Bulgaria experience with planning and preparing for LEADER LAG formation and Local Development Strategy elaboration Marina Brakalova & Methody Methodieff FORA Community Development Foundation
FORA Community Development Foundation – non profit resource organization for LEADER approach in Bulgaria Pre LEADER pilot in two administrative regions (13 municipalities) - 2007-2008 Provided TA to 10 prospective LEADER areas (18 municipalities) as “licensed” experts to provide TA for LAG formation and LDS - 2008 – 2011 Member of LEADER Sub-committee with MA of NRDP – 2009 - current Initiated and coordinated Thematic LEADER Group within forming NRN with MA – 2009- 2010
FORA Community Development Foundation – non profit resource organization for LEADER approach in Bulgaria Conducted two annual LEADER Forums – 2009 - 2010 Provides TA for 1 approved Fisheries LAG (LEADER-like approach) – 2010- current Resource base for LEADER related knowledge and expertise Provided TA for Macedonia development of LEADER framework – 2010 Works with 1 municipality in Serbia and 2 in B&H to pilot LEADER-like process – current Studied and visited more than 15 LAGs in 5 EU countries www.fora.bg
The legacy of LEADER The practice of innovative actions in all sectors of rural life LEADER innovative actions have taken place in agriculture, forestry, the food-chain, the environment and the countryside, in the diversification of the rural economy and in the quality of life, in capacity building LEADER is seen as the “motor” of rural development, linking sectors (farming, the environment, tourism), and then spreading to other sectors of the rural economy Basis – Local development partnership with a consensus over a strategy for a common territory After years of experience part of CAP as a policy tool
The legacy of LEADER an innovative approach LEADER is not a set of measures to be implemented but an approach, a method It is not prescriptive, “how” rather than “what” Practice and experience in terms of - programming and national management - Local implementation
The place of LEADER in Rural Development Incubator/Pathfinder Mainstream programme 6
What can we learn from Bulgaria? Programming LEADER and applying it on national level Applying and using LEADER on local territorial level
What can we learn from Bulgaria? No experience before becoming an EU member with a lot of small pilots with big expectations Almost three full years of planning and preparing
LEADER Preparation in BG September 2007
TIME LINE LEADER� implementation� in� Bulgaria � TIME� LINE� 208-2011� � Публикувани � насоки � за � изпълнение � на � проекти � Regulation� for� TA� по � под - мярка � 431-2� � � to� form� LAGS� and� � Regulation� for� LAG� Regulation� for� develop� LDS� set� up� and� funding� LAG� changes� 2� published� times� � � Regulations� change� � Ist� time� на � Наредба � 14� 2008� 2009� 2010� 1� 2� 3� 4� 5� 6� 7� 8� 9� 10� 11� 12� 1� 2� 3� 4� 5� 6� 7� 8� 9� 10� 11� 12� 1� 2� 3� 4� 5� 6� 7� 8� 9� 10� 11� 12� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � First� call� for� Second� call� Contracts� Сключени � First� call� to� recognise� prep� for� prep� Applucation� � � with� � 71� 32� LAGs� and� fund� LDS� measure� assessment � measure:� 45� applicants� договора � � 54� applicants � Total� : � 91� applicants� � по � под - � application � мярка � � � 431-2� � � � Статус � и � времеви � график � за � периода � 01.01.2011� – � 11.11.2011� � Промяна � на � Указанията � за � подготовка � по � 41� Change� in� � legilslation� for� TA� 4� th� Change� of� leg� for� Change� in� legislation� � LAGs� approval� � for� LAG� recognition� 3rd� time� 2011� � � � � � � � � � � 1� 2� 3� 4� 5� 6� 7� 8� 9� 10� 11� 12� 10 � 20 � 30 � � � � � � � � � � 1� -� 10� 11� � � --� 20� 21--31� 01� -� 11� -� 21� -� � � 16� LAGs� Second� call� for� approved� LAGs;� Assessment� of� LAGs� and� LDS� � � Time� frame:� � 14.10� – � 07.11.2011 � more� than� 65� applications �
LEADER programming and management on national level Slow Reactive Top down Bureaucratic Permanent turnover Lack of strategy what is the expected outcome Not understood as a policy instrument on national level
LEADER programming and management on national level Resources not secured Repeating and repeating Administratively almost impossible to implement locally with lack of support Process and selection criteria are controversial and “not accepted” as valid Big disappointment from the process and withdrawal
Applying LEADER on local level Process for consensus building challenging LEADER is seen as an alternative way to fund private projects No capacity to be aware of group interests Predominant survival concerns and strategies No representation of the group interests
Applying LEADER on local level Long way from consolidating some group interest to representing them to formulation of common goals and a trusted group to implement them Mayor based governance model Lack of practices and attitude for consensus building Lack of competence for applying EU instruments and management by objectives
Basic conditions needed Networking Participatory programming Support and resources secured Clear goals Room for experiment, learning and error
Recommend
More recommend
