As we saw in the previous chapter, the local partnerships have a key role within the LEADER approach as they are called ‘Local Action Groups (LAGs)’ which gather local institutional, economic and voluntary partners. They are a local team which is given a global grant in order to prepare and implement an integrated development strategy for a defined area, to
promote negotiations and dialogue between the various actors and also to promote the exchange of good practice and information. Even if the potential of the LAGs is widely advocated, there only exists a limited understanding and knowledge about their real potential working for delivering rural development. Much of the existing literature on local partnerships in rural development has concentrated on this approach and their political consequences rather than how they work and what they potentially achieve in practice. Therefore, a lot remains to be known about the practice, the circumstances of their creation, the process of their development, the constraints and difficulties of their working, the
achievements of this practice.
The available knowledge on their working emerges from good practice guidelines216 and from the practice of local rural development partnerships including, for example the ‘PRIDE
214 Beck, U. (1994) ‘The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reflexive modernization’, in Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (eds.), Reflexive Modernization – Politics, traditions and
Aesthetics in the Modern social order. Cambridge: Polity.
215 Westholm, E., Moseley, M. and Stenlås, N. (1999).
216 Slee, B. and Snowdon, P. (1997) Good Practice in Rural Development: effective Partnership
Working. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office; Wilcox, D. (1994) An A to Z of Partnerships.
87
Research Project’ which ran from February 1999 to January 2001.217 It was concerned with partnerships for Rural Integrated Development in Europe focusing on rural development experience of eight EU countries (United Kingdom, Finland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Luxembourg). This research collects much of the existing written academic literature on partnerships and the analysis of their workings in each of the above countries. It confirms the great variety of local partnerships that currently exists in the context of the rural
development process which is evolving in the same direction within each of the countries studied and generally within the European Union.
In the search for further understanding of the process of local partnership working in rural development, the current literature218 suggests that there is a need for a close examination of a variety of issues. For example, one can scrutinise the context and the reasons at the origin of partnership; the process through which they develop; their working organization; the origin and role of partners and the resources. Notwithstanding the diversity that
characterizes local partnership arrangements in rural development, the majority of observed LAGs:
• may find their origin in endogenous initiatives, though they are often introduced by top-down policy and programmes;219
• their arrangements draw partners from different interests including the public, private, voluntary and community sectors;220
• have a strategic and integrated approach for the development of the local area; • are strongly dependent on external funding and policy support;221
• their structures generally comprise a management board and sub-groups; • are under the leading role of the public sector.222
Sometimes the partnerships represent a tactical response to getting additional funding from various resources and many of them may disappear with the funding itself.
The LEADER Observatory asserts that the formation of a local partnership depends ‘on the
nature and numbers of partners; the context in which the partnership has been created, the
217 Moseley, M. J. (2002b).
218 Slee, B. and Snowdon, P. (1997).
219 Westholm, E., Moseley, M. and Stenlås, N. (1999). 220 LEADER European Observatory (1997b).
221 Slee, B. and Snowdon, P. (1997).
88
natural or legal persons who are behind it, the objectives that has been set and on the socio- economic culture of the area concerned (legal administrative system, regulations in force, role of public authorities, institutional practice, exercise of citizenship etc.)’.223
Gray and Wood, drawing on the findings of a series of investigations on the context, stress the importance of ‘stakeholder motivations’ and ‘structural conditions’ in the rise of collaborative alliances and identify the following factors: high stake and high
interdependence; a shared purpose to achieve a common end; the need to protect common resources and need for governance rules; the need to maximize efficiency and reduce transaction costs; the need to achieve a shared understanding of problems amongst the stakeholders and the need for a collective response; the gaining of a strategic advantage and the degree of organization. Therefore, the context has an important role in the way a
partnership comes about and should be given particular attention.224
Further issues are participation, representation, democracy, power and time and finally the issue of rural development governance at local level which helps to take initiatives and the corresponding notion of local development as a participatory process becomes more widespread. More specifically, time needs to be allowed for partnerships to develop strong leadership and direction, to devise a suitable set of aims and objectives and for the
allocation of duties, responsibilities and role to each partner.225
The OECD suggests that the rural development partnership’s aims, representation,
organization, management structure and processes should be politically feasible where the analysis of who the actors are, their value, beliefs and motivations and their resources will help delineate which of them are supportive, which are not and how the resources will be used and in respect to the actors’ willingness to cooperate, to negotiate, to share
responsibility.226
A local partnership must be organized with the main purpose to offer local actors, equal representation between the various local interests and with a key role in the development of
223 LEADER European Observatory (1997b), page 7.
224 Gray, B. and Wood, D.J. (1991b), ‘Towards a comprehensive Theory of collaboration’,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27(2), pp. 139-162. 225 Esparcia, J., Moseley, M. and Noguera, J. (2000).
