CAPÍTULO 2. CAMPO POLÍTICO Y ACTORES DEL FRENTE NACIONAL (1958-1974)
2.1 Conceptos importantes
4.1 Introduction
As discussed in the literature review (Chapter 2), the ABD approach has been applied in the past in various regions of the Western Balkans. However, the present Drina Tara case study is the first one in which a special emphasis on rural development and cross-border cooperation is explicit.
Several general advantages and
disadvantages associated with ABD programmes have been identified (Vrbensky, 2008); yet when dealing with rural cross-border target areas, some of the acknowledged limitations may be further accentuated and represent particularly relevant setbacks. For instance, the experience in the Drina Tara illustrates that in rural economies, it is harder for involved stakeholders to identify development potential in sectors not directly interlinked to the activities of agricultural production, agro- food processing or rural tourism. This translates into increased problems of development strategy fragmentation and visibility trap as defined by Vrbensky (2008). Likewise, in a cross-border context, understanding the macro-picture, establishing partnerships and integrating different national visions are challenging tasks both from a practical and conceptual viewpoint, given legal framework barriers, and lack of sufficient information concerning high-level policies.
The purpose of this section is therefore to discuss an adapted methodology for preparing similar ABD programmes to be implemented in other rural areas of the Western Balkans, where ABD intervention may seem to be appropriate. The adapted methodology discussed here builds both on the lessons learnt from the ABD pilot experience in the Drina Tara area as well as on the existing methodologies of other participatory (rural and cross border) programmes (such as
LEADER and Interreg). Specific methodological and organizational improvements are therefore suggested in five central aspects to any ABD programme:
• Area selection and delineation
• Participation (bottom–up) mechanisms and inclusiveness
• Top-down framework
• Multi-sectorial approach
• Organisational and financial perspectives.
Given the specific constraints of dealing with rural cross-border target areas, it was necessary in the case of the Drina Valley – Tara Mountain to develop context specific participatory mechanisms that could allow further exploiting of the acknowledged advantages of ABD, while compensating for the identified limitations. In this section, these mechanisms are evaluated and reviewed so that a more efficient extrapolation to similar contexts in the wider Western Balkans region may be better supported.
4.2 Area selection and delineation
The experience in the Drina Tara case study has contributed with key recommendations concerning the area selection process under an ABD initiative. As discussed in the ABD literature, the target area must be characterized by a certain degree of uniformity in terms of development problems and challenges. In the case of the Drina-Tara target area, this uniformity was sought not only in terms of the rural, cross- border, peripheral (from an economic activity perspective), cultural (common language142
4 A
da
pt
ed M
et
ho
do
lo
gy
: M
ai
n L
es
so
ns f
ro
m t
he Dr
in
a T
ar
a Ca
se S
tu
dy
and traditions), post-conflict setting and the existence of previous (but often dormant since the split of Yugoslavia) relations present in the 14 municipalities involved, but also in terms of less obvious linkages between municipalities given their economic and social relations (i.e. inclusion of Gorazde although it was not directly neighboring the rest of municipalities involved). Another common concern and interest was based on the Drina River and tributaries along which activities related to tourism and agriculture are developed and seen as pivotal for the potential of the region.
Nonetheless, a caveat of the Drina Tara target area is that some municipalities in close proximity to the 14 municipalities in question also share basic development problems (e.g. Novo Gorazde / Cajnice / Foca; Zabljak / Pluzine; Nova Varos) and were not included. In the present case study, their exclusion was mainly based on the fact that a larger number of municipalities would make close and regular contact more difficult and the organization of
the stakeholder group and community surveys more time and resource consuming. In other approaches, such as LEADER, areas covered by LAGs (Local Action Groups) are smaller (i.e. 10 to 100 000 inhabitants), largely based on the same principle. Although these are valid arguments from a managerial point of view (also since the cross-border nature of the target area posed a priori administrative difficulties) they are less well grounded on an ABD theoretical point of view. All in all, the exclusion of some bordering municipalities from the target area was not well justified on theoretical grounds, the more so as they are all part of the upper basin of the Drina river and share similar geographical, human and socio-economic features.
Concerning the actual area delineation process, the ABD principles mainly reinforce the general idea of uniformity and the pre-requisite of facing a specific development challenge or set of problems. Clearly, literature review may be useful in identifying a common development situation and constraints of a target area. However, field Table 25. Advantages and disadvantages related to Drina Tara “Area selection and delineation”
ADVANTAGE / STRENGTH DISADVANTAGE / WEAKNESSES
The municipalities involved are homogeneous in the sense that they are all peripheral to the current economic centres in their respective countries.
