2

Are Stakeholders Ready for Community Led Local Development Slovakia Case Study, July 2015

Maria Boa, Enrique Hernandez, Kamrul Hasan, Katarina Jakabsicova, Tyler Knapp, Matteo Metta, Emily Nachtigal, Nassim Njeim, Abrahan Urbina, Kazusa Yoshimura

  3

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 LEADER Implementation in Slovakia ........................................................................................... 6

Key CLLD Implementation Factors ............................................................................................. 11 Interview Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 11 Focus Group Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12

Development of Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................ 15 Interview Question Development ............................................................................................................ 15 Focus Group Development ...................................................................................................................... 16

Analysis and Synthesis ................................................................................................................. 19 Interview Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 19 Focus Group Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 22 Interview Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 25

SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 29

Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................ 32 References ..................................................................................................................................... 34

Annex ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Annex 1: LAG Overview – Programming Period 2007-2013 ................................................................ 35 Annex 2: LAG Distribution in Slovakia ................................................................................................. 41 Annex 3: National Level Matrix ............................................................................................................. 42 Annex 4: Local Level Matrix ................................................................................................................. 44 Annex 5: Interview Questions ................................................................................................................ 45 Annex 6: Focus Group Script ................................................................................................................. 48 Annex 7: SWOT ..................................................................................................................................... 51

  4

Abbreviations CLLD Community Led Local Development CMES Common Monitoring and Evaluation System EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EMF European Maritime and Fishery Fund ESI Funds European Structural Investment Funds EU European Union FG Focus Group FGD Focus Group Discussion ICT Information and Communication Technology IMRD International Master of Science in Rural Development LAG Local Action Group LEADER Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économique Rurale LDS Local Development Strategy KSF Key Success Factor MA Managing Authority NR Nitra Region NRN National Rural Network PA Payment agency RDP Rural Development Program SR Slovak Republic SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats TNC Transnational Cooperation

  5

Introduction Emily Nachtigal

Our case study consisted of a group of ten international students from the International Master of Rural Development (IMRD) program and the ATLANTIS program. IMRD is supported by the European Union (EU) Erasmus Mundus program working with the following Institutions within the EU: Ghent University (Belgium), Agrocampus Ouest (France), Humboldt University (Germany), Wageningen University (Netherlands), Slovak University of Agriculture (Slovakia), and University of Pisa (Italy). An important aspect of the IMRD and ATLANTIS programs is an intensive four-week, multidisciplinary case study where students are able to implement in the practice the knowledge and skills learned in the classroom. Under the guidance of the Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development at the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, we embarked on a journey to better understand the current state of rural development in Slovakia with the challenge of discovering whether or not stakeholders in Slovakia are ready for the implementation of the new 2014-2020 LEADER program under the Community Led Local Development (CLLD). This new 2014-2020 LEADER begins in 2016. We believe the rural development is more than the funding of projects, but also the building of social capital. As we worked in the field, we learned that a good LAG, one that is truly bottom-up, will continue and succeed with or without LEADER, and those LAGs that are founded only in order to obtain funding continue to lack the tools necessary for success under the CLLD. This report is composed of six sections. In the first section, our report gives a background on what LEADER implementation in Slovakia looked like for this last programming period. The second section goes in depth about what we decided were the key implementation factors for CLLD for both the Local Action Group (LAG) level and the managing authority level. The third section states how we developed the evaluation tools for our research. These tools include an interview for the stakeholders in the managing authority and a focus group for the stakeholders at the LAG level. The fourth section contains an analysis of our results from the interviews and focus groups. The fifth section contains the SWOT analysis, which aided us in our finding if Slovakia is ready for CLLD. The final, sixth, section gives our conclusions and recommendations.

  6

LEADER Implementation in Slovakia Katarina Jakabsicova

Rural development policy is an increasingly important component of the common agricultural policy (CAP). It promotes sustainable development in Europe’s rural areas addressing economic, social and environmental concerns. 1With over 56 % of the population in the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU) living in rural areas, which cover 91 % of the territory, rural development is a vitally important policy area. Farming and forestry remain crucial for land use and the management of natural resources in the EU's rural areas, and as a platform for economic diversification in rural communities.The strengthening of EU rural development policy is, therefore, an overall EU priority.2 General description LEADER ("Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économie Rurale", meaning 'Links between the rural economy and development actions') is a local development method which allows local actors to develop an area by using its endogenous development potential.3 Operation and objectives LEADER projects are administered by local action groups (LAGs). Each project must include a relatively small rural area, with a population of between 10,000 and 100,000. LEADER+ has three stated objectives4:

• to encourage experiments in rural development • to support cooperation between rural territories: several LAGs can share their resources • to network rural areas, by sharing experiences and expertise in the development of rural

areas by creating databases, publications and other modes of information exchange Leader Methodology The main concept behind the Leader approach is that, given the diversity of European rural areas, development strategies are more effective and efficient if decided and implemented at local level by local actors, accompanied by clear and transparent procedures, the support of the relevant public administrations and the necessary technical assistance for the transfer of good practice. The difference between Leader and other more traditional rural policy measures is that it indicates ‘how’ to proceed rather than ‘what’ needs to be done. Leader approach is implemented in line with seven principles of local development5:

1. Area-based: taking place in a small, homogeneous socially cohesive territory 2. Bottom-up: local actors design the strategy and choose the actions 3. Public-private partnership: LAGs are balanced groups involving public and private-sector

actors, which can mobilise all available skills and resources 4. Innovation: giving LAGs the flexibility to introduce new ideas and methods

                                                                                                               1 The Leader approach: basic guideline (2006) p.5 2 Agriculture and rural development: RDP 2014-2020 (2006) 3 The Leader approach: basic guideline (2006) p.6 4 The Leader approach basic guideline p.6 5 ENRD: Leader Gateway (2015)  

  7

5. Integration: between economic, social, cultural and environmental actions, as distinct from a sectoral approach

6. Networking: allowing learning among people, organisations and institutions at local, regional, national and European levels

7. Co-operation: among LEADER groups, for instance to share experiences, allow complementarity or to achieve critical mass

Seven key features summarise the Leader approach. It is important to consider them as a toolkit. Each feature complements and interacts positively with the others throughout the whole implementation process, with lasting effects on the dynamics of rural areas and their capacity to solve their own problems.6 Figure 1: The seven key principles of Leader approach7

Evolution of Leader approach

− LEADER I (1991 - 1993) − LEADER II (1994 - 1999) − LEADER + (2000 - 2006) − 2007-2013 – as Axis 4 it is part of the rural development programmes (RDP) − 2014-2020 – as CLLD it is part of the rural development programme

While Leader I marked the beginning of a new approach to rural development policy, which is territorially based, integrated and participative, and Leader II saw the Leader I approach put to more widespread use, with an emphasis on the innovative aspects of projects, Leader+ continues its role as a laboratory which aims to encourage the emergence and testing of new approaches to

                                                                                                               6 The leader approach:basic guideline p. 7 (2006) 7 The Leader approach: basic guidelinep.8 (2006)

  8

integrated and sustainable development that will influence, complete and/or reinforce rural development policy in the Community.8 Currently, since 2014, we are entering into new programming period where leader approach is part of Community local led development (CLLD). CLLD in 2014-2020 in comparison with previous Leader format gives the possibility to prepare and implement strategies based on funding of several EU ESI Funds. (see section Funding) Funding The early generations of LEADER received funding from the EU structural funds as a separate Rural Community Initiative. Since 2004-2006 as phase of LEADER+ continuing also in next programming period 2007-2013, LEADER as Community Initiative has been implemented under Rural Development Programmes and co-funded under European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. (EAFRD) As the success ofLEADER in rural areas continued it led other EU Funds to open up the possibility of applying this approach in other types of areas. In the 2007-2013 period it was successfully transferred to the European Fisheries Fund (since 2014 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) From 2014 it also became available in the http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund. (ESF) However, the application of this approach is mandatory only in the EAFRD.9 Due to its wider application the term "Community led- local development" is used. Since 2014 it is possible for a single Local Development Strategy (LDS) to be supported by several EU Funds (known as multi-funded CLLD). This will enable LAGs (rural, fisheries and urban) to fully explore the potential of the CLLD approach to comprehensively integrate local needs and solutions and reinforce the links between rural, urban and fisheries areas 10 Statistics in Slovakia Slovakia has 5.404.322 inhabitants and covers the area of 49.036 km2. Highlands and mountains cover 60% of the territory, lowlands 40%. From the European point of view, Slovakia has character of mountainous country.11 According to the territorial and legal division, Slovakia is divided into 4 areas (NUTS 2), 8 regions (NUTS 3), 79 districts (LAU 1), 2890 municipalities (LAU 2) out of which 138 has a statute of town. Institutions Organisation and management of Leader approach in Slovakia is guided and organized through following institutions:

