operation. Presented by: Ed Dyson Date: 24 th September 2014, LEADER - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Proposals for National Rural Network support for LEADER, and LEADER co-

• peration.

Presented by: Ed Dyson Date: 24th September 2014, LEADER Exchange Group

• A. Network support for LEADER

2

CAP stakeholders

RDPE stakeholders Forestry Commission

RDPE Network Support Unit

RPA – especially local Rural Developme nt Teams

Environment Agency

LEPs and other Growth Programme stakeholders

• Brings together comms and

engagement across RDPE, including activities of Delivery Bodies and stakeholders.

• RDPE External Working

Group provides strategic direction.

• Plan of activities co-ordinated

by Network Support Unit.

• £2.1m Technical Assistance

budget (2014-2020) for Network Support Unit activities and 4-5FTE costs.  Responds to recommendations from independent evaluation (including whole RDPE approach and strategic involvement of stakeholders).

Mandatory activity areas for NRNs

3

EAFRD support under Article 51(3) shall be used for the preparation and implementation of an action plan covering at least the following: (i) activities regarding the collection of examples of projects covering all priorities of the rural development programmes; (ii) activities regarding the facilitation of thematic and analytical exchanges between rural development stakeholders, sharing and dissemination of findings; (iii) activities regarding the provision of training and networking for local action groups and in particular technical assistance for inter-territorial and transnational co-

• peration, facilitation of co-operation among local action groups and the search of

partners for the measure referred to in Article 35; (iv) activities regarding the provision of networking for advisors and innovation support services; (v) activities regarding the sharing and dissemination of monitoring and evaluation findings; (vi) a communication plan including publicity and information concerning the rural development programme in agreement with the Managing Authorities and information and communication activities aimed at a broader public; (vii) activities regarding the participation in and contribution to the European network for rural development.

Principles and constraints

4

• Limited resources in the NRN as in the Programme – what

should the priorities be for LEADER networking?

• We should work alongside and strengthen existing networks –

how best to do this? Area networks? Thematic e.g. upland and lowland networks?

• The NRN is a “network of networks” e.g. RPA’s Rural

Development Team will have particular role in supporting LEADER networking and providing training/core capacity building for LAGs. What networking activities do you think should be provided by – Network Support Unit? RDT? LAGs? Others? How can LAGs take the initiative?

• The NRN will foster innovation and knowledge transfer across

the programme – how best to support innovation in LEADER, and link LEADER to other areas of the RDPE and the Growth Programme?

NRN activities – conclusions from EWG

5

• EWG – important “feedback loop”/networking hub – consistent,

timely and joined-up messages for regional dissemination; could e.g. ensure integrated approach to innovation across RDP…

• Stakeholder orgs/networks – offer a wide range of channels for

communication, networking, training; co-host events/workshops; support familiarisation with CAPD IT; innovation pilots; can help change behaviours and perceptions, building on traditional management…

• NSU – share best practice, case studies across programme;

website/blog; newsletter; facilitate programmes of events; package of comms material that can be used by others; innovation – support EIP. Focus - don’t do too much!

• Delivery Bodies – keep NRN informed of opportunities,

deadlines; share implementation plans; identify training needs

• MA/Defra – ensure stakeholders can engage; collect info on

innovation, local and international R&D., link with EIP network.

Proposed networking activities

6

Activity Mechanism Information hub/resource GOV.UK website, online project database, case study analysis, Network newsletter… Co-operation Facilitation of informal and formal co-operation via website, ENRD and events. Training for LAGs Initial focus on promoting RDT programme of training/capacity building for LAGs Networking LEADER-specific and whole-programme networking including to promote innovation, and for advisor networks. RDT could support local and/or thematic networking? EU level engagement/learning Active participation of NRN members in ENRD including events, study visits and online tools for co-operation etc. Dialogue with Government Re-establish LEADER Exchange Group once new LAGs announced. Others?

Questions for discussion

7

• What should the priorities be for LEADER networking?
• How should we work alongside and strengthen existing

networks? Can we support area based networks? Is there scope for upland LAG and lowland LAG networks?