89
their area with the opportunity to have a say and present their views, particularly the most disadvantaged.227
It emerges from the literature that central to the practice of partnership are the different individuals and organisations that act as representative of a sector or activity or a specific interest and that have a stake in the issue for which the partnership arrangement is being established. In this context, the mobilization of actors is presented in the literature as essential to the identification of all the relevant interests that may be drawn into a partnership.228
This is in order to reflect the different issues and to develop the potential strategy to help the creation of a partnership. The representatives of all the sectors and organisations that may have an interest in the partnership issue may first be consulted in order to be made aware of the initiative.229 The establishment of facilities for participation and of networks of people are also suggested as useful methods of mobilization. The purpose of these
techniques therefore is to allow information, clarification and cohesion between
representatives with the aim to develop participation, interaction and of building awareness of the opportunities of the local development strategy amongst the population.
Hutchinson adds that, among the wide range of actors, the representatives must be legitimate and must present appropriate interests, qualifications and experience and thereby, depending on the partnership’s aim and objectives, the configuration of partners should comprise:
• those most interested in working in partnership to solve a problem; • those most powerful and influential;
• those who seek a solution, whatever their power; • individual for their personal skills and expertise; • the majority of stakeholders.230
227 Warburton, D. (1998) Community and Sustainable Development, Participation in the
Future. London: Earthscan Publications Limited.
228 Selsky, J. W. (1991) ‘Lessons in Community Development: An activist Approach to
stimulating Inter-organizational Collaboration’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 27(1), pp. 91-115.
229 Wilcox, D. (1994). 230 Hutchinson, J. (1994).
90
Another central issue to participation is that any partnerships arrangements should be clear in terms of organization, roles, responsibilities and balance of power between partners. ‘One
of the most important factors in making partnership work is to identify the right partners and establish clear roles for them. They should be based around a limited set of core partners whose strategic involvement is essential and who offer major or strategically significant resources. Through appropriate and linked forums they are able to bring in other partners when they can contribute a particular resource or skill or when their support is desirable’.231 Policy-makers indirectly create the framework within which partnerships operate by setting criteria for funding, by determining the timeframes for bidding, by defining the duration of programmes and by regulating the resources available.
Bennet and Krebs argue that a partnership that is working does not necessarily imply that all actors are equal partners.232 The balance of power between partners must be seen as a ‘reflection of the membership, the benefits, and access to resources and influences that each
stakeholder brings, and the interaction between the membership’.233 Within these limits, the practitioners play the fundamental role in determining the constitution, and the scope for effective partnership working.
Furthermore, to have an effective and operative function, such organization requires the establishment of a structure to implement activities and functions necessary to achieve clear and mutually accepted aims and objectives of the partnership. The creation of a functional structure will help to establish an identity and visibility for the local development initiative. It could have the role of communicating between partners and interest groups, of drawing up the local strategy and of supporting to access finance for the implementation of projects. This structure should comprise at least a management board, a chairperson and a project manager and to have the ability to react to particular circumstances.234 They must be accompanied by a trained management staff and a team of ‘on the ground workers’ that help to mobilise the population and organization to develop and support local initiatives, build partnership and networks and monitor and evaluate the performance.235
231 OECD (2001a), page 32.
232 Bennett, R. and Krebs, G. (1991).
233 Bailey, N., Barker, A. and MacDonald, K. (1995). 234 Slee, B. and Snowdon, P. (1997), page 28. 235 OECD, (2001a).
91
Sometimes it is possible to find that partnership has opted for some sort of legal status, providing governing rules for the organization, or has started up a trust. Wilson and Charlton argue that although partnership structures vary significantly, the most common
organizational structure should comprise a governance function with an executive body of the partnership, a management function to implement the partnership’s activities and a consultative function where the various committees, report to the executive body.236 Finally, the mechanism should allow the partnership to review membership and evaluate progress in achieving objectives and assessing outcomes.237