Assessing the equilibrium between autonomy and accountabilityThe evaluation of LEADER II

Paper presented by Robert Lukesch1

ÖIR (Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning)

The paper was presented in workshop 8: Programme Evaluation (26/6). It specifically addresses “the role of evaluations as a vehicle for accountability and for improving transparency”.

The most valuable insights are the methods.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Two-sentence abstract

Carried out over four (from local to European) decision levels and over all 15 member states, the evaluation of the community initiative LEADER II assesses the degree to which the so-called LEADER method has been implemented, and if so, how this influenced its outcomes at local level. The presentation puts specific focus on the assessment of autonomy and accountability of local partnerships and on the use of systemic dialogue techniques in focus groups.

1. The Community Initiative LEADER II

Started in 1991, the community initiative LEADER pursued a new, small-scaled approach to rural development in lagging areas, in areas facing structural difficulties and in Nordic sparsely populated areas. Compared to structural funds interventions in Objective 1, 5b or 6 areas, the financial resources of LEADER were quite limited. It was designed to revitalise these areas and to complement the existing European structural funds and national or regional development programmes. In the first period (1991-1993) it was organised as a call for projects, more specifically, as “project-territories”. Although there was a pre-selection of applicants at the member states’ level, the links between the 217 territories having been approved as contractors, and the services of the European Commission (DG VI) were quite direct and, in some cases, even close.

Because of the broadly acknowledged success in its first period (LEADER I: 1991-1993) in many of the rural areas where it has been implemented, the initiative got continued and enlarged in the following period (LEADER II: 1995 – 1999). The evaluation team which assessed the results of the first period, modelled and codified some of its characteristics. The experts working for the European LEADER II Observatory, hosted by the NGO AEIDL (Bruxelles) during this period, pushed further the reflection process by capitalising on the 1 Robert Lukesch is the coordinator of the evaluation team. He is an independent consultant and coach based in Hirzenriegl/Austria; he’s associate of the ÖAR Regionalberatung GmbH (Wien, AT) and assigned by the ÖIR Managementdienste GmbH (Wien, AT) for this evaluation. Other members of the core team are: Herta Tödtling-Schönhofer, manager of the ÖIR-Managementdienste GmbH and general coordinator of the project; Jean-Claude Bontron, Segesa (Paris, FR); Carlo Ricci, Teknica (Lanciano, IT)

experiences of hundreds of “innovative actions”. They formulated the assumption that the initiative relied on the combined application of eight operational principles. This is the essence of what became the “LEADER approach” or the “LEADER method”. Here the operational principles:

The area-based approach: The local actors work on assets and resources which are unique to a specific area. A sense of belonging, the thickness and intensity of social relationships and convergent images of a common future in the living space prepare a seedbed in which new, experimental ways of development can be tried out and get roots. The self-determined choice of the territory according to cultural, social and economic coherence and dynamic identities was an important component of the area-based approach. The approach is combined with the idea of a strategic vision not only integrating but actively utilising divergent views and interests of local actors to pursue common goals. This strategy is laid down in a pluri-annual local action plan or business plan.

The bottom-up approach: The strategy is based on an in-depth assessment of the local needs and this should be done by the inviting local citizens, associations and stakeholders to actively participate in the planning decision making, implementation and evaluation phase of the planning cycle. The approach ensures that the initiative reaches out to weaker groups and parts of the territory which do not achieve support from mainstream structural funds or national programmes. If the involved actors share the knowledge owned at local level, the programme becomes more concrete, meaningful and relevant.

The partnership approach: The central pillar of the initiative is a local partnership taking the responsibility for the development of their area. The partners are supposed to represent the population and the range of interests of public bodies, private enterprises and civic associations. The partnership’s legal form may range from an NGO to corporate enterprises and inter-municipal associations. It is the beneficiary of the community initiative and should be able to manage the funds responsibly according to the business plan in case if the decentralisation principle is really implemented. However, the degree of autonomy of local partnerships varied among member states and regions, and so the real importance and accountable role of the partnership in the local development process.

The innovative approach: Innovation was, according to the Communication to the Member States from July 1st 1994, the buzzword for LEADER II. It was the explicit aim of the initiative to give impulsions for innovative measures carried out by public and private actors in all sectors of rural areas, to divulgate the resulting experiences in the whole Community and to support the local action groups in transferring, utilising and adopting the experiences and lessons made somewhere else. Innovation in this sense should take account of the specific situation and needs of the area, emphasize uniqueness and diversity, and not serve as a pretext to adapt to global technological standards.

The multi-sectoral integration: The area-based approach and the local partnership result in an enhanced capability to bundle the local strengths into value-added chains straddling different sectors of the local economy, taking into account environmental preservation, encouraging cultural initiatives and involving support structures of governance, financing, education and social integration into the process. Multi-sectoral integration happens at two levels: At the level of the individual projects involving actors and activities of more than just one sector; and at the level of the strategy mobilising and structuring resource flows

from all active parts of the local society. Federating themes (such as water, a certain historical period, an emblematic product etc.) can have this structuring effect.

