1. Energising Ireland’s Rural Economy: Spatial Development Messages from Current Government Policy – Signposts from CEDRA and Local Governance: Creating the Regions of Tomorrow: Maximising Ireland’s Reform Opportunity Dr. Karen Keaveney Dr. Brendan O’Keeffe

2. Contents 1.Framing the Debate – why rural matters 2.Perceptions of the Rural 3.Policy Paradigms a.EU Regional Development Pointers and Frameworks b.Local Governance & Local Government c.CEDRA – relevance and application 4.Policy and Practice Fits 5.Recommendations

3. 1. Framing the Debate – why rural matters Importance of Rural Regions & Territories Density is not necessary to be a high-performing region. With investment, predominantly rural regions have, on average, enjoyed faster growth than intermediate or urban regions. Predominantly rural regions also evidence greater variety in performance. - OECD (2012) Promoting Growth in All Regions

4. 2. Perceptions of the Rural … & Misperceptions Irish Times 25/08/2014 Tailoring the (micro-level) policy response to each region’s potential points to a “neoendogenous” approach, where local knowledge and commitment is supported by advice and regulation from the EU and National levels. Advocacy of such an approach highlights the pressing need for more appropriate indicators, and regional auditing procedures, to facilitate assessment of intangible assets. EDORA (European Development Opportunities for Rural Areas) 2013, ESPON tailoring responses at the appropriate geography neoendogenous supported by government intangible assets

5. 3. Policy Paradigms a.EU Regional Development Pointers and Frameworks b.Local Government and Local Governance c.CEDRA – relevance and application

6. 3a. EU Rural Development Pointers and Frameworks We believe that the objectives of the EU defined in the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can only be achieved if the territorial dimension of the strategy is taken into account, as the development opportunities of the different regions vary. We consider that the place‐based approach to policy making contributes to territorial cohesion. Based on the principles of horizontal coordination, evidence‐informed policy making and integrated functional area development, it implements the subsidiarity principle through a multilevel governance approach. The development of the wide variety of rural areas should take account of their unique characteristics. We support transnational and cross border integration of regions going beyond cooperation projects and focusing on developments and results of real cross‐border or transnational relevance. - Territorial Agenda 2020 ‐ Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions (May, 2011). Territorial governance matters… governance capacity underpins the development and management of local and regional development; necessary to achieve better co-ordination of policy between scales and agreement is needed on territorial development objectives amongst stakeholders, from the public and private sectors and from civil society. - Sandra Di Biaggio, ESPON Coordination Unit. territorial dimension place-based multi-level governance variety of rural area types public and private sectors and from civil society territorial governance matters real cross‐border or transnational relevance

7. 3b Local Governance Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) “… the LEADER approach … an effective tool for handing power to ‘people on the ground’ ” Focus on sub-regional areas Community-led by Local Action Groups Integrated, Multi-Sectoral, Area- based… local needs and potential Single Methodology for connected and integrated use of funds “More autonomous LAGs” - Metis, 2010: 20 “one of the key features of the LEADER approach is that decisions should be made not by public authorities but by a wider local partnership, where the local government is included” - European Court of Auditors, 2010: 18

8. 3b Communities support CLLD Town Hall Meetings discuss and showcase Community-Led Local Development

9. LEADER Rally, 9 th July 2014

10. Groundswell in Favour of CLLD

11. 3b Local Governance – Local Government Recommendations by LEADER Partnerships 1.Strengthen Local Government by – devolving power from central government bureaucracy (and NOT from local development and voluntary bodies), – Giving it a 21 st century geography – Ensuring local accountability – A more flexible system that allows for innovation and local input. – Giving the SPC oversight over all statutory bodies. 2.Strengthen Local Development by – Autonomous Local Action Groups – enablers of participative democracy and collaborative governance – Allowing for local innovation and tailored strategies – with less red tape. – Ensure community ownership – Partnership between local government and local development.

12. But…. 1. The Local Government Reform Act (2013) Reduce the number of Regional Authorities Abolition of Town Councils No Notable transfer of powers from central to local government Only One LEADER and Local Development Partnership for the Entire County?? Community Leaders are replaced by Municipal Councillors and Executives in the LEADER and LCDP decision-making body Either the new Partnership will have to contend with an additional reporting / bureaucratic layer i.e. Local Authority OR Local Authority will implement LEADER

13. 24 Members 16 Male (66%) 6 Female (25%) 2 Vacancies (8%) 15 Members * * Based on two councillors and two officials

14. “The 2012 Action Programme for Effective Local Government proposes a regional structure which is meaningless in terms of city-region development and fails to address the governance weaknesses which inhibit development at the regional and local levels. The action programme therefore ignores international best practice regarding how effective regional development should be pursued.” -Breathnach (2013: 51)

15. 3c. CEDRA A welcome spotlight on the rural. Provides momentum. Improves data / baselines. Recognises territorial differentiation. but, proposals lack spatial differentiation, due to the straightjacket of the Local Government Reform Act.

16. Communities filling Vacuums and Providing ‘State’ Services

17. One Size fits all….. but you can have broadband, soon. Community-Led Local Development Place-Based Strategies (micro-regions) Focus on Potential Differentiation Integration Multi-Level Governance

18. 4. Policy and Practice Fits Mismatch between recent national policy and international best practice. Lack of an evidence-based approach. Obsession with medieval and administrative straightjackets. Lack of regional and local differentiation. Missing-out on Opportunities: CLLD and CBC But, hope emerging from new ministry, provided it becomes more stand-alone and assertive.

19. 5. Recommendations Rural Proof the in-coming NPF and put it on a statutory footing. Devolve power from the centre to the local in line with successive independent recommendations. Move away from county geographies to more flexible and contemporary realities. Ensure rural and local development continue to operate via the experienced partnerships. Support and invest in local services in conjunction with local communities.