                                                                                                               8 Leader + (2015)  9  ENRD:CLLD  (2015)  10  ENRD:CLLD  (2015)  11  E.Baková,  Slovak  Paying  Agency  (2015)  

  9

Managing Authority - Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development of Slovak Republic Technical Coordinator - Agricultural Paying Agency Regional level - Local Action Groups Managing authority level Programming period 2007-2013 was the first period of organization of Leader approach in Slovak Republic. Implementation of the axis 3 was supported by 3,13 % from the EAFRD which makes 79 013 206 EUR in total. Total distribution of expenses for rural development programming period between axis is represented in table 1. Table 1: Total contribution between axis in Slovakia in programming period 2007-201312

Axis

The public contribution Contribution of axis in % (from EAFRD)

Total EAFRD SR

€ € €

Axis 1 847 577 149 628 241 695 219 335 454 31,46%

Axis 2 1 270 188 674 1 007 199 039 262 989

635 50,44%

Axis 3 343 956 872 256 646 440 87 310 432 12,85%

Axis 4 79 013 206 62 582 542 16 430 664 3,13%

Technical help 56 317 816 42 238 362 14 079 454 2,12% From that: NSRV - operating costs 666 666 500 000 166 666 -

NSRV - action plan 2 000 000 1 500 000 500 000 -

Total 2 597 053 717 1 996 908 078 600 145

639 100%

LAG selection in programming period 2007-2013 at managing authority level was realized in two calls for proposal:

− First call – announced on 4. April 2008, receipt of applications in first period – 15. December 2008

− Second call – announced on 30.October 2009, receipt of applications in second period 15. – 29. January 2010

Evaluation of applications and selection procedure of LAGs was realized through:

− Administrative check– applied through paying agency − Formal check of completeness of applications and strategies

                                                                                                               12  M.Majerech,2015,  translated  by  the  authorl  

  10

− Monitoring the eligibility of actions and eligibility criteria − Selection Committee – through Managing authority (MA) − External evaluators – eligibility criteria of LAG, qualitative evaluation of strategies − Sorting by points, eventually 3rd evaluator (applied if the difference in evaluation is more

than 20 points)

LAG level In programming period of 2007 - 2013 was approved 29 LAGs. This included 600 662 inhabitants of Slovak Republic or 11, 11% from total amount of inhabitants. LAGs together cover the area of 8 995, 32 km2 or 18, 34% of area out of total. Together 544 municipalities are part of the LAGs which represents 18,82% of total amount of municipalities in Slovakia. On average 1 LAG includes 21 298 inhabitants, area of 311,2 km 2 and 19 municipalities. The average LAG´s density of population per km2 is 78,96. The complete list of LAGs is available in Annex 1. For the LAG´s cost distribution is available see Annex 2. Table 2: Statistical information about LAGs in Slovakia13

Number of LAGs

Number of municipalities

Number of municipalities in % of SK

Population of LAGs

Population in % of SK

Area of LAG km2

Area of LAG in % of SK

29 543 18,8 617 633 11,44 9 023,59 18,4

Table 3: Profil of average LAG in Slovakia14

Population Area km2

Density of popul./km2

21 298 311,2 78,96                                                                                                                13  M.Majerech,  2015  14 M.Majerech, 2015

  11

Key CLLD Implementation Factors Maria Boa, National Level Success Factors

Kazusa Yoshimura, Local Level Success Factors National Level Success Factors In this section, the results obtained from the matrix analysis have been reviewed using the eight phases of the LEADER process as guidelines. The aim of this process was to define the key success factors at national level for the CLLD implementation. The matrix was developed with two dimensions: the eight phases of LEADER process at the national level and the seven principles. The phases identified were: capacity building of local communities to prepare the LAGs, design of the call for proposal regarding the selection of LAGs, selection and contracting, ensuring capacity building for LDS implementation, project selection and contracting, project implementation and finalizing, monitoring and evaluation. With regards to capacity building of local communities to prepare the LAG´s, the main factors were the ones related with the involvement of the local stakeholders, and the creation and strengthening of capacities. The provision of workshops, networking events and face-to-face meetings are seen as essential tools to support the development of the LDS. The second phase is the design of the call for proposal regarding the selection of LAG. The main factor was the participatory design involving experienced stakeholders such as mayors, researchers and LAG’s members in general as experts. In addition, it is important to stress that the call needs to provide enough time to existing and potential LAGs to elaborate their strategy. For the LAGs selection and contracting phase, the Managing Authorities (MA) should take into consideration selection criteria that represent the national diversity, higher involvement of various types of partners (public-private partnership), and their proportional representation of the population in LAG territory. Moreover, strategies that are already involved in networks or cooperation projects should be given priority. Once LAGs are selected, the next phase is the implementation of LDS. For our analysis, we divided this phase in three sub-phases: i) Ensuring capacity building for LDS implementation; ii) Project selection and contracting; iii) Project implementation and finalizing. We tried to recognize the need to ensure capacity building through transfer of best practices, creation of conditions at national level to improve cooperation and involving LAGs with networks as NRN, ENRD and ELARD. All to be followed with a provision for feedback with regards to the LDS proposals. Accountability and transparency of the process is a key factor that should be targeted in all the phases. During the project selection and contracting, it is necessary to identify and apply tools, which guarantee high transparency and clearness in a project’s selection. In turn, these steps should increase the diversification and impact of the projects.

  12

During the project implementation and finalization, it was identified that the non-financial (in-kind) resources are an essential component for the successful operation of projects and ensure a higher involvement in the animation of projects. At the monitoring phase, we identified the training for LAG’s to self-monitor the progress as a decisive factor for an effective monitoring and also learning process within the LAG most be encourage. This will guarantee the techniques necessary to collect adequate data to evaluate the impacts of the projects. The final phase, evaluation, should require participatory involvement of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. In addition, the dissemination and sharing of results, best practices and success factors can help to increase the multiplier effect within the region and country. To finalize, peer-to-peer evaluation among LAGs and between local stakeholders should be promoted at the national level. All the factors mentioned above can be identified in the matrix (Annex 2). Local Level Success Factors In this section, the key success factors at the local level will be described according to a matrix. The columns of the matrix indicate different stages for implementing LEADER and at the local level, they consist of 10 factors which are capacity building of LAG, design and approval of LDS, application process and contracting LDS, running the LAG, animation of the territory, capacity building and training during LDS implementation, call for proposals, project selection and approval, monitoring of projects, evaluation and self-assessment of LDS. In each the 10 stages, the key factors are identified according to the 7 principles which are bottom-up approach, public-private partnership, area-based strategies, multi-sectorial design and implementation of strategies, networking of local partnership and implementation of cooperation projects. At the factor of capacity building of LAG the stakeholders are not clearly defined. Therefore, it is important that meetings for creating LAG are accessible to all potential stakeholders, which is an important factor of bottom-up principle. In terms of public private partnership, it should be identified who is a potential public partner and who is a private partner. For area-based strategies, territory where the LAG is going to work should be clearly identified according to the common feature and identity of the region. In the territory in rural areas, there are several sectors, including but not limited to, tourism, agriculture and mining. With regard to innovation, it is desirable that stakeholders who will be involved in the LAG share the common definition about "Innovation" at this stage. Local development strategy (LDS) is the core concept, which characterizes the strategic direction of the LAG. Therefore, it is important that every member in the LAG has the equal opportunity to express ideas to design LDS. In terms of public private partnership, the appropriate balance between the public and private sectors should be considered for making the strategy. For area-based strategies, it is vital to express in the strategy the territorial capital, which is the aggregate natural, cultural and economic assets that are unique in each region (for example: forests, churches, traditional food and farming). With regard to multi-sectorial design,