Networking: The European network coordination unit, started in LEADER I has been enlarged and endowed with additional tasks in LEADER II. It eventually became the European LEADER II Observatory, whose mission was to facilitate a European network of rural development, to foster transfer of innovation, exchange of experiences and skills, to make the European approach to rural development and the initiative more visible to the European people and national authorities, and to capitalise on the multitude and diversity of innovative actions for future policy making. To achieve this aim, the Observatory was collaborating with national networking units, put up on a formal basis in most member states, having a similar role at the level of member states. Networking was also considered as an attitude and management task in the local partnerships, for linking the local actors to other rural and urban partners for developing new marketing channels, for bringing knowledge and technology at the cutting edge, or for getting above critical thresholds for accessing specialised services such as research, design and promotion.

Trans-national cooperation: This principle was, according to some interlocutors at European level, representing the genuine European dimension of rural development (besides networking). It started slowly, because the groups were much more concerned with the implementation of the development strategy at local level, but it gained momentum in the same way, as the rural actors learned to know each other at the occasion of European seminars and meetings organised by the European LEADER II Observatory or by cooperating national networking units. At the end around 250 trans-national cooperation projects were launched. They mostly remained in early stages of project building, say in the phase of exchange and knowledge transfer, few of them resulted in genuinely trans-national enterprises.

Decentralised managing and financing: Although the global allowance (according to Art.5/2 c) of regulation nr. 2052/88) was applied only in a limited number of countries and regions, one could see the de facto decision making power of the local partnership went beyond the limits of formal constitutional constraints. Even if they did not have the last word on project selection and funding, local partnerships acted in a role accountable for local development funding. This fact constituted, according to many interviewees from local to European level, the main innovation of the whole initiative.

Today the third phase of the initiative (LEADER+ 2000-2006) is under way, the mid-term evaluation is about to start. Many interviewees stated that the LEADER approach has inspired the drawing up of programmes such as URBAN and EQUAL, or the Territorial Employment Pacts. It has instigated national schemes which offer LEADER-type interventions in areas not covered by LEADER (Spain, Ireland and Finland).

In this respect, the evaluation of LEADER II can be considered as a building block of a wider institutional learning process which ought to generate ideas how to transfer and adapt the operational principles of LEADER into mainstream rural development programmes, notably after 2006 and with special consideration of the rural areas of the accession states, where the strong winds of structural change keep blowing stronger and stronger.

2. Purpose and aims of the evaluation of LEADER II

2.1 Key questions

The evaluation started in November 2002 and is due to be finalised in September 2003. Its purpose is to assess to which extent and in which various ways the above mentioned operational principles have been implemented, and to which extent they can be linked to success in local development.

The evaluation wants to find answers to the decisive question: Is the impact of LEADER II significantly different from that of any other structural funds programme or community initiative or not? Is its reputation based on a myth or can we identify hitherto undiscovered success factors which could make future programmes more relevant and more effective for local and regional sustainable development?

In the view of an uncertain future of the community initiative after LEADER+, the discussions about giving the second pillar of the CAP more importance in a future

CARP2, the wake-ups, shake-ups and break-ups of rural areas of the new accession states before

and after becoming member of the EU,we will focus our conclusions and recommendations on the following questions:

What patterns emerge concerning the links between (geographical, socio-economic and institutional) context conditions, programme achievements and the implementation of the specific features of LEADER?

2 Common Agricultural and Rural Policy

What is the overall impact of LEADER II on the sustainable development of rural areas?

What is the effect of LEADER on agricultural adjustment and the farming communities in rural areas?

What can be considered as good practice of programme delivery in respect to subsidiarity and regional governance?

To what extent did the LEADER experience generate a robust attitude and capability of learning in rural areas and in the institutions concerned with programme administration?

Does LEADER give a European dimension to local development in rural areas?

2.2 Work organisation

The Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning (ÖIR), based in Vienna, led a group of experts from 12 countries to find this out for the evaluation unit of the DG Agriculture. The draft final report is due to the 11th of July. It will provide first answers to the questions cited above.

The team was organised in two circles: The inner circle –the core team – consisted of four members, two from ÖIR, the administrative coordinator3 and the team leader4, one from the SEGESA in Paris5 responsible for the quantitative processing of data, and one from TEKNICA, Lanciano (IT)6, a rural development expert. The team members in the outer circle were the geographical evaluators. 12 teams were contracted for information gathering in all 15 member states.

