strategy before the projects have reached maturity and maybe sustainability (no serious assessment possible)  Governance:  The local animators are in the place, but there is no relay at regional level  Mainstreaming, :  Can damage the capacity of the programme to adjust to local needs. LAG will not have access to Axis 1 and 2 funding.

Key messages  Method:  Use “Innovation groups” as a method to focus partners from all backgrounds (takes time, you need results)  There is a need of project management for more capitalisation of the method  Local proximity (network of decentralised offices) is a key factor for getting results  the local managers know the local conditions (and politics)  The experimentation of a “participative methodology” should be obligatory in regional policy areas  Strategy:  Leader is a tool to achieve local goals, but these have to be clearly defined (strategy, vision)  The LAG must have a capacity to intervene beyond the Leader programme  Results:  People have learned to cooperate and have been given faith in the capacity for development  they saw that something was happening  Sustainability:  Comes from the involvement of the private sector in project management and the provision of funding by them

Cooperation, networking  Why to cooperate?  Cooperation projects are linked with the strategy (wood, fashion schools)  Who is involved?  Trans-national cooperation (TNC): contacts established under Leader II, it has brought both: know-how and know-who  Meetings of TNC projects were open to the local partnerships and not just the co-founders  What are they doing?  Inter-territorial cooperation (ITC): priority in common actions with complementarities across adjacent territories (signposting, river management, …) or critical mass (Pro Regoes)  TNC: They are more about exchange, learning, transfer  How does it work?  Management of TNC / ITC projects very complicated due to varying procedures (co-funding, claims, monitoring) and calendars in MS and Regions  elect a coordinating LAG and agree on claims/monitoring procedures at the very beginning  Difficulty is to keep everybody involved since they cannot all participate in the trans-national exchanges  Which results does it bring?  ITC: common action means more activity locally  TNC: exchange of ideas, “softer” output (capacity)

Networking  National and regional networking was intensive LAGs have common background and often a tradition of working together since Leader II  Thematic networking should have been more developed  example of EQUAL  Little else happened Many visits from new territories (EU 10+2) Participation to the conferences