Capítulo III: Subsistencia y resistencia de la agricultura familiar campesina 5 Paine y su historia de resistencia
6.4 Apostar por la agroecología es retomar lo originario
competitiveness. The implementation of the leader approach contributed to the generation of new sustainable forms of local governance in rural areas. (OÏR, 2006, p. XI) However, the rural-urban relations are often not within the scope of Leader areas and Leader-designed local development strategies rarely included this priority (OÏR, 2006, p. VII).
The approach seems to fit particularly well to small-scale area-based activities and projects in lagging regions and vulnerable territories. It was found that Leader programmes in general complemented other development measures, targeting projects of smaller scale which also had a more experimental and innovative character as well as a broader range of beneficiaries (especially from the non- profit sector or female entrepreneurs). In other terms, Leader programmes often fill demand niches that would be neglected by mainstream programmes and act in addition as a pathfinder for Rural Development programmes.
However, Leader programmes are
considered to be complex, thus requiring adequate human resources, political support and time. In particular, insufficient implementation time is quoted to be a major factor of efficiency- effectiveness reduction, as well as cumbersome administrative processes, lack of management skills, duplication with other existing initiatives, or weak-non-representative partnerships disregarding the participatory aspects (OÏR, 2003, p. 22; OÏR, 2006, p. III).
The area-based approach feature of the Leader approach is in general not seen to be problematic. The size chosen is not too small to avoid critical mass but also not too large to dissipate the personal interactions, seen as a key advantage of Leader approach (Metis, 2010, p. 20). The relations with urbanised parts adjacent or included to the territory of Leader areas might be often underestimated by local development strategies. Another aspect
discussed is the possible contradiction between targeting certain groups (women, young) and the area-based approach (OÏR, 2006, p. VII). The Leader approach itself should allow deciding to target or not certain groups based on the area-based assessment of the situation in each area. However, the latest evaluation considers that the particular needs of certain target groups require additional arrangements (Metis, 2010, p. 15).
The bottom-up feature of the Leader approach depends on the existence of a viable, representative partnership, a skilled management and animation team, a favourable political environment and continuity of funding with financial participation of local authorities (long term – five to ten years at least - strategic vision). In addition, a good bottom-up approach needs to be supported by appropriate top-down approach (encouraging and enabling instead of commanding and controlling), avoiding paternalistic schemes where the national/ regional authorities propose projects/measures simply endorsed by LAGs (OÏR, 2006, p. IV). The setting of European priority themes (sometimes complemented by national/regional ones) was not seen as helpful in general. On the contrary, it might contradict the principles of area-based and bottom-up approaches. LAGs and leader areas are however called to better integrate the global macro-picture (Metis, 2010, p. 16).
Partnerships with a balanced representation of public, private and non-profit sectors are most likely to have the best results (OÏR, 2003, p. 25). Capacity-building and guidance on good practices were stressed to be key points, requiring time and networking. Time is mentioned as the main constraint for the elaboration of a good local development strategy by the partnership.
Innovation: The main one is the implementation of the Leader method itself (OÏR, 2003, p. 25). Innovative projects should however be more favoured, for example by specific budget for pilot and experimental projects.
41
Fa
ci
lita
tin
g
an
a
re
a-
ba
se
d
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t a
pp
ro
ac
h
in
r
ur
al
re
gi
on
s
in
th
e
W
es
te
rn
B
al
ka
ns
Multi-sectorial integration is difficult to achieve. It needs the combination of a favourable administrative context, of a diversified economy, a viable partnership and a strong strategic multi- sectorial orientation in the local action plan (OÏR, 2003, p. 26). However, this aspect contributes to the strengthening of the local economic and social capital in rural areas and should be privileged (Metis, 2010, p. 15). A certain balance between productive (competitiveness) and reproductive (quality of life) sides of life should be sought (Metis, 2010, p. 21).
Networking is needed to keep partnerships well informed and motivated.
Transnational cooperation mainly addresses networking issues. It rarely deals with effective cooperation projects. When these have been implemented, they might have been designed too ambitiously. It would have been easier to focus on linking neighbouring LAGs, in particular in the early phases. Lack of time and complex administrative procedures involving several national authorities added to the difficulties and made that transnational cooperation is still under-implemented. However, the idea of cooperation is valued by LAGs for the potential of attaining critical mass by pooling resources for a determined objective. (OÏR, 2006, p. VIII). Cooperation between neighbouring areas and LAGs gave in latest phases (Leader+) stronger encouragement to joint actions and measures and this aspect is now even more emphasised (Metis, 2010, p. 15).
The specific features of the Leader approach have not been invented by the programme but the integrated nature of their implementation has been novel. In addition, Leader has created a common spirit or sense regarding how to successfully implement local development initiatives within the EU (EC, 2006). Such spirit is repeatedly evoked by actors involved in such programmes, although it is not precisely described. This seems to show that ‘a little bit more’ than good programme management
is required for the success of Leader-based programmes. (OÏR, 2006 p. III)
Previous experience in Leader I and Leader II programmes is a very important element of the success of Leader+, thus demonstrating that this approach needs a long term stability to achieve its potential benefits.
Overall, the Leader approach shows a considerable overlap with the ABD. However, applying the Leader does not require a complex development problem particular to the region/ area. Furthermore, the Leader approach is not necessarily all-inclusive; on the contrary, Leader programmes regularly target particular segments of the population (e.g. women). In addition, implementation of Leader is limited to areas with 5 000 up to 100 000 inhabitants (i.e. smaller than NUTS 3), whereas the size of a target area for the ABD approach is not specified. Finally, Leader, implemented within Rural Development Programmes, is not designed for implementation in cross-border areas, whereas the ABD concept can be applied cross-border. More importantly, Leader is explicitly limited to rural areas and does not take urban areas into consideration, and is weak on rural-urban linkages.
iii. Examples of interest for the Western Balkans It is both useful and interesting to review recent extensions of Leader experiences in new areas (EU-10, EU-2: Bulgaria, Romania, candidate countries) in order to understand the main concerns for policy makers and researchers in such contexts.
In Slovenia, prior to accession, several rural development programmes included both integrated and bottom-up approaches. The nationally funded CRPOV programme (Integrated rural development and village renewal), active from 1990 to 2002, started with single villages local development elaborated through a participatory approach. Progressively, such projects have been upgraded into village