3 Herta Tödtling-Schönhofer4 Robert Lukesch5 Jean-Claude Bontron. He was already involved in the LEADER I evaluation.6 Carlo Ricci

3. The approach

The evaluation team has chosen a multi-faceted approach to grasp the various dimensions of this evaluation project:

We shortly address the components of the approach and finally present the structured dialogue more in detail, because we presume that this method is the best indicated to produce meaning among actors in rural development and administration.

3.1 Three superposed layers of tasks

We understood that the exercise consists of three superposed layers of tasks:

1st layer: Predominantly quantitative assessment of expenditure rates, modes of implementation and output figures (domains of intervention, administrative arrangements etc.).

2nd layer: Estimation of effects on general objectives: The terms of reference named five of them: Agricultural adjustment and diversification; employment; income; environment; equal opportunities. They were not explicit or direct targets of the initiative, but there were hopes that it did have a tangible impact on them.

3rd layer: Exploration of generative effects on collective behaviours: The operational principles can be understood as generalisations of ways to act, individually and collectively. They provide ideas how development processes are enacted by the relevant actors, not by accident or by circumstance, but more or less systematically, as a result of a learning process.

3.2 Two intertwined perspectives

The above mentioned three layers of tasks are to be carried out in respect to two perspectives:

The perspective of local actors striving to make their rural territories a place where they and their descendents really want to live in (bottom-up);

The perspective of administrations to support this endeavour by designing and implementing support schemes of funding and technical assistance to the local actors (top-down).

Both co-develop in time and are intertwined in an on-going learning process. This learning process can be slowed down or put off, but it happens.

LEADER II was delivered at regional level, but in five countries there was only one national programme (Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal). All in all, there were 102 Operational Programmes7 to be examined, and all these programmes had been evaluated at member states level, not all of them being finished to date. Some of them took account of the specific evaluation questions for assessing the LEADER approach as proposed by the LEADER II Observatory on behalf of the Commission. However, these evaluations turned out to be very inhomogeneous in their approach, scope and depth of analysis. They are useful sources of information and data, but not as reference documents for producing a European perspective on the success or failure of the LEADER II initiative.

3.3 Five levels of assessment

The European evaluation had to carry over five levels and all 15 member states:

The project level: Types of activities supported etc.; case studies on trans-national projects and studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of projects funded under LEADER and similar ones funded under other structural funds or national programmes.

The local level: The territory, the partnership, the strategy; under the condition of decentralised management and financing: Administrative implementation and project approval.

The regional level: Managing authority, LAG selection and project approval. The programme officers, the fund managers and regional support structures. In some areas the organisational space of a regional network of local groups.

The national level: Administrative implementation and LAG selection in five countries; Management of EU funds and national co-financing. The organisational space of the national LEADER network.

The EU level: EU funds and regulatory framework; approval of programmes and network coordination by the European Observatory.

7 106 OPs including the French Overseas Territories, where the programmes were implemented under the REGIS initiative. They were not included in this evaluation.

3.4 Three observation positions

We tried to get a differentiated view on the past processes by including three types of interlocutors in the sample of interview partners:

A….actors directly involved in implementing LEADER II (e.g. LAG managers, board members; responsible persons from the managing authority or an intermediary body; national network coordinators).

B…actors indirectly involved in the implementation of LEADER II (project beneficiaries and local consultants; fund managers and responsible persons from different departments in the regional or national government).

C…well-informed actors not involved in the implementation of LEADER II (evaluators, rural development experts).

The most reliable reconstruction of the past was brought forth by a mix of the three observation positions.

3.5 Five stages of zooming

Each type of information required a certain reference sample. Therefore we organised a process of nested sampling in five stages:

1st stage: General description of available data on the implementations and financial achievements of all 102 operational programmes and around 1000 local groups (among them around 5% so-called “other collective bodies” which were not territorial, but thematic partnerships).

2nd stage: Sampling of 1/3 of operational programmes (= 34) for a more detailed analysis of the processes and outcomes of LEADER II. We selected these programmes in a hand-picked way, aiming at a good distribution among all member states, objective (1, 5b, 6) areas, geographical contexts and socio-economic contexts. For the latter we used a pragmatic typology of nine “region-types” set out in a dossier of the European Observatory8. The number of local groups in these 34 programme areas amounted to 507 (478 LAGs and 29 CBs), which constituted about half of the groups. All the groups selected for further stages had to be located within these 34 programme areas.

3rd stage: Sampling of 20% of the local groups (= approx. 202) for a more detailed analysis of the processes and outcomes of the initiative at local level. This sampling was done on a random basis (by drawing numbers). In some cases we had to replace groups from which no interlocutor was available any more by a second drawing, and in very rare cases we had to replace them by other groups suggested by the geographical evaluators.

4th stage: Sampling of 30 focus groups at local level, carried out in 12 member states. We describe the systemic approach for these focus groups further down. They have been selected according to their will to participate, to the diversity of experiences to be tapped and to a good distribution of context conditions. The sampling has been done centrally based on proposals coming up from the geographical evaluators.