  13

needs of all sectors should be equally represented in the strategy. LDS also has to include the factor that is new in the territory under the principle of innovative approaches. Creating an effective and attractive LDS is one of the most important activities for the LAG and for making it successful, it is important that the LAG has the opportunities to learn from other LAGs nationally or internationally through networking. For cooperation, it is desirable that strategies identify possible future partners for cooperative projects, which will make future cooperation easier. The process of LDS approval is purely a technical endeavor, but it is important that in this phase all stakeholders agree about the content of LDS, which will help to avoid the future conflict. In terms of private and public partnership, the balanced participation of the public and private stakeholders should be ensured. It is also important that the participation of the running of the LAG is ensured throughout different regions and sectors under the principle of area-based strategies and multi-sectorial design. With regard to the networking and cooperation, it is important for the LAG to have the opportunities to learn from other LAGs about the management and running of LAG. For the successful rural development, the territory should be constantly animated and LAG should work as a driving force for the animation of the territory. Specifically, it is important to ensure the environment where the stakeholders can easily contact LAGs. It is also important that members participate actively in meetings of the LAG. With regard to public-private partnership, the networking across private and public stakeholders should be activated through various activities such as workshops, informal meetings, and festivals. Similar to running the LAG, the balanced participation throughout the different areas and sectors is also vital for the animation of the territory. In order for LAG to work effectively for the animation in the territory, it is important that inhabitants are aware of the existence of LAG and its strategy. This awareness can be created through innovative ways such as using Information and Communication Technology (ICT), artistic signboard and local festivals, which is one of the manifestations of "innovative approach". For the animation of the territory, it is also vital that horizontal and vertical interaction between different institutional levels is facilitated. Horizontal interaction indicates the interaction between different LAGs and vertical interaction is the one between institutions of different levels such as ministry and paying agency. Before implementing LDS, capacity building for the potential beneficiaries is necessary. The training for the capacity building should be offered to the diverse groups who necessitate the help from the LAG, throughout different areas, with appropriate proportion between private and public stakeholders, and different sectors. It is also desirable that variety of innovative techniques for training is used. With regard to networking and cooperation, it is important to exchange the knowledge between LAGs about how to help and train stakeholders develop the capacity building. The call for proposals is a technical process, but it is quite important for LAGs to offer sufficient information and consultancy to the stakeholders about how to create the proposal. It is also important that all stakeholders throughout the territory and different sectors are aware of the call and consultancy from the LAG.

  14

From the perspective of bottom-up approach, small pilot projects should receive emphasis, because it is difficult for these projects to receive funding through top-down approaches. In terms of public-private partnership, the proportion of public and private oriented projects should be balanced in order not to favor one side. It is also important that emphasis is put on those projects that promote regional branding and higher use of local resources, that involve different sectors or are considered to have a multiplier effect across sectors, that contain something new in the territory, and that encourage networking and cooperation across different LAG. At the phase of monitoring the projects, it is necessary to monitor whether the projects are processed along with principles. Therefore, it should be monitored whether the projects promote regional branding and higher use of local resource, whether they involve different sectors, whether they are innovative and whether they encourage networking and cooperation between different LAGs. In order to conduct meaningful evaluation and self-assessment of LDS, it is important to ensure that representatives of all stakeholders participate in the evaluation phase, taking into consideration the balanced proportion between public and private stakeholders, different areas and sectors. The summary of the successful key factors described above is shown in the matrix in Annex 3.

  15

Development of Evaluation Tools Nassim Njeim, Interview Question Development

Abrahan Urbina, Focus Group Development Interview Question Development In this section, questions for the interview were formulated by using the national level matrix explained in Chapter 3. This matrix was used to develop the structure of the entire interview (Annex 4). The analysis consists of qualitative assessment of the answers from the three interviews issued at three institutional levels in Slovakia: Managing Authority, Payment Agency and the Nitra Self-Governing Region. Analysis was conducted based on collected answers, which will be evaluated by the research team according to the key success factors developed earlier. The interview is an effective tool to collect qualitative data by unstructured broad questions enabling the interviewee to freely explain points of view and answers. This tool requires the interviewers to be proficient in interpreting and questioning in order to follow up with the answer structure given by the interviewee and keep track of the answer scope. It is a tool to investigate in depth research questions. Preconditions of an interview are to identify the most relevant person, set up a meeting with a good environment, design the structure of the interview and formulate relevant questions. The advantages of an interview include the ability to obtain detailed information by asking specific questions. This allows the interviewer to clarify ambiguous answers and to follow up on incomplete answers. Well-worded interview questions may help to reduce the biasedness of responses. However, on the other hand, a disadvantage is the low experience of the interviewers and the lack of qualitative research approach following the process of the interview. The way questions are formulated and possessed can cause bias in the answers. The questions were formulated relying on the matrix. A cross combination between LEADER principles and LEADER delivery at the National level enabled us to highlight the important key factors in the matrix. Knowing two dimensions of the matrix exist, we focused on the dimension of LEADER delivery. We picked our questions based on the eight milestones of the delivery process, and we formulated the questions on whether these milestones follow the seven LEADER principles. The eight milestones were grouped into three sections.

• The first section was dedicated to the LAG: capacity building through the preparation period, call for proposals, and selection and contracting.

• The second section focused on the Local Development Strategy (LDS) implementation through the three phases: capacity building, project selection and contracting, and implementation and finalizing the LDS.

• The third section focused on the monitoring and evaluation of LAGs and the LDS on the national level.

  16

Targeting the questions to one of the matrix dimensions (LEADER delivery) and leaving the answers to be freely answered on the second dimension, gave some freedom in response to the interviewee. In addition, this enabled us to follow up on unclear answers. Sub questions were formulated to ensure the interviewee was answering the key factors on the matrix. It was reported and noted if the interviewee answered something outside of the matrix. The first interview was done at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Bratislava, and was conducted with Ing. Martin Majerech representing the Management Authority. The second interview was conducted with Ing. Eva Bakova and her staff from the Agricultural Paying Agency. The third interview was with Ing. Stefan Kralik representing the administration of the self-governing region of Nitra. The interview generally took two hours including translation. Every interview utilized the same questionnaire because the stakeholders interviewed followed the same LEADER principles throughout selection of LAGS, the development of the LDS and the monitoring. Our coordinator contacted the interviewees and set the appointments with them. The tool was effective and left out some biases from the interviewer’s side. The topic was broad and time consuming for some questions due to the large amount of data and the complexity of the topic relevant to LEADER principles and delivery. The national level guidelines for community led local development are extensive. The interviewee frequently referred to a printout of the guidelines potentially leading to bias in the response. Moreover, ten interviewers were involved, decreasing the concentration of the questions and the interview lost momentum. Despite this we collected efficient data for our study. Focus Group Question Development This section is dedicated to the method used to collect data about the situation of the LAGs, which was the main output to analyze how ready the LAGs are for CLLD 2014-2020. First, the chosen method is introduced; the second part is dedicated to the selection of the sample; the third part to the design and implementation of the focus groups. In the context of the implementation of CLLD, it was necessary to evaluate of the previous phase of LEADER, diagnose and analyze the problems faced and the strengths developed during the previous programming period of 2007-2013. This can affect the performance of new and existing LAGs. A participatory approach helped us with this process in a shorter time and without losing precision and effectiveness (Geilfus, 2009). A participatory research approach based on focus groups was used to analyze the situation of the LAGs. Focus groups are a technique allowing the collection of qualitative and quantitative data from a heterogeneous group gathered together to discuss the same topic (Geilfus, 2009). This allowed for the opportunity to capture details coming from the interaction of the members otherwise not reveled when using other participatory approaches or quantitative techniques.

