LDMR Programme

A good practice for integrated development in Hungary

31st March 2011

1. The importance of integrated approach in Cohesion Policy and in the LDMR Programme

2. The concept and methodology of the LDMR Programme

3. Lessons learnt from the LDMR Programme

1. The importance of integrated approach in Cohesion Policy and in the LDMR Programme

2. The concept and methodology of the LDMR Programme

3. Lessons learnt from the LDMR Programme

Integrated approach in Cohesion Policy - 1

• A horizontal issue, repeatedly raised during the debate on the future of Cohesion Policy

• An important factor and a good practice of the policy– Multi-level governance developments aligned with

territorial needs and potentials, at the same time compatible with EU level objectives

– Multi-sectoral nature complex management of various development needs; synergistic effects

• Integrated approach: simultaneous, harmonised management of the development objectives and aspects of different nature and of different levels - more effective

Integrated approach in Cohesion Policy - 2

• Place-based approach / integrated approach with more emphasis in various key EU-documents (some examples):– Territorial Agenda, 2007: encourages furthering territorial

cohesion– Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, 2008: further emphasises

importance of territorial dimension– Lisbon Treaty, 2009: territorial cohesion as an objective– EU2020 Strategy, 2010: increased role of regional/local levels– 5th Cohesion Report, 2010: CSF, territorial cohesion,

partnership, local development

• Local development, generally: place-based, endogenous development process; bottom-up approach, participative; integrates different actors and sectors

LDMR Programme – an integrated local development initiative

• The LDMR Programme was a local development initiative with resource allocation on the basis of micro-regional strategic plan

• Innovative solutions: with place-based, integrated programme for the development actions aligned with territorial needs and for the efficiency in the uptake of funds– In Hungary, development gaps within NUTS2 or even

LAU1/NUTS4 level eligibility areas as subregional units (micro-region)

– The development objectives and the implementation process respected the local socio-economic and environmental aspects and synergies

– Actively involved local communities in order to ensure long term synergies

1. The importance of integrated approach in Cohesion Policy, and in the LDMR Programme

2. The concept and methodology of the LDMR Programme

3. Lessons learnt from the LDMR Programme

Reasons for launching a local development type programme - 1

(HUF 1000/inhabitant)

The LDMR Programme, and the micro-regional planning process were introduced on the recognistion of practical problems in getting access to development finance:

•The spatial distribution of grants did not help efficiently the convergence of the least developed micro-regions…

Reasons for launching a local development type programme - 2

• The grant application schemes often hinder the implementation of complex projects

• Generally, local actors submit their applications without territorial coordination – no or negative synergies

• Previous micro regional planning exercises were not attached to financial allocations

• Most of the projects aimed at infrastructure development – training, employment, and Roma integration interventions remained at the level of plans

• The mobilisation of internal resources is difficult on both the economic and social side

Further reasons:

Objectives of the Programme - 1

Many micro-regions face growing problems, such as poverty, unemployment, the lack of enterprises and quality public services: social injustice is inherited from generation to

generationParticularly adverse effects on Roma population

Objectives of the Programme - 2

• In 2008 the LDMR Programme addressed these issues: complex, targeted, territorial and resource-based approach

• Aims:– Stop the widening of development gaps – Stronger focus on the micro-regions’ needs, development

schemes and potentials– Without significantly changing an approved and working

system of operational programmes!

Planning the Programme - 1• First: identified the 33 LDMRs using a complex indicator involving

32 (social, economic and infrastructural) indicators - situated in four different NUTS2 regions

Lengyeltóti Tamási

Mátészalkai

Baktalórántházai FehérgyarmatiSzerencsi

Bodrogközi

Abaúj HegyköziEdelényi

Encsi

Sellyei

Szigetvári

Kadarkúti

Sásdi

Bácsalmási

Jánoshalmai

ÓzdiSárospataki

Kisteleki

Hevesi

Bátonyterenyei

Barcsi

Csurgói

Csengeri

Nyírbátori

Tiszafüredi

SzikszóiVásárosnaményi

Sarkadi

Mezőkovácsházai

Berettyóújfalui

Mezőcsáti

Tokaji

Lengyeltóti Tamási

Mátészalkai

Baktalórántházai FehérgyarmatiSzerencsi

Bodrogközi

Abaúj HegyköziEdelényi

Encsi

Sellyei

Szigetvári

Kadarkúti

Sásdi

Bácsalmási

Jánoshalmai

ÓzdiSárospataki

Kisteleki

Hevesi

Bátonyterenyei

Barcsi

Csurgói

Csengeri

Nyírbátori

Tiszafüredi

SzikszóiVásárosnaményi

Sarkadi

Mezőkovácsházai

Berettyóújfalui

Mezőcsáti

Tokaji

Planning the Programme - 2

• Pre-allocated budget: HUF 96.9 bn (EUR 358 mn)• Distribution: 1/3 evenly distributed, 1/3 per number

of inhabitants, 1/3 per number of settlements• Resources per micro-region: HUF 1.3-4.3 bn (EUR 4.8-

15.9 mn)• From a total of 8 OPs

– 6 OPs provided financial contribution to project implementation

– 2 OPs supported the technical assistance to planning (local capacity building, facilitation, etc.)

• Development areas: economic, settlements, human infra, human resource

The local planning process: unified methodology

Assessment of planning documents

1. The importance of integrated approach in Cohesion Policy, and in the LDMR Programme

2. The concept and methodology of the LDMR Programme

3. Lessons learnt from the LDMR Programme

The positive results of the integrated local development approach - 1

• Level of the statistical micro-region closer to the local needs and potentials

• A better coordination of resources at the programme level (various OPs, more complex management of problems)…

• …and at project level (higher cross-financing rate, efficient dialogue – harmonisation of resources and local needs, the calls for proposals adapted to micro-regions’ needs)

• Lagging-behind areas: lighter and more flexible terms, independent from the competition easier access to funds

• Involvement of civil organizations and the business sector active cooperation of local stakeholders…

Helped to reinforce ownership and local governance:

The positive results of the integrated local development approach - 2

• …Improvement of the rural-urban relations (planning requirement to take into account the infrastructure conditions and deficiencies, and [public] services)

• Dialogue between the micro-regions and the institutions first-hand information, coordination of needs and resources

• Allocation of the resources for each micro-region cost-effective planning

• External support elimination of the lack of local expertise, experience and lack of resources, facilitation

• Projects to truly assist the most disadvantaged communities reducing disparities within the given territory

Factors hindering the implementation of the Programme

• Mono-fund system: sometimes unfavourable structure of OPs; further limitation by the national action plans, and calls for applications

• Limited cross-financing, different eligibility, contracting, reporting and control routines

• Differences between the funding mechanism of EAFRD and Structural Funds – real problem because of the rural character of these micro-regions

• Unusual processes: difficult to manage (e.g. information asymmetry , inflexible call criteria, communication problems of a process with multiple actors)

• The attitude of local stakeholders, the lack of experience in local planning and cooperation, background deals

Primarily caused by the structure of the grant application system, the legal regulations, and difficulties at local level

Overall conclusions• The LDMR Programme was a complex and resource-consuming

process • The importance and necessity of the integrated approach is

undisputable, but … • … the local development approach is not a universal response, on

the other hand, in many cases the implementation of such integrated programmes is a best solution:– Strengthens cohesion at different levels– Allows complex management of problems, strongly highlights the local

needs and potentials, and aligns them with common objectives– Partnerships and endogenous processes may be a basis for take-off and

long term development of a given territory • How to go on?

– Improvement of the concept: use of the lessons learnt + solution of identified problems

– Integrated, place-based, complex, multisectoral use of the different resources

– Further strengthen the integrated approach = more effective achievement of Cohesion Policy objectives

Thank you for your attention