8 AEIDL 2000: Economic competitiveness. Technical dossier, 1st chapter. Bruxelles.

5th stage: Sampling of 12 studies on trans-national cooperation (TNC) and of 10 comparative case studies on the cost-effectiveness of the LEADER initiative (CEA) compared to other structural funds or national types of intervention. Many of these case studies were taken from the groups selected for focus groups, but not all of them. The sampling has been made by the core team based on proposals from the geographical evaluators.

3.6 Three methods of data collection

According to the stages, we used different ways of data collection. We had to consider that many actors of the initiative have left their former work places and would be difficult to access to reflect their activities dating back up to nine years ago.

We followed the principle to get as much as possible information from written documents and data files. To this end we exploited the national execution and evaluation reports. The geographical evaluators produced overview grids on the 102 operational programmes and around 1000 local groups. They also commented on the modalities and quality of the evaluation reports conducted at national and regional level.

Personal experiences and views had to be explored in a personalised way – through interviews and a general survey. The core team set up interview guidelines including a list of additional factual questions for interlocutors at regional and national level (Q34). Similar questions were asked to European interlocutors9. Furthermore, a questionnaire was elaborated for interviewing local actors in 202 local action groups (Q202).

The core team provided detailed guidelines for 12 case studies on trans-national cooperation projects and 10 comparative case studies on the cost-effectiveness of the LEADER initiative.

9 The coordinator carried out 14 interviews at European level, nine with Commission officers, 3 with people from the Observatory, 2 with other experts.

3.7 Three kinds of questions

In the interview guidelines for the regional, national and EU level, as well as in the survey questionnaire for 202 local groups three types of questions were asked. The three types were marked by different colours:

Black colour: Factual questions. For reasons of rationality and fairness to the interlocutors, we asked the geographical evaluators to fill in as much as information they could get from written sources or data files. They just had to be confirmed by the local interlocutor.

Red colour: Subjective rating: We used a scale from 1 (very negative) to 10 (very positive) to explore the attitude towards a number of issues. We did that firstly to separate the ratings from the interpretative part (see below), and secondly because with the relatively high number of respondents we could exploit them quantitatively.

Green colour: Interpretations, explanations, opinions. This part delivered the narrative of LEADER. Interview partners were not pushed to answer to these questions. We supposed that the interlocutors would like to talk about the issues they felt as a genuine concern.

3.8 Evaluation as learning: Structured dialogue

The multi-dimensional methodology gave us various insights on many different aspects of this community initiative at each scale. Originally, the evaluation team wanted to capitalise on the gained knowledge for closing the learning loop at local, regional and European level. In the first answer to the call for tender the evaluation team had proposed an exploitation process in the form of a “structured dialogue”10: 40 focus groups at the level of LAGs; 34 dialogue groups at the level of programme implementation (regional/national); A serie of European workshops involving Commission members, some national LEADER

representatives and evaluation experts.The three-storey workshop architecture would have fed into one another from bottom-up.

However, the suggested design was not covered by the terms of reference and had to be reduced to 30 focus groups with LAGs which remained on the task list.

We believe that, in the context of a European programme, isolated islands of learning would have a low survival rate. Institutional improvements made at any level of planning and implementation have to hook into analogous processes at the next higher and lower ones in order to sustain.

See the detailed description in chapter 5 of this paper.

10 The expression was coined in the context of “learning organisations”. See SENGE P. e.a. 1994: Fieldbook to the Fifth Discipline. Doubleday-Currency, New York.

4 Emerging difficulties and solutions

With regard to the complexity of the task we expected difficulties in implementation. But they were less hindering than suspected:

Regional officers and local actors were sometimes hard to persuade to answer to the extended questionnaires (Q202 had more than 40 pages!), even if they had been pre-filled by the geographical evaluators. This difficulty was most evident in the countries with regional programmes.

The time frame from the survey to the assembling and reporting of data was extremely tight: The results coming from the different countries had to be compiled and interpreted in one month’s time. This time constraint was due to a delay in the inception phase and in the sampling of the LAGs which, in parts, no longer existed and whose representatives sometimes were difficult to spot. To mitigate the effects of these gaps, the core team delivered the tools in a way that combined clear instructions with flexible handling.

Even if some actors refused to give any answer above the level of the absolute “must”, there was a surprisingly high number of people who wanted to share their experiences, views and ideas upon LEADER. Quite a few of them was still active in the change business, although not forcedly in LEADER+. This showed us the impact on local capacity building which the initiative left behind, or, as a European interlocutor put it: LEADER II left behind “800 skilled local development agents ready to go on.”