  17

We faced the following limitations during the implementation of our focus group: first, the narrow selection of topics covered due to time constraints forced us to choose and discuss only the topics that allowed us to fulfill the goals of the study. We spent around 2.5 hours with each focus group. Second, the participation was voluntary which resulted in self-selection bias. This caused an over-representation of certain group or groups driving the results to one position. We tried to select the most heterogeneous group possible to overcome these limitations. The seven out of 29 LAGs selected performed well during the first implementation of LEADER. The selected LAGs were Radosinka in Radosinka, Tekov-Hont in Santovka, Levice; Vrsatec in the community of Vrsatec, Levoca in Levoca, Muranska Planina in Tisovec, Jablonov nad Turnou in Roznava, and Malohont in Hrachovo. The groups included both men and women (N=81), with men making up a little over half of those in attendance (53%); the following sectors were represented by the stakeholders: mayors (44.44%), NGO (18.51%), beneficiaries (12.37%), private sector (8.64%), LAG management staff (8.64%), civil associations (7.40%). The LAG Level Matrix (Annex 2) was the base to formulate the three questions that were asked during the seven focus groups. We attempted to formulate questions such that responses would reveal each LAG’s ability to utilize the seven LEADER principles, without biasing responses towards the any one of the principles. The LAG could be considered ready for CLLD in the case of finding each principle’s key elements. The questions corresponded to the classification of the delivery mechanism in three sections. The first section analyzed the formation of the LAG; the second analyzed the design and implementation of the LDS; the third analyzed the monitoring and evaluation of the projects. We summarized the process in a screenplay that included the questions and responsibilities of each member of our group (Annex 4). The question in the screenplay were the following: 1) How was your LAG developed from beginning to end? Eventually, the question changed to: How did your LAG start and what were the initial difficulties? Which factors did you take into consideration when you created the LAG? They were designed to collect data about the first stage of the delivery mechanism—organization and creation of the LAGs—capacity building and design of the LAG considering the seven principles of LEADER. This questions gave information to understand how the LAGs was formed, what were the difficulties, how the challenges were solved. 2) How did you develop and implement your LAG strategy? This question covered the development of the Local Development Strategy and its implementation. It revealed how the LAGs developed their strategy considering a bottom-up approach, the characteristics and potential of the territory, how the projects were distributed within the communities that integrate the LAGs, how the public and private sector were integrated, who participated during the design of the strategy and the cooperation projects. Furthermore, it asked for the procedure to implement the strategy, what difficulties the LAGs faced and how were solved. 3) What activities are taking place and which have been successful / not successful? This question tried to address the monitoring and evaluation of the projects within the framework of

  18

the seven principles. It collected information about how the community and the LAGs members participated in the monitoring and evaluation of the projects, how they evaluated the projects, which projects they considered have been the most successful or not and why. Hence, it tried to reveal which indicator the LAGs members considered to define the success of a project. In addition to the original questions, three more were added but only for the FG in Muranska Planina due to fact that they were not selected for the first period, and at the moment of the FG were preparing their strategy for the next period; expecting to be selected. Thus, the questions asked were more in line to understand how they were preparing their strategy, how their experience of running a local group without LEADER support contributed to the strategy, what change they expect if their strategy is selected. The questions posed to Muranska planina were the following: 1) Because you were not selected in the last application period, which strengths have you developed that you believe make selection of your proposal more likely during this programming period? 2) What do you expect when you are going to be approved as a Local Action Group, positive and negatives? 3) Which strengths have you developed in order to make your LDS’s implementation more successful? The focus group began with a brief PowerPoint presentation that included background information about IMRD, the aim of the study, and an interactive activity for the Focus Group to learn more about the IMRD students. After the introduction of our aim and our master program, the PowerPoint showed the eight flags from the eight countries represented in our group. First the Focus Group members named the countries represented. Next, they guessed where each student is from. Each student gave a short showcase of his or her country. Next, the questions were asked playing “the Bingo game”, a participatory technique that allowed us to collect data in an interactive way. First, the questions were written on a white paper and put then on the wall, while the group of participants was divided into small groups and given five colored papers for each question. After the first question was asked, groups were given about ten minutes to discuss and write responses. The moderator then selected one group, asked for the answer and its explanation. The groups with similar answers had the opportunity to say “Bingo”, and then give and explain their answer. This simple process allowed the clustering of similar answers and the separating of unique answers. This procedure was used to evoke answers to all remaining questions.

  19

Analysis and Synthesis Matteo Metta, Interview Analysis

Kamrul Hasan, Focus Group Analysis Enrique Hernandez, Overall Analysis and Synthesis

Interview Analysis The findings obtained from the interviews are reviewed and analysed in this section. The Key Success Factor’s served as a measuring stick for the comparison. The scope of this analysis is to explore the past and current experiences of three organisations at the national and regional level involved in the LEADER program, and finally, to evaluate the extent to which stakeholders have tackled the KSFs for CLLD implementation in Slovakia. The reader should acknowledge that these organisations are inextricably connected in terms of legislative, governmental, and hierarchical position. Therefore, results from this analysis are not a horizontal comparison between three independent respondents, but rather an overall evaluation of three “integrated” organizations. With regards to capacity building of local communities to prepare the LAGs (Q1), respondents reported to have an intensive involvement in this field but their main activities and commitments are delegated to the Slovakian NRN. The hierarchical governance and division of tasks between such organisations could explain, for example, why PA believes that its “role for creating capacity building is only limited to satisfy the basic administrative needs for the LAGs rather than promoting the awareness of the LEADER principles.” In terms of networking, all respondents confirmed to strictly collaborate, directly or indirectly, with a large number of stakeholders when providing educational and training workshops and events, face-to-face meetings, on-line tools and all the support aimed to help the LAGs to developing their strategies. All three respondents “personally perceived” that the largest part of the stakeholders, public and private as well as beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, have received the “appropriate” offer of material, immaterial and financial assistance to prepare their LAGs. The most mentioned KSF was related to the strong facilitator role of these organisations in supporting the mutual exchange of training/educational activities between different institutional levels and between LAGs. However, none of the respondents illustrated the importance of promoting the use of a wider innovative analytical tool-box to evaluate local assets and to set up priorities, e.g. stakeholder analysis, concept mapping, GIS and mapping of local assets, vision development, etc. The second question was about the design of the call for proposal regarding the selection of LAGs. These organisations have different degrees of influence and that the MA represents the central administration responsible for the overall final drawing of the call of proposal. However, each respondent tackles the KSFs from different corners. In the case of PA, respondent indicates to have small room to directly influence the design of call at national level, but in terms of participatory design, the PA contributes considerably to the coordination of an articulated structure of PA’s branches, which are distributed in different regions, and to the collection and diffusion of different field experiences, especially during the meetings of national thematic working groups. The MA and NR followed such participatory approach more or less indirectly than the PA. In fact, the MA indicates to delegate the collection of field experiences to the NRN; contrarily, the NR stressed that its commitment is mainly based on a direct involvement with some local experiences and stakeholders. However, none of the respondents stressed the

