THEMATIC POLE MEETING N°4Partner Local Support Groups – Group sessionPhilip Stein Tuesday 09 June 2009

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday 09 June 2009 I Page 2

CONTENT

› Key Messages raised by Local Support Group

National Seminars – State of Play

› Marxloh, Duisburg operational example

› URBACT II Experience so far

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday 09 June 2009 I Page 3

LOCAL SUPPORT GROUPS – State of play

› Enthusiasm but MOST CITIES JUST STARTING

› Big difference between lead partners and others

› Core groups mainly inter departmental and interagency coordination. Generally based on what exists. Can extend?

› LESS ADVANCED ON FUNCTIONS OF LSGs.

› UNCLEAR LINKS TO EXCHANGE PROCESS

› UNCLEAR RELATION TO PRODUCTION OF LAP

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday 09 June 2009 I Page 4

Marxloh – Duisburg: STAKEHOLDERS

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday 09 June 2009 I Page 5

Marxlohe – Duisburg: Local Governance Model

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday, 09 June 2009 I Page 6

Marxlohe – Duisburg: Secondary Stakeholders?

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday 09 June 2009 I Page 7

URBACT II EXPERIENCE

› Models of phases for LAP (eg. WEED, Healthy cities):

Preparatory and stakeholder mobilisation. M1-10

Issue prioritisation and stakeholder commitment M11-22

Strategy formulation and action plans. M 23-31

Follow up and consolidation. M32-36

ISSUES Differentiation between Lead Partner and Others Core groups insitutional, based on existing structures – Missing voices? LSG and network LSG and LAP – co-production Capacity (facilitation, exchange/engagement models, national capacity)

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday 09 June 2009 I Page 8

LOCAL SUPPORT GROUPS – Issues for discussion

› Working methods

› Role in exchange

› Role in LAP

› Templates and Support

Partner Local Support Groups I Tuesday 09 June 2009 I Page 9

LOCAL SUPPORT GROUPS – State of play

› RECAP

Where are the main problems/obstacles?

What are the positives?