In the beginning we considered the questions regarding the impact on horizontal objectives as a bit risky. However, we were surprised that questions concerning the employment effects or effects on agricultural adjustment and diversity were actually answered in a meaningful way. Apparently the national monitoring systems are already well prepared to sufficiently take them into account. There are indications for surprising outcomes concerning the horizontal theme of equal opportunities: In some countries such as in Portugal, Ireland or Belgium, rural development has been deliberately utilised by the female population and female actors, not only for capacity building and starting development projects or enterprises, but also for becoming animators and coordinators of local development.

5 Structured dialogues in focus groups – a systemic approach to learning by evaluation

5.1 Why systemic?

I call the approach systemic because it is based on several pre-assumptions and oriented towards certain requirements that I shortly present here:

Reality is a mental construction. Several people sharing their mental constructions from their different points of view can

create a common reality or “truth” through a dialogue in which mutual listening and sharing opinions play a crucial role in a process of approximation.

Experts become parts of the system they want to observe in the moment they enter in contact with the “observed” group. However, they can also contribute to learning by giving their views from a more distant observation position.

Cause and effect in complex (such as social) systems are not interlinked in the way good old Newton has put it (actio est reactio). The system reacts on external disturbances following its own internal mechanisms. Big disturbances can have little effect, but tiny disturbances can have big effects.

Complex systems are drifting in time. They change a lot to remain what they are. Cause and effect can appear to be disconnected by many years of dormancy. When effects come up, they can not be easily attributed to specific causes.

In order to understand and to influence change it is important to detect the patterns of behaviours and interactions which keep the system – or a problem - in balance over time. Even in complex societies these patterns may appear to be amazingly simple. Once understood, they still have to be regarded under the premises of uncertainty and unpredictability. But they offer the clues for effective interventions levering transformation.

Learning occurs at different levels. It can be reflexive (when there is bright light, I close my eyes). It can be adaptive (like Humphrey Bogart’s aphorism: “You should never contradict your wife, rather wait, until she does”). It can be generative, which means to change the reference frame (another logical level, a new context, a new purpose…) for processing information and for action. Finally it can be evolutionary, which would include a shift of identity.

We thought that we are, after six, sometimes ten years of LEADER experience, at a point at which local actors would be ready to try out settings of generative learning. This was the purpose of focus groups. There was, in spite of much reluctance of local actors to be interrogated about the past, a surprisingly high share of interlocutors at LAG level who were keen on participating in these focus groups, which took one work day.

5.2 The methodology used for focus groups11

11 The methodology is, apart from SENGE P. e.a. (1994) inspired by the following books: O’CONNOR J., McDERMOTT I. 1997: The art of system thinking. Essential skills for creativity and problem solving. Thorsons, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, London.DAVIES R. 1998: An evolutionary approach to facilitating organisational learning. In: Development as Process. London, Routledge/ODI.

In this part we present a short version of what we call the “user’s manual for focus groups” to be utilised by the geographical evaluators.

5.2.1 What is the purpose of focus groups?

For the evaluators: To explore to what extent the LEADER method (= its seven operational principles) has

been implemented. To explore the connections between the mode of implementation of the LEADER method

and the effects in the area. To explore the mechanisms and driving forces by which the connections between the

operational principles and the effects function. To gather evidence for key criteria for effective local/rural development programmes.

For the local actors and other experts: To discover what really makes a difference in local development. The structured dialogue

amplifies the “window of consciousness”. It externalises tacit knowledge, implicit routine and behaviours.

To capitalise on the experiences of past actions in order to make better decisions now and then.

To know more and better about the critical leverage points and thresholds in the specific local context which make it possible to get the best possible results with the least possible effort or costs.

To understand the local expressions and effects of the LEADER method (see figure).

5.2.2 What differences are to be explored?

EARL S. e.a. 2001: Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. International Development Research Centre/DRC, Ottawa, Canada.

The focus lies on behavioural change. It must be, in the mind of the participants, connected to local benefits (e.g. a better problem solving capacity, a better way to communicate local assets to the outside world, a deepening of the local value added chains, a better way to structure forces for common endeavours, a better capacity to experiment new ways of development, improved information flows among local actors etc….). Behavioural changes appear as: Changes in the behaviour of individual actors (decision makers, project owners, other

important players). Changes in the routines and procedures of organisations or institutions. Changes in the communication between individual and collective actors, between public

and private actors, between upper and lower hierarchical levels, between enterprises and NGOs, established structures and newcomers or hitherto excluded people etc.

We only focus on those changes which, according to the opinion of the participants, really make a difference in local development (= the difference which makes a difference) and which can be related to the implementation of the LEADER II initiative. We call them most significant changes.

Changes in material indicators (income, environmental quality…) should be examined in addition to support the evidence of a hypothesis, but they are not the main clues.

5.2.3 Who is supposed to participate in the focus group?

There should be between 6 and 10 people in the focus group, including two evaluators. It should, in the ideal form, represent the terminal part of the vertical partnership: Somebody representing the beneficiaries, the LAG and the regional level.