  20

attention concerning the degree of diversity of the stakeholders they usually involve (e.g. beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, public and private, farmers or civil society, etc.), as well as the organisational and transparency aspects during this process (e.g. formal establishment of a lobby system). For selecting and contracting the LAGs (Q3), MA indicated to prioritize the qualitative criteria that take more into account: (1) the share of private-investments, (2) the socio-economic impact of the LDS, (3) the quality of partnerships and the overall strategy, (4) the eligibility costs supported by public funds (the lower the better), as well as those standard, quantitative criteria that are mandatory for all the applicants. From the overall analysis of the answers, respondents show different perceptions concerning their ability to prioritize the qualitative criteria, but overall, opinions indicate that selection has to mostly follow the list of standard and mandatory criteria. Moreover, there were no answers that showed a particular interest for some KSFs for a successful selection of applicants (e.g. experience in the LEADER method, degree of member diversity, inclusiveness of minority groups like Roma community or disadvantageous people, gender equality, total number of members, etc.). However, during the interviews we found some good practices, for example: NR illustrated a remarkable case of area based approach as regarding the prioritisation of those LAGs or associations implementing the LEADER method that implemented cooperation measures target to the regional areas rather than the transnational ones, thus reflecting a strategic decision tailored to the regional context and aimed at firstly increasing the poor level of regional cohesion and, consequently, to increase the connections with international partners. Once LAGs are selected, a fourth question was about how these organisations make sure that the LAGs have the capacity building to implement LDS (Q4). Most of the respondents explained to provide different supporting tools, sometimes not exclusively included in formal programs (e.g. phone call, email, etc.). MA and NR stressed that they consider the capacity building as KSF and they usually delegate the management of such supporting tools and activities to a specialised intermediate body (NRN). In addition, respondents stated that they recently increased the provision of resources (mainly monetary) designable for LAGs to cope with some managerial obstacles. However, concerning the TNC, MA and NR explained to have a low commitment and involvement because they believe that the successful implementation of this measures depends predominantly on the LAGs’ capabilities. Therefore, both National and Regional bodies reported that a strategy for helping LAGs in their TNC is still not taken decisively into account. As regards mechanisms used at national/regional level to support LAGs in the selection and contracting of projects for the LDS (Q5), respondents illustrated that they are mainly limited by the National and Regional accountability rules. However, NR reported that, in order to have a smoother flow of resources and, consequently, a more effective implementation of the LEADER method, the regional and local legislation was continuously adapted to the administrative needs and peculiarities of some projects. Therefore, it seems that, at least at NR level, the flexibility and adaptability between the legislative and implementation bodies was a crucial factor for the implementation of projects. Conversely, the MA explained that national changes in legislation had a negative impact compared to the regional one, because of the increased level of uncertainty and administrative workload at implementation level. No contributions were reported concerning the future solutions in the next program period.

  21

Concerning the mechanisms to support the LAGs in their implementation and finalization of LDS (Q6), each of the organisations interviewed explained to address some KSFs in a different manner. Especially when implementing some projects based on the area, PA expressed that, generally, LAGs are already able to cope with many obstacles (e.g. budgetary allocation) by themselves. In addition, when selected projects are excluded from eligible costs, PA reported some positive experience of flexibility where the high interaction between different institutional levels made sure that the projects got implemented in compliance with the minimum requirements. In the case of the MA and NR, respondents listed other different mechanisms (e.g. provision of vouchers for external consultants, educational activities, advise on-spot, etc.), but no evidence was provided to show their connection with the specific problems faced by the LAGs (e.g. compliance with public procurement roles or ineligibility of in-kind costs). Other KSFs behind these mechanisms, especially those related to the area based or bottom-up approach, were overlooked. By looking at the implementation of monitoring system (Q7), in general, respondents reported that it mostly follows the compliance with the EU CMEF15, with a double-step monitoring system self-organised at LAGs level and, subsequently, double-checked for compliance of financial requirements at the PA level. With regards to the MA, it stated it was not involved in this phase and, considering there is substantial involvement of different authorities is a KSF for improving the program performance with on-going feedback mechanisms, it seems that the MA was not taking into consideration this imperative. Finally, the stand of the NR seemed to be deeper and closer than the MA’s. In fact, the respondent emphasised the use of additional regional indicators during the monitoring process and, a stronger and more intensive personal connection with the final beneficiaries. Related to the evaluation system (Q8), the most relevant result is that respondents poorly contributed to the discussion since most of related activities are delegated to other private/public organizations. The PA did not contribute in this area because it is not responsible for evaluation activities. MA and NR declared that since the design of the LEADER evaluation system is mainly bounded to the RDP legislation and standards, the room to influence the overall quality of the LAG's evaluation systems (e.g. fostering more the use of participatory techniques) is almost null. Additionally, they mainly mentioned obstacles and weaknesses of their evaluation system (e.g. lack of human capacity and complexity of program, rather than to explain how they hope to address these weaknesses). MA explained that such limited efforts are mainly due to the lack of political awareness of the LEADER approach and so evaluation is addressed only superficially. Following, we believe that innovative techniques and access to data to assess added value of projects could be considered as KSFs of a good evaluation strategy. However, there was no clear answer able to show a special attention for the evaluation strategy and methods, e.g. organising peer-to-peer evaluation between LAGs and between local stakeholders of each LAG. There was no enthusiastic contribution from all respondents regarding the main criteria used to measure the impacts at different levels of governance (Q9). None of KSFs were mentioned

                                                                                                               15 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, Art 72

  22

during the interviews (e.g. attention to multiplier effects, side and long effects as well as sustainable aspects). A question about the use of evaluation results (Q10) was asked to understand whether respondents were taking into account, among the others, the KSFs we considered relevant (e.g. the participatory and involvement of different stakeholder, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) to the discussion of results as well as the dissemination of results, best practices and key success factors. In this regard, the MA indicated that the results of the evaluation are summarised on-line in ex-ante, ex-post and mid-term reports, in order to target as many interested stakeholders as possible. Moreover, the MA and NR mentioned that the dissemination activities predominately occur during the informal and personal meetings between different actors. In conclusion, a scaled interval question, which asked respondents to rank readiness on a scale of 0 to 10, was proposed to grasp the “perceived level of readiness for the CLLD in Slovakia.” Interestingly, the PA gave a different score for Nitra Region and the entire Slovakian territory, with a higher score for the former, which may reflect disparities among Slovakian regions. However, the average score expressed by all respondents is 7. Focus Group Analysis Seven Focus Group Discussions (FGD) in seven different LAGs were carried out followed by visiting the project activities of respective LAGs. The outputs of the discussions and visits have been interpreted in line with the FGD matrix containing key factors of success for CLLD, focusing on the seven principles of LEADER in different stages of delivery mechanisms. The findings from the focus groups have been discussed in this section to assess their readiness to implement CLLD. The analysis of FGD discussions has been presented according to the principles of LEADER.    The seven visited LAGs were observed working with bottom-up approach from the initiation LAGs throughout the implementation of local development strategy (LDS). In the initial stage, mayors and other volunteer individuals organized meetings to create awareness about CLLD and to identify their needs and wants. Training programs were arranged about development of LDS.    Local leaders (mayors of the municipalities) and other volunteer individuals initiated LDSs that have an opportunity for all potential stakeholders in the area to be part of the LDS. This feature was observed in all the visited LAGs. However, all stakeholders do not have equal desire to be part of the LAGs because of the additional administrative (bureaucratic complexities) tasks, such as paper work and compliance with requirements. They prefer less complexity as in direct subsidy due to limited time. Though during initial stage organization of stakeholders is difficult that is illustrated as passive participation in public meetings, in the later stages they participate actively in submitting proposals and receiving training and consultancy. Selection of projects is done based on eligibility criteria with diverse background by the LAGs that are well aware of the selection criteria. The implementation of projects is adversely affected by public procurement rules that do not always ensure the quality of works or products.    