• What networking activities do you think should be provided

by – Network Support Unit? RDT? LAGs? Others? How can LAGs take the initiative?

• How best to support innovation in LEADER, and link

LEADER to other areas of the RDPE and the Growth Programme?

• B. Co-operation

8

…can take many forms:

• Formal co-operation projects under LEADER
• Co-operation projects involving other funds?
• Informal co-operation/collaboration/networking
• UK and EU-level co-operation/collaboration
• Approach in other parts of UK?

LEADER co-operation under RDPE

9

• LAGs have no set requirements to undertake co-
• peration projects, but RDPE aims to encourage both

formal and informal co-operation.

• To ensure resources are available: up to £2m in RDPE

to support formal LEADER co-operation, calls

• perated by Network Support Unit and RDT.
• Network Support Unit can facilitate UK and EU level

co-operation.

• Other co-operation activity including informal co-
• peration can be supported by LAG M&A budget.

…details of proposals are not fixed

Example 1: between LAGs in England

10

Auto Chestnut Coppicing - forestry diversification project to develop and testing innovative machinery that would automate the process of splitting chestnut coppice. Funding: £100k total project size at 50% intervention with 25k - North Nottinghamshire LAG and 25k - West Kent LAG Development of project

• Chestnut is farmed in West Kent. There was a decline in the sector due to the age
• f the workers and the hard manual work involved.
• The processor is based in Nottinghamshire and had expertise in automated wood

products.

• West Kent contacted North Nottinghamshire to see whether a joint project would

be possible - sharing costs and limiting risks. (http://www.jonwalkertimber.co.uk/chestnut-products.htm) Outputs:

• 30 jobs created/Safeguarded
• Benefits to both areas – increased market for chestnut by diversifying into

different/new products; increased turnover for processor who is hoping to mass market the new automated machines.

Example 2: UK-level co-operation

11

Cheviotfutures – an initiative committed to providing practical real-world solutions to the challenges communities face to the effects of climate change. Funding: - £249,547 (English contribution - £137,547; Scottish contribution £112,000) Partners : Northumberland Uplands LAG and Scottish Borders LAG Development of project :

• Partners identified similar geographical features across the border and similar climate

change predictions

• Land management communities have links across the border
• Developed a network of demonstration projects covering a range of climate change issues

– informing policy negotiations on agri-environment schemes; Initiating broader activity on flood management Outputs:

• Skills transfer by using land manager and local contractors
• Links to broader projects across the EU – ‘Wildfire simulation exercise’
• Direct benefits to the local economy and local universities
• Lessons learnt benefit both countries and respective policy framework
• Broader perspective strengthens and improves local decisions and provides new
• pportunities

Examples of projects

12

Wildfire Resource Protection Natural Flood Management

Example 3: trans-national co-operation

13

Nature Tourism Project – to develop and promote a range of nature and culture based tourism products encouraging visitors to stay longer and spend more. Funding: 728573.74 Euros, (approx £573,009) Partnering countries: England; Scotland; Finland; Portugal; Hungary; France; Cape Verde. Development of project

• LAG attended RDPE network event in Midlands – met representatives from ENRD and

Austria

• Attended events in Austria and Brussels to find interested parties
• Finland lead partner and project management

Outputs:

• A network of quality nature experiences and tourism packages linked to other LEADER

funded activities, (Local Food, walking/cycling, etc)

• Tourism businesses have better understanding of marketing/attracting visitors
• A number of new tourism businesses have already set up due to this project and the

products developed

• International recognition – winner of the Nordic-Baltic LEADER Cooperation Awards

Examples of Projects – Waterways and Wildlife

14

Questions for discussion

15

• How can we best facilitate the establishment of formal co-
• peration projects to help all LAGs in England?
• What is the best way to promote UK/EU level co-operation,

formal or informal – to achieve better outcomes for the RDPE?

• How do you think we should share learning from co-
• peration – so that we make sure we are doing co-operation

right?