Following the “three observation positions” approach (see 3.4) there should be a mix of Involved actors: Those who have participated in the implementation in a central position

(LAG manager or president); Witnesses: Those who have either experienced the implementation from a nearby position

(local administration) or as a beneficiary (project owner/manager); Observers: Those who were not involved in the implementation at local level, but who are

well informed and interested (regional administration or network; evaluator).

5.2.4 What is the evaluators’ role?

There are two evaluators with different roles (which they may exchange after the half-time break). Role 1: Active questioning, encouraging people to express their thoughts, rephrasing

statements in order to assure a common understanding, facilitating the dialogue in which people feel sure and free to suspend their own preconceptions, to listen and to discover.

Role 2: Does not speak. Keeps listening and observing communication patterns, apparently hot issues, be they outspoken or unspoken. Role 2 gives role 1 feedback during the breaks upon the way role 1 leads the dialogue.

Both roles have to be explained to the participants at the beginning.

5.2.5 How should a structured dialogue in a focus group look like?

The focus group consists of two sessions. The half-time break is used by the evaluators for a separate reflection of 1 hour maximum. There can be two workshops on different days (each workshop for about 3 hours) or there can be a one-day workshop.

First session:

Decide upon the animator and the minute-keeper. The first evaluator (role 1) may animate the dialogue, but you are free to choose another person, although the animator will not be able to participate in the dialogue in the same thorough-going way. The second evaluator (role 2) takes notes for the evaluation team, but the local group might find it appropriate to appoint an additional minute-keeper for their own learning purposes.

Set out the rationale of the focus group. The local organiser may present images to recall LEADER II memories. The evaluators may summarise some highlights from the survey (Q202, Q34). Ensure commitment to the common purpose.

Decide upon the issues which are felt as the most significant ones. Find out and stress the main topics, be they hot issues or blind spots.

The dialogue can be visualised as a simplified model of interdependencies, causes and effects mutually producing and reproducing each other. Observable phenomena and behaviours (A, B, C, D...) may either reinforce (+) or inhibit (-) one another. We call them causal loop diagrams12. In the following example, we can identify B as a potentially powerful intervention point, as it is connected with all the three loops depicted here.

Fig. 5: Schematic example of a causal loop diagram with positive reinforcement and negative feedback cycles

Causal loop modelling serves us to deepen our understanding of interrelated processes. They help us to understand how systems keep themselves in certain equilibrium, and often we feel it as equilibrium of stagnation. Causal loops do not have to be precise or detailed. To put it in John M. Keynes’ words: “It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.” The modelled relationships have to be robust and effective, that’s all.

12 Again referring to P. SENGE e.a. 1994: Fieldbook of the Fifth Discipline. Doubleday-Currency, New York.

A B C

+ +

+ -

D

+

+

Until the end of the first session, there should be consensus upon the interrelationships concerning the most significant changes. Deviating opinions have to be registered as well.

Between the first and second session:

The two evaluators exchange their views and thoughts on the first round of dialogue. Their different roles will probably evoke different perceptions. Role 2 might see more of the running communication patterns (involving role 1), role 1 might feel more what it is like to be local development actor in this area.

The two evaluators formulate a limited number of statements (hypotheses) upon the most significant behavioural changes in the area.

Second session:

The evaluators (role 1) feed back their hypotheses into the group. The group works on them, checks, modifies, affirms, discards them or creates new ones. At the end of the exercise, the group should agree on answers to four questions: What are the mechanisms, the driving or obstacles influencing the effective

implementation of the LEADER method? In which specific way does the LEADER method (the eight operational principles) express itself in the local context?

What should be changed at local level in order to improve the effectiveness of programmes such as LEADER II?

What should be changed at the level of programme administrations and official networks (regional, national) in order to improve the effectiveness of programmes such as LEADER II?

Summing up: What are the key criteria for a rural development programme to take positive effect on the specific territorial context?

The answers can be integrated or added to the diagnostic causal loop diagram.

6 An essay on autonomy against accountability

Note: This section provides a preliminary interpretation of the results of the ex-post evaluation, targeted on the specific subject of local governance and development.

The more decentralisation has been practised in a way that distinguished LEADER from the implementation of other structural funds programmes, i.e. the full implementation of the global grant system, the deeper the imprints it has left in the memory of the involved actors. The involved actors experienced the tension between their autonomy (for shaping the local partnership and development strategy) and their accountability (in both directions, towards the beneficiaries and towards the administration and funding authorities).

This experience has engendered a leap of expertise and capability at local level which manifested itself by the foundation of new partnerships, by the continuation of the LAGs as local development agencies and as local funding brokers, dealing with other community initiatives (INTERREG), territorial employment pacts and rural development programmes according to Art. 33 of reg. 1257/99, or other national schemes.