  23

The LAGs visited have public-private partnership as 50-50 rules of composition. We found mayors, private entrepreneurs, non-government organizations, orphanage, schools, farmers, businessperson, associations and young people who constitute the LAG. They all together identify the needs and translate into LDS based on this partnership through discussion, interaction and consultancy. Among the projects, there was a variation in terms of share of public and private projects. The focus groups emphasized on the increasing number of private projects. Project selection, monitoring and evaluation performed by LAGs which indicates the existence of public-private partnership. Increase in inclusion of private partners in the LAGs is slow due to bureaucracy and public procurement rules.   The LDS is based on local identity and common needs. An area-based local development strategy can help LAGs develop local branding with different products such as water, honey, hiking, cycling etc. They have been developing and preserving eco-tourism, outdoor gyms, local public space, monuments, museums, and nationally and internationally important heritages. The design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of LDS of the LAGs are specific area-based. This area-based strategy inspires them to act with the sense of belongingness and ownership. The training for capacity building and selection of projects are done based on expression of motivation of stakeholders and selection criteria rather than territorial distribution of projects.    Every visited LAG has some innovative projects with a high degree of similarities. The LAGs established outdoor gyms, wooden statue, monuments, restaurant, accommodation facilities, bus stops etc. They have built watch tower on hills, improved cultural festivals, developed local brand of water, honey, chili (capsicum) and other products. Maintaining public space and improving agro-tourism are remarkable in all the LAGs. In some areas, we saw horse stables, distillation equipment and fairy tale for children in some of the LAGs. They have been preserving different time old traditional machines, for example hand loom for weaving, wheat mill. Some of these items were present in the areas but those have been being presented or reconstructed in a new way.    The LAGs have been operating diverse projects that incorporate multiples sectors such as agro-tourism, public space, building bus stop, establishing watchtower, preserving cultural and historical heritage, education, fruit processing etc. This multi-sectoral initiatives contribute to integrated rural development bringing together economic, environment, tourism, social values and culture, employment, health, accommodation and entertainment sectors.    The LAGs have both national and international networks which are expressed as LAG associations. They visit to other LAGs to share knowledge and experience, gather ideas about innovative practices. There is also strong network within the LAG that is maintained through different communication systems like email, community radio, magazines and printed promotion materials. At the beginning of LDS the LAGs faced difficulties to develop networks among the stakeholders due to diverse interests of different members. However, in the later stages communication, interaction and improved network have become the strength of the LAGs for implementing the projects.    Besides the cooperation between LAG members, there is also cooperation between LAGs of different areas in terms of cooperation projects. These projects are mainly related to agro-tourism

  24

and preserving cultural heritage as observed in Levoca (LEV) and KRAS (Roznava). In these context Slovakia has implemented cooperation projects with Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. These cooperation projects are hindered by language barrier, competitive attitude of LAGs and non-synchronized funding in transnational level. However, these projects are helpful in evaluating the entire country or European Union from a holistic point of view. Finally, a subjective evaluation of seven LAGs was done focusing on the seven principles. The scores are not equal interval but they show the ranking of different LAGs. Figure 3 shows that Vrsatec LAG was the top ranked followed by Santovka whereas Malohont received the lowest average score for bottom up approach. In terms of partnership, Vrsatec, Levoca and Muranska are holding the top position while Santovka is in the lowest position. Though Levoca is lagging behind Vrsatec in terms of bottom-up, networking and cooperation, it is holding the top rank area-based approach. Radosinka and Malohont were observed as more innovative than others. Malohont LAG occupies the top rank for multi-sectoral projects. The position of Santovka regarding most of the principles is lower because this LAG is relatively newer but they have stronger attachment to bottom-up principles.    

BoPom-­‐up  

Partnership  

Area-­‐based  

MulS-­‐sectoral  InnovaSveness  

Networking  

CooperaSon  

Figure 3 Subjective readiness of different LAGs for CLLDS

Radosinka  

Santovka  

Vrsatec  

Levoca  

Muranska  

KRAS  

Malohont  

  25

Analysis and Synthesis In this section a separate summary of the findings at both LAG level and National Level is performed. The findings at Local level are structured according to the seven principles of LEADER. Additionally the results collected on the interviews where structured according to the to the key success factors identified on the last section. Nevertheless, the research question of this paper considers all stakeholders equally. Consequently, for an effective implementation of CLLD in Slovakia all stakeholders must be ready and work in harmony. The coordination of all stakeholders is the most important characteristic. Therefore the analysis of one single element (stakeholder) of this program would not give the desired result and information. In this section an analysis of the interviews and focus groups is conducted simultaneously. The analysis is prepared to make sense of the findings of the stakeholders as a whole unit. First, we provide a summary review of our findings in relation to the seven principles. Second, an analysis of the main implications that relate to the readiness of the stakeholders. The analysis of this entire section would serve for the construction of the SWOT analysis in the next section. A profound analysis of the assets, natural and human, of the community is needed for a sound LDS. When the management of these assets favors the community as a whole and captures all the strengths and tries to tackle the weaknesses, then it is possible to say that the area-based principle is followed. Stakeholders were found to be either promoting or following this principle. Nevertheless an interregional strategy for the whole of Slovakian territory is absent, and the area-based principle that coordinates the whole territory would enhance and create a spillover effect across the country. All the phases of the CLLD must follow a bottom up approach. The research at the local level gave positive indications that this principle was followed for the design of strategies. On the contrary, we couldn’t find strong evidence that this principle was strongly followed regarding the design of proposals and the program in general. If the program does not take in to consideration the real needs and specificities of the LAGs, possible beneficiaries and people in the ground, the efficient use of already limited resources would be in vain. During the research the only mentioned approach used to gather information from the bottom, to have an inclusive design of proposals and program was not institutionalized and formalized consultations. This is detrimental for the whole CLLD program. During the interviews and important raised point was the effectiveness of cooperation and networking for transfer of knowledge and capacity building. This may be related to what is known as learning from experience. When LAGs visit other LAGs (network) or cooperate for common projects, this creates an exponential effect of transfer of knowledge and experiences. Nevertheless not all stakeholders are following this principle. At the national level these strategies could also be transferred. It is possible to say that cooperation and networking could transfer best practices and knowledge from other national governments around Europe. There is much room for improvement and, if followed, this principle applied at the national level has great potential.

  26

The data we collected showed little evidence that innovation, amongst stakeholders, was strategically addressed. This principle is one of the most relevant since could facilitate innovative approaches that could make efficient use of resources. During the research Stakeholders where not found to be systematically addressing this principle. However, organizational support already exists, for example the European Innovation Partnership. An integral community development strategy should encourage a multi-sectorial approach. During the research it was found that all stakeholders involve themselves in promoting and encouraging this practice. Additionally is expected that with the inclusion of new measures for CLLD this principle is further promoted. Not to forget is that a great threat for this principle, and others, is public procurement regulation. Besides the formal requirements of composition, the public-private partnership is not formally encouraged. During research stakeholders commented that, due to the restrictions on measures available for private entrepreneurship, participation and engagement of this sector was limited. Nevertheless, all stakeholders are positive about the future participation of private sector, since from the development of the strategy for next programing period the interest of this sector has increased. After this summary now a brief analysis of the main implications of the findings relate to the readiness of the stakeholders will be developed. The analysis is divided in three main points: first public-private-community fund projects; second, lobbying and institutionalization of power; third, evaluation. First, it is important to mention the difference between what is meant by method and subsidy driven approaches.

• A method driven stakeholder follows the principles regardless of the situation or the expected outcome of the project. The close relation between principle and actions would have a positive outcome. When stakeholders base the selection, implementation and evaluation process on the seven principles of LEADER and on the overall goal and development of the community inhabitants, limited, of course, by the sustainability of the natural capital, the whole process and program would have positive outcomes.

• A subsidy driven approach refers to stakeholders motivated by the possibility of subsidies, without regards of the development of the community as a whole. This shortsighted vision has negative repercussion for the CLLD or any other attempt of community development.

