Bulgaria experience with planning and preparing for LEADER LAG - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• f 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

6

Mainstream programme

The place of LEADER in Rural Development Incubator/Pathfinder

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

• 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

• Статус

и времеви график за периода 01.01.2011 – 11.11.2011

• 2011
• 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

• 1
• 10

11

• 20

21--31 01

• 10

11

• 20

21

• 30
• 16

LAGs approved

• Regulation

for LAG changes 2 times Regulation for LAG set up and funding published

• Regulations

change Ist time на Наредба 14 Regulation for TA to form LAGS and develop LDS

• First

call for prep measure Total :

91 application Contracts with

• 71

applicants

• Second

call for prep measure: 45 applicants Сключени 32 договора

• по

под- мярка

• 431-2
• First

call to recognise LAGs and fund LDS 54 applicants Applucation assessment

Публикувани насоки за изпълнение на проекти по под-мярка 431-2

• Assessment
• f

LAGs and LDS

• Change

in legislation for LAG recognition 3rd time Change in legilslation for TA

Second call for LAGs; Time frame:

• 14.10

– 07.11.2011 more than 65 applications

4 th Change

• f

leg for LAGs approval

• Промяна

на Указанията за подготовка по 41

LEADER programming and management on national level

 Slow  Reactive  Top down  Bureaucratic  Permanent turnover  Lack of strategy what is the expected

• utcome

 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