However, the effects of decentralised programme implementation must be seen in relation to the governance context. In its final evaluation of the territorial employment pacts, ECOTEC13 assumes that the “space for insertion” of a new type of programme or measure must be big enough in order to produce tangible effects. ECOTEC has singled out three types of spaces: “Crowded platforms” meaning a full-spectrum local governance context. “Crowded

space” is undoubtedly combined with a certain level of population density and territorial development, but not necessarily with high living standard.

“Receptive spaces”, meaning an established governance context for local territorial action, but not extensively combined with extensive, multi-stakeholder partnership working, and

“A relatively free operational space” embodying a limited history of local-level activity for development.

The assumption is: Depending on the type of governance context where a new programme gets implanted, it will produce significantly different outcomes.

The answers given by interlocutors during the LEADER II evaluations seem to confirm this. Based on preliminary findings of our evaluation, we can even develop the assumption further.

To do this, we made a second distinction: The existence of a full-spectrum local governance context does not by itself mean that the governance context is inclined towards decentralisation. This depends on the current macro-political trends and tendencies, and it also may vary from region to region within one member state. It seems that the direction of the dynamic is more influential than the already acquired status of decentralisation. If the governance system is on the move towards decentralisation, the LEADER programme and local action groups are likely to be utilised for experimenting new ways of governance. If the governance is in a stable situation of federal power sharing, the crowding effect becomes relevant. The programme and the local action group will do harder to find its functional space.

Let us take six examples to underpin this assumption:

Greece, as a relatively centralised country, is an example of relatively free operational space for local development. The local action groups (LAGs) are composed of mainly public partners organised in shareholder companies. They assume a high degree of de facto decision making power in the areas where they operate. One local actor said that the programme “awakened the administration mechanisms” since no such programme had been implemented so far. The complementarity of LEADER was positively seen because of the restrictions prevailing in other centrally managed programmes (e.g. for investments in agro-tourism). However, some of the local groups felt impeded by heavy bureaucratic procedures of control and for certification of project completion by the monitoring committee. The LAGs have a high probability to persist because they are generally perceived as a necessary instrument for local management of funding and technical assistance. E.g. the LAG Kenakap SA in Thessalia has been selected under Leader+ and plays a role in the implementation of the Integrated Development of Mountainous Areas, priority axis of the third Community Support Framework. Still “lack of the appropriate institutional framework and modern financing tools and techniques was an inhibiting factor to new and innovative entrepreneurship. As the evaluation indicated, the beneficiaries under LEADER II were entrepreneurs with sufficient capital so as to avoid lending or other means of financing.” (quoted from the Greek geographical report).

13 ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. 2002: Ex-post evaluation of the 89 Territorial Employment Pacts. Bruxelles.

Ireland moved from a highly centralised state towards regionalisation and decentralisation of decision making structures. When LEADER started in 1992, the operational space at local level was quite free and the initiative actually helped to establish partnership structures assuming structuring functions which municipalities use to exert in other countries. It is evident that this role may raise jealousies from local politicians. This makes the role of a LAG remarkably more political than in Greece. The challenge that local partnerships accounted for global grants, and the opportunity to manage funds from other initiatives (ADAPT, NOW, PEACE), enabled them to influence the patterns of governance in the area. Although there were constraints to the groups’ autonomy (e.g. the predefined fund allocation, frequency of reporting, burdensome financial controlling, complex and changing guidelines etc.), the approach was hailed as ground breaking. Some interlocutors think that the County Development Boards have come about as a result of the LEADER programme. Many LEADER projects have been adapted, replicated or mainstreamed by state agencies, e.g. the concept of village renewal (started in LEADER 1). All in all, the initiative instilled empowerment to communities in local development policies, but the groups’ persistence depends from the continuity of LEADER-type programmes. “It was strongly felt”, according to the focus group report from the LAG Louth, “that the loss of LEADER type programmes would be the death knell of rural Ireland and without a programme of this type, all the skills and competence acquired in the course of the LEADER programme would be dissipated.” However, as a result of the parallel implementation of various local development programmes, the mainstreaming of LEADER-type rural development in Ireland, and the overall progress in learning and capacity building, the government space has moved towards a crowded situation.

In contrast to the previous examples, Austria has a strong federal tradition and represents a long track of local and regional decision making and development efforts. This situation can be recognised as a “crowded platform”. Funding structures are concentrated at the regional level and LEADER was built into or grafted onto these structures. Although there were considerable differences between the Länder concerning the implementation of LEADER, we can make some general remarks: For Objective 5b and 3 implementation, local development agencies14 at NUTS III level have been established in the previous Structural Funds period. Because of their broad acknowledgement, they have been generalised as key instruments for endogenous local and regional development in the actual period. The municipalities have to bear at least 50% of the operational costs of the “Regionalmanagements” now being structurally independent from EU programme periods and the related timely and budgetary restrictions. They are, according to their design, the reference nodes for stakeholder negotiations in their respective areas. LEADER represented very little resources compared to other programmes. LEADER II partnerships were in most cases intermunicipal associations represented by the mayors, who often did not pay so much attention to its distinctiveness, it was however welcome as an additional source of funding for village-based projects. Many projects funded under LEADER II could have been implemented under the objective 5b or 1 programme in pretty much the same way. More than 50% of the LAGs remained without a proper management structure; but the presence of a local coordinator could make a huge difference in the performance and the profile it gained in the course of the programme. In some areas, committed individuals were able to operate in small, quite innovative niches and to help the LEADER tune to be heard against the general “background noise”. Many LAGs disappeared with the end of the programme. Because of the recognition of these