Examples of community organizations that are method driven were observed during the data collection. Specifically, when community associations continue to work and have positive impacts in their region by pooling resources and willingness, even if they are not awarded the LAG status. The point of importance for these communities is the desire to have a positive impact, the desire to change some negative conditions that affect the community, regardless of the external support or subsidy. This does not mean that the Leader method does not requires the subsidy. Subsidies may accelerate the development and size of impact. If a community follows the method by itself, then, it could be argued that it’s already prepared for CLLD.

  27

Regarding the selection of projects, the research found a strong trend towards public projects. During the research stakeholders where asked about this trend, as noted in previous sections. One of the “main” causes was the limitation of measures available. Another cause could be that the LAGs are subsidy driven. Additionally, during the research, one significantly different approach was revealed. When funding of projects from public sources was directed to community owned, or used, assets development projects, the effect that was created at the community is (were) the most significant. The multiplier effect of this approach of funding, it could be argued that has the most potential for community development. Moreover, this strategy helps the community to create a process of democratizing wealth development. In summary we consider that examples of this type of strategy show a considerable level of readiness regarding the implementation of CLLD. The value of cooperation was highlighted specially at local level. The networked developed between lags has efficiently been translated in an efficient transfer of knowledge. This knowledge has helped LAGs to gain ideas and to develop innovative approaches to solve their own problems. Additionally, since the implementation of LDS was heavily dependent on the managerial capacities of LAGs, and one of the most efficient strategies for capacity development was networking, we consider that a purposely designed strategy and assignment of resources that target this measure would ultimately have strong effects at the quality, innovation and efficiency of projects implemented and approved at the LAG level. The networking and cooperation activities helped the development of capacity at the LAG level. The continuous development of the capacity at local level would only have positive effects, reducing the time of administrative processes, increasing the quality of LDS and increasing efficiency of resource allocation. Regardless of all the complications encountered capacity developed in the last programing period is an asset for the implementation of CLLD and increase the readiness of all stakeholders. Due to the limited resources assigned for the program there is a sense of competition for resources between LAGs. This has undermined the development of a strategic organization among LAGs in order to sum up forces and knowledge to push and lobby for the benefit of all of the LAGs. The division between LAGs reduces the power that they have for the creation of a unified voice capable of influencing policies and regulations at the national level. An institutionalized voice representing all Lags in Slovakia is needed. Evaluation of outcomes is not only the end of the process, but also is the beginning of the next stage. Solid foundations are built on coherent, complete and exhaustive knowledge of the results of the past. These results, then, must be balanced and compared with the expectations. If the expectations are met the implementation was successful. If the expectations are not met, then, the evaluation would yield crucial information for further improvement. If there is no evaluation across the whole spectrum also the program is subsidy driven, since there is not confirmation that the money is spend as desired and contracted. Evaluation and monitoring is key for ongoing development and success. Knowing your mistakes and sharing them is the first step to find solution. The evaluation is one of the weaknesses regarding the readiness of the

  28

stakeholders for CLLD. An institutionalization of the evaluation process, with a bottom up approach is key for the next programing period Also regarding evaluation, another important remark is the selection process for LAGs. For the next programing period and for CLLD the record and achievements of LAGs are not taken in to consideration for the selection. The evaluation mechanism of past achievements is not a point that benefits the selection of LAGs. Giving a fair opportunity for every call of proposal is important, but what then is the incentive for clear and effective results if the past achievements are not taken in to consideration? The evaluation of results and achievements of LAGs plus the positive weighting of those, for the selection of LAGs, will help address many of the obstacles, and create a higher level of readiness of the stakeholders.

  29

SWOT Analysis Tyler Knapp

In the following section, each Key Success Factor (KSF) will be presented within the framework of Open SWOT Analysis where strengths and weaknesses are determined by their connection to the system presently, while opportunities and threats are determined by their linkages to the system in the near future. Thus, building upon the synthesis of results given in the previous section, we will use the SWOT framework to discuss the implications of our results at the national and local level (or, from the interviews and focus groups, respectively). This section will summarize the important strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, but will not provide a comprehensive list of SWOT findings (which can be found in Annex 7). Strengths We observed strengths at both the national and LAG level. In developing area-based and multi-sectoral strategies, communities/LAGs have shown an aptitude for developing projects which rely on the natural assets of their territory, and that highlight the region’s unique historical, cultural and agricultural traditions. The national government has contributed to this strength by integrating regional policy for tourism and local branding. As result, many communities throughout Slovakia have established agri-tourism ventures and/or branded local products to successfully implement development projects. LAGs experience regular participation amongst a diverse array of community stakeholders, often receiving project proposals from regular citizens and farmers. While the structure of the national government has, perhaps, inhibited its ability to remain narrowly within the confines of the bottom-up principle, it has nonetheless facilitated learning by holding training sessions and workshops for LAG capacity building. Likewise, communities have shown that, despite diverse opinions of public-private partnerships, they are able to overcome differences to develop coherent and unified visions for the implementation of development projects. “Competing” LAGs have also shown a willingness to work together to improve networking and the exchange of information for their mutual improvement. Further, while cooperative projects with international actors have been mostly limited to Central Europe (Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary), the projects that have been implement show have been successful and thus highlight cooperation as a strength for LAGs. Finally, while projects implemented by LAGs were initially limited in creativity and focused primarily upon improving community aesthetics and livability, more recent projects have shown that LAGs are more willing to experiment and innovate. For instance, KRAS in southern Slovakia implemented an educational project for children, which resulted in passport books to be stamped throughout northern Hungary and Southern Slovakia (this needs more information). Weaknesses While LAGs and the national government are strong in many areas, both also exhibited a number of weaknesses. At the national level the bottom-up principle was often violated. The design of the call for proposals was mainly done top down; the national government lacked control over supporting tools for capacity building; and there was a general perception among LAGs that information and knowledge transfer—from the national to the local level—was insufficient.

  30

Also, despite widespread participation among inhabitants, a general lack of interest in public affairs often makes feedback difficult. Because the number of communities in rural Slovakia is large, while the size of these communities is small, the implementation of area-based programs was often difficult. Further, lack of evaluative tools made it difficult to quantify program impacts at the community and regional levels. Public procurement laws also lessened positive regional growth by forcing development funds out of the community and into the hands of large regional, national and international companies. Likewise, the complexity of bureaucracy, high administrative burdens and delays in payment often discouraged public-private partnerships, and perhaps, led to the dominant position of mayors that was observed in focus groups. With regards to networking, there were a number of observed weaknesses. At the LAG level, we often found a lack of communication between stakeholders and managers. At the national level low human capital severely limited the efficacy of the National Rural Network (NRN), instead forcing LAGs to develop their own diffuse networks. Also a weak point, was the apparent lack of communication between the three national level agencies, the management authority, payment agency and regional authorities. We find that international cooperation is often weak as a result of language barriers which are prohibitive to projects involving stakeholders in Western Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Further, that the national authorities often lacked the strategic vision necessary to support the TNC. Finally, there was no evidence that the national government actively sought to encourage coordination and connectivity among different academic and/or research organizations, thus reducing the ability of LAGs to work with and learn from research groups, greatly reducing their capacity for innovation. Opportunities There are a number of opportunities for improvement at the national and LAG level in the coming programming period. While we believe that area-based projects were a strength at the LAG level, better use of marketing tools will provide LAGs with the opportunity to expand programs while preserving the cultural and historical traditions of their regions. Also, the national government should take advantage of the coming programming period to implement selection criteria based on the unique and strategic natural resources of the LAG’s program area and to implement formal evaluation (including the participatory approach) and self-assessment to determine regional impacts of LAGs. With regards to the bottom-up approach we feel that LAGs should shift focus to encourage more proactive involvement of community stakeholders. Similarly, at the national level, we believe that there is an opportunity for more proactive involvement of experienced LAGs in program design and implementation. In the coming programming period, building upon current networking capacities, LAGs should broaden contacts with experts in the field, by visiting other LAGs, and by hiring external consultants. The national government should take advantage of all opportunities to allocate higher resources to the NRN for its overall improvement. Multi-sectoral strategies were often limited to agri-tourism, because we believe this may limit development overtime, the national government should favor the selection of LDSs with a high

  31

degree of multi-sectoral, local cooperation, and more importantly, should implement a wider range of measures that increase job opportunities in several sectors. Likewise, there may also be opportunities for the national level to implement measures that allow for more diverse types of regional and international cooperation, while LAGS should do more to seek out and implement international cooperation projects. We also see a number of opportunities to improve public-private partnerships. At the national level we believe that new measures allowing for greater non-governmental participation may be possible, and further, that improved accessed to funds and higher acknowledgement of new market opportunities may result in stronger public-private partnerships. Finally, the national level can better foster innovation by improving use of the European Innovation Partnership. Threats A number of factors at the national and LAG levels threaten the continued success of development programs in Slovakia. The distribution of funding is not dependent upon the number of participants or beneficiaries in a LAG. This, coupled with the uneven distribution of institutional organizations between regions, threatens the ability of LAGs to continue innovation and inhibits the improvement of projects already in existence. Further, while LAGs have shown the ability to overcome the bureaucratic tangle of administrative rules and changing procedures continued and regular bureaucratic changes at the national level threaten the continued success of LAGs. We also find multiple threats to the public-private partnership principle. First, a continued general lack of interest among actors in the private will undoubtedly prevent strong projects from being implemented. Also, public procurement legislation may threaten the interest of private entities who believe benefits will accrue outside of their sphere of interest.

  32

Conclusion and Recommendations Emily Nachtigal

In order to answer whether or not Slovak stakeholders are ready for community led local development, we looked to each of the seven principles and offer recommendations to better prepare stakeholders for implementation of the program. There were three key findings regarding the area-based principle. First, Slovakia has strong regional promotion of brands and services. LAGs can sufficiently recognize the factors making their region unique. Better marketing of the nation as a whole can benefit each region such as creating multi-region directories or maps. Secondly, since implementing LEADER, LAGs are reporting an increase in the quality of life for inhabitants of their region. Finally, the current public procurement requirements set at the national level are complex and restrict the speed and ease to which projects can be completed and implemented, including local participation from entrepreneurs. Our recommendation is to adapt the public procurement law to further implement the principle of area-based by having less restrictions for smaller, less expensive projects. Projects under a certain euro amount have different procurement requirements than large projects. Regarding the principle of bottom-up, we recognized two key findings. Currently, there are training and support systems by the national level that exist in Slovakia; however, officials at this level should better tailor this support to the needs of the LAGs in the country and not to solely focus on the financial aspects. Additionally, there is a strong level of trust and reciprocity among members within each LAG. This has resulted in the accomplishment of projects in the regions despite difficulties in funding and bureaucracy. LAGs must continue their efforts at increasing involvement of existing and new stakeholders within the region for the next programming period. The public private partnership principle also had two key findings: the disillusionment and limited involvement of the private sector partially due to the high level of bureaucracy and minority groups are not represented in the LAGs. Many within the private sector fail to recognize LEADER as a tool instead believing the funds are specifically for public spaces such as parks, cultural centers, and bus stops. This belief is in part due to the fact that in spite of promotion at the LAG level, much of the spending is biased towards the public sector. Many grants are also directed towards those beneficiaries that are active in the LAG. For the next programming period, a better organization of collective private investments is needed. Also, LAGs must continue to foster entrepreneurship and private investment in the region. Secondly, minority groups are not sufficiently represented in the LAGs, and it is critical that the regions with a significant minority population work to include those groups. There was one key finding for the principle of multi-sectorial design: Slovakia has a high potential to promote multi-sector projects. Currently, there seems to be a low number of high-quality, multi-sectorial projects in the country. It is difficult for opportunities to be grasped because of restrictions and lack of finances. We recognize in the next programming period, the national level will prioritize the multi-sector projects and a wider range of measures will be available to qualify for funding. However, having measures in place does not guarantee

  33

effectiveness. It is important for us to acknowledge that the ministry also has limited funds, and this will always be an issue regardless of the programming period. This being said, we urge the ministry to strengthen the integration between policies and ministries for multi-sectorial projects to ensure these projects are not receiving funds solely from the rural development fund. We recommend LAGs struggling with implementing multi-sectorial projects to engage in activities aimed at the transferring of knowledge and experience. These activities could be visits to other LAGs, hiring external consultants, and participating in brainstorming sessions. The principle of innovative approach had one key finding: the uneven distribution of organizations among regions. Innovation comes from the social interaction of people, and Slovakia has a high level of social and cultural capital at its disposal. Currently, however, there is a disconnect between extension services, research, education and stakeholders. For the next upcoming programming period, LAGs need to prioritize participating in different international cooperation groups in order to foster new ideas and new innovations. There are weak connections and openness between networking institutions when analyzing the networking of local partnerships. LAGs generally have strong networks within their own regions, but there must be strong networks between LAGs and other stakeholders as well. The current activities of the Slovak National Rural Network (NRN) do not meet the needs of LAGs. The low involvement of the NRN has resulted in LAGs creating their own network but this network is not all-inclusive. The NRN must improve the information flow and allow for cross-evaluation from the stakeholders. We recommend LAGs to engage in peer-to-peer evaluation of their projects disseminating the outcomes, both successes and failures of the projects in their region. Additionally, we urge the LAGs to come together to form a lobby group to assist in forwarding their ideas. We distinguished one key finding regarding the final principle, cooperation projects. There is a distinct competitive nature between LAGs. Three different LAGs stated they were the only LAGs in Slovakia participating in international networking conferences. Although some competition can be healthy, we believe this competition nature hinders future competition. We believe that competition has also led LAGs to be very region focused meaning they are more concerned about their own region and not how their region fits and impacts Slovakia as a whole. We have several recommendations to help promote collaboration and cooperation. First, as mentioned previously, a nation-wide lobby group should be formed to help tackle the main issues LAGs are facing such as access to financing and credit. The National Level can help promote this by improving the lobby system for the LAG association. Developing a monitoring framework for both international and national cooperation would show how collaboration increases economic activity in the entire country. Finally, we recommend the managing authority to promote multi-level governance for more cohesion between all levels and institutions. Returning to the original question of whether or not Slovak stakeholders are ready for CLLD, we believe they are. It will not be a transition without challenges, but overall, stakeholders have a firm understanding on the elements of each of the seven principles. Additionally, most are already fulfilling the principles within their LAGS. We are confident that CLLD will be an overall success in Slovakia.

  34

References: BAKOVÁ, Eva. Rural Development Programme SR 2007 – 2013. Paying agency SR. 2015, (1). Europa. EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT. Agriculture and rural development: RDP 2014-2020 [online]. 2008 [cit. 2015-08-04]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/index_en.htm Europa. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Leader + [online]. 2015 [cit. 2015-08-04].Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/intro_en.htm EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT. The leader approach: The basic guideline [online]. Brussels, 2006. p. 5 [cit. 2015-08-04]. ISBN ISBN 92-79-02044-7. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/factsheet_en.pdf EUROPEAN NETWORK FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT (ENRD). ENRD. CLLD [online]. 2015 [cit. 2015-08-05]. Dostupné z: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/themes/clld Geilfus, F. (2009). 80 tool for participatory research approach: Diagnostic, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. 8th edition, 2009. San José, C.R.: IICA, 2002. MAJERECH, Martin. LEADER/CLLD guideline in Slovak Repblic in 2014-2020. Ministry of Agriculture in SR. 2015, (1) Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) 2014-2020 Stage 2: Final Proposals. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. Scot gov [online]. 2014 [cit. 2015-08-04]. Dostupné z: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/12/7550/291112

  35

Annex 1: LAG Overview - Programming Period 2007-2013  

 

 

  36

 

 

  37

 

 

  38

 

 

  39

 

 

  40

 

  41

Annex 2: LAG Distribution in Slovakia in Leader + (M.Majerech, 2015)