In addition to their marginalized location, they also share a certain degree of uniformity in terms of their current
development situation, demographic and socio-economic drivers (i.e. shared cultural and social history, socio-economic linkages and dynamics, similar geographic and demographic traits, etc.) as well as a post-conflict background (more relevant on the Bosnian side).
Another common concern and interest within the target area of the Drina Valley / Tara Mountain is the Drina River and tributaries along which activities related to tourism and agriculture are developed.
The recent creation of the borders, the existence of ancient (but often dormant since the split of Yugoslavia) relations, and the fact that people are using similar languages did allow a fast start in concrete discussion among stakeholders.
14 municipalities comprising 410 500 inhabitants and a surface of 7.10 square kilometres can be seen as too large to ensure close and regular contact. In the case of the Drina – Tara travelling time from Milici to Bijelo Polje is nearly five hours. This implies some organizational difficulties for the participation process. In other approaches, such as LEADER, areas covered by LAGs (Local Action Groups) are smaller (i.e. 10 to 100 000 inhabitants).
This distance may support the idea that the municipalities involved may not have a common stand on perceived problems. For example, cropping areas such as Ljubovja may not share similar development problems as extensive cattle raising areas like Cajetina and Pljevlja.
Nonetheless, some municipalities outside the target area share basic development problems with some that are included in the target area (eg Novo Gorazde / Cajnice / Foca; Zabljak / Pluzine; Nova Varos). As such, their exclusion was not well justified, the more so as they are all part of the upper basin of the Drina river and share similar geographical, human and socio-economic features.
Ultimately, the cross-border nature of the target area may pose administrative difficulties for economic cooperation.
143
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
visits and feedback from local experts must be sought when deciding on the final delineation. The latter implies that the views of stakeholders and the experiences and interrelations of populations in the potential target area must be taken into consideration; thus requiring that the participation process is activated even before the target area is fully delineated. This certainly complicates the decision of area selection for if local actors are contacted and later excluded or if those joining later consider themselves outsiders, the entire process may also be jeopardized. It is therefore delicate to decide where to begin this process: from the top or the bottom. Most likely a middle ground must be found where the delineation process is not fully addressed from a centralized perspective.
Table 25 summarizes specific advantages and disadvantages experienced in the Drina Tara pilot case concerning area selection and delineation.
4.3 Participation (bottom-up)
mechanisms and inclusiveness
Several participatory instruments have been established and utilised to support the implementation of the project in the Drina- Tara target area. The key objective of these participatory mechanisms and activities was to create the basis for a multi-stakeholder approach to local development from a rural and cross- border point of view. A secondary objective of the participatory mechanisms was also to obtain valuable complementary information for the identification of development needs. The key participatory mechanisms for this project were based on the involvement of:• Stakeholder group (SG) members
• Delphi group (DG) members
• Sample of community representatives, through a questionnaire-based surveys.
The consolidation of the stakeholder group allowed strengthening the commitment of local actors to the ABD initiative in the Drina – Tara target region. The Delphi Group on the other hand, attempted to engage national authorities and development experts so that synergies between the bottom-up approach and the top- down perspectives could be better reconciled (this is addressed in detail in sub-section 4.4). Surveys were of strategic relevance to both raising awareness on the ABD initiative and secure valuable information with which to contrast the analysis performed by both the SG and DG. Next, the two main types of bottom-up participatory tools designed for the Drina Tara pilot study are described along with an explanation of how they assisted in addressing specific constraints of the target area.
Stakeholder group (SG)
The main tasks of the SG were to acknowledge and discuss the baseline development situation, as well as to identify common development needs and priority interventions (along with expected outcomes and correspondent actions) and to support the area-based development approach in the region. Three members from each of the 14 project municipalities were invited to take part and a key challenge in this stage was not only to secure participation but to have a wide representation of the Drina Tara target area society. In other words, not only local authorities but representatives from all relevant areas of the private sector as well as major players within the civil societies, including top player NGO’s, had to be counted in. The trick was to be inclusive without reaching a too large number of stakeholder group members that would make consensus too costly to achieve regarding time or too vague in its development action proposals.
All municipalities delegated one public senior staff member of their choice to participate in the SG. In order to identify representatives of the civil society and business sectors for the SG,