14 In Austria they are called „Regionalmanagement“, established in objective areas in the first period (1995-1999), afterwards generalised all over Austria.

constraints, some LEADER areas were restructured in LEADER+ to form entities large enough to establish an own management structure. The process of finding a clear profile and a synergetic relationship with the Regionalmanagement structures is currently under way, mediated by the department of regional policy in the Austrian Federal Chancellery.

Crowded space under conditions of well-established structures can also end up the other way round, namely if the EU structures were not embedded like in Austria, but newly established in parallel to existing domestic structures like in Sweden. There had already been a system, the rural village action movement, with support structures that could be compared to LEADER I since the beginning of the nineties (4000 village action groups in corporation with more than 50 national popular organisations). It encompassed many of the specificities, such as multi-sectoral integration, bottom up, area-based approach etc. and additional features such as cross-border cooperation and the tripartite partnership (equilibrium of public, economic and civic actors). The movement became well organised and later financed through the government’s regional policy bill. “The new EU programmes”, said a Swedish regional interlocutor (Obj. 5b) in the evaluation, “disturbed the ongoing development and implementation of rural development with a bottom up perspective and smashed an existing structure. The ongoing process was interrupted and to some extent stopped.” More concretely, the municipal and regional governments felt threatened to loose control and influence, “as they already had a very well functioning system” (same source). Interestingly, it was the enthusiasm of village groups and the possibility to get voluntary work accounted as co-funding, which made it a success at local level in some well managed areas. However, the institutional learning effect of the initiative has been judged insignificant – due to the reserved attitude of political stakeholders.

During the nineties, Italy witnessed a parallel birth of local development structures such as business innovation centres, territorial employment pacts and LEADER action groups. This process went alongside a general trend towards regionalisation of decision making power. Moreover, in northern and central regions, there already existed a long and strong tradition of local governance, in which public actors interact with private partnerships, cooperatives and non-governmental organisations in manifold ways to negotiate a dynamic equilibrium of local interests. In regions such as Emilia-Romagna, we can distinguish industrialised areas recognisable as “crowded platforms”, but also “empty spaces” in agricultural areas. In “crowded spaces” LEADER offered an opportunity to create a common vision in the dynamic, but fragmented local context. It bore the potential to let the existing public or semi-public agencies, collective bodies and private enterprises integrate with each other for a common purpose. In areas of free space, LEADER groups were able to adopt more governance functions, as in Ireland, because they offered the structural conditions to start something new, hitherto unseen in the area, such as bird watching and eco-tourism in the Po delta, otherwise intensively used for agriculture. The regional administration was very aware of the potentials of LEADER in view of decentralised decision making. They were able to raise the necessary attention for LEADER in the monitoring committee. They assisted the LAGs, they encouraged and accompanied their self-evaluation. The local partnerships became platforms for strengthening the relations among stakeholders, specifically between public and private actors, which was widely appreciated. The interviewees at regional level confirmed that the experience has allowed to enable and to involve local partnerships in subsequent programme making, e.g. for the Rural Development Programmes. The dynamic interaction between stakeholders ensured that the LEADER programme was really

complementary to the Objective 5b. The LAGs felt quite autonomous, embedded in the reliable procedural framework established by the region.

In Scotland/UK, we probably find the most complete expression of a LEADER initiative based on

o A strategic orientation using LEADER as an area-covering instrument for self-determination;

o Using power to empower the involved subsystems and local actors, e.g. by accepting the partnership structure the local LAG was finding out for itself as the most appropriate one;

o A close-to-area support system providing technical assistance, economic advisory and training at the cutting edge (Highlands & Islands enterprise/HIE network of Local Enterprise Companies/LEC),

o Fully implementing the global grant system: The global grant was held by a specialised intermediary body (Highlands & Islands Enterprise/HIE) which did not intervene in the strategic autonomy of the local action groups, in which the local branches of HIE were partners;

o Clearness of rules and accountability requirements;o A financing system (annual tranches with advance payments) ensuring a resource

flow according to real progress in expenditures for local development.o Short feedback cycles by integrating the LAGs into the programme monitoring

committee (PMC).

Summing up, we suppose that there is a link between the availability of governance space and the prