Findings assessment CLLD strategy Salomon Espinosa Matthieu Chau - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Findings assessment CLLD strategy Salomon Espinosa Matthieu Chau Itayosara Rojas Yeonui Cho

2

Objectives of the Case Study  To learn how to design the evaluation framework for assessment of added value of LEADER/CLLD Define and Formulate the evaluation framework for expected added • value Understand how the added value is linked with the LEADER/CLLD • strategy, delivery mechanism, the CLLD method and conduct the relevant assessment 3

Assessment process WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 Collection of Training in the Assessment in Results analysis: information: assessment of the Tekov Hont. CLLD strategy: Slovakia, Common Tools, CLLD matrix, Interview with the final presentation, agriculture policy, focus group, LAG manager, focus final report. LEADER in Slovakia. interview design. group with members of the LAG. 4

Territory description  Date of establishment : 2012  Area : 666.58 Km 2  Number of municipalities : 43  Location : Southeastern part of Nitra (includes the northern part of the Levice area)  Population : 28,540 (as of 31.12.2014)  Main activity : Agriculture, Livestock breeding, Wine- Apple- Pear production, etc. 5

Description of the assessment process 1) 1) Pictiona tionary ry  Purpose : To easily understand the definition of the 7 principles. 6

2) 2) Pears s and Apples es  Purpose : To help the focus groups easily approach to the expected AV 7

3) 3) Strategy tegy Table e Filling ng Purpose : To understand how principles are linked to the strategy and the AV  8

4) 4) Conclus usion on Table Purpose : To show the relationship between the expected AV, the priorities and the  principles. 9

What do people think about the principles? How do they understand principles? Bottom up: Integrated Actions: ● People’s will ● Easy life/ easy way ● Democracy ● Connection ● Rising up ● Joint ● Regional ideas Area Based Strategies: ● No repetition ● Together ● Natural conditions ● Comunidad ● Tradición 10

Networking: Partnership: ● Communication ● Merge / Linking ● Interlinks ● Cohesion ● Knowledge ● Help transference ● Easy goals ● Relationship building Innovation: Cooperation: ● Ideas / New ● Group / Community ● Creativity ● Consensus / Meetings ● Science ● Support / Better idea 11

What do people expect as an added value? 12

What do people expect as an added value? In terms of Social Capital: · Improved Quality of life of Inhabitants · More successful people in business · Local confidence (trust) In terms of Improved Local Governance: · Local government close to the people · Increase participation of people in decision making · Better level of local identity 13

How do people link principles and added value with their own strategy? 1) 1) Prin rincip iple an and prio riorit ity 2) Prin 2) rincip iple an and ad added valu alue 3) 3) Con onclu lusion tab able le 14

Principles and priorities Priority 1: Local Priority 2: Rural Priority 3: The Priority 4: Social Business tourism appearance of entrepreneurship, service municipalities and small and education Total infrastructure 1. Area-based: 3 3 3 3 12 2. Bottom-up: 3 3 3 3 12 3. Public-private partnership: 2 2 1 3 8 4. Innovation: 3 3 1 1 8 5. Integration: 2 2 1 0 5 6. Networking: 1 1 0 0 2 7. Co-operation: 1 2 1 2 6 Total 15 16 10 12 15

Principles and Added Value Principle Added value 1 Added value 2 Added value 3 Added value 4 Added value 5 Added value 6 x x x x x x 1. Area-based: 2. Bottom-up: x x x x x x x x x x x 3. Public-private partnership: x x x 4. Innovation: x x x x x x 5. Integration: 6. Networking: x x x x x x x x x x x 7. Co-operation: Total 5 6 6 7 7 6 16

Conclusion Table Total Total Added value 1 Added value 2 Added value 3 Added value 4 Added value 5 Added value 6 cards Value Priority 1: Local Business 77 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 37 Priority 2: Rural tourism 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 37 82 Priority 3: The appearance of municipalities and small infrastructure 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 31 53 Priority 4: Social entrepreneurship, service and education 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 25 64 276 Total cards 17 21 21 25 25 21 130 Total Value 39 41 45 53 53 45 276 17

LAG Manager's interview ● Predominant dominance of public sector ● Financial problems ● Re-adjustment of the strategy ● Frustration among stakeholders ● Different work rhythms among stakeholders: entrepreneurs 18

● Classification among stakeholders: First criteria: Cooperation, willingness to cooperate with the LAG and with the programme. ● Composition: 10 entrepreneurs, 43 Mayors and individuals. ● Training with the national network of rural development. 19

To what extent is the CLLD strategy fostering /weakening the generation of social capital and enhancement of local governance in the LAG territory? Fostering Weakening Human resources/ Human capital: Financial problems abilities and skills of LAG staff, enthusiasm People ´ s Commitment Waiting time/ implementation time Public offices Commitment: mayors Different work paces from different stakeholders: entrepreneurs 20

To what extent is the delivery mechanism fostering/weakening the generation of social capital and enhancement of local governance capital in the LAG territory? Fostering Weakening Human resources/ Human capital: clear Procedures to adjust the strategy: understanding of LEADER programme, financial problem principles and mechanisms Procedures from the national level to access financial capital and implement the strategy 21

• In Tekov Hont there has been a higher involvement of the public sector through the municipalities. • There has been different paces and levels of contribution among stakeholders, particularly the case of entrepreneurs. • There is a generalised feeling of frustration and demotivation that can be perceived due to the delay in the access to LEADER budget. • Tekov Hont has a big socio economic potential in terms of wine production, cultural heritage and recreation. 22

Conclusions • Trough the assessment process in Tekov-Hont we are able to have a better understanding of the rural areas in Slovakia: complexity, potential and problems. • The use of participatory tools during the assessment process helps to understand better LEADER principles and boost them. • The application of the tools during the assessment in Tekov-Hont allowed us to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. • Focus group and manager ´ s interview are complement tools. 23

Recomendations • The tool is complex and need to be well explain • The tool may has to be adjust to fit the time and capacity of the users • The tool is relevant to be used while building a strategy to assess the added value expected but can not be used to compare the different LAG due to the subjetivity 24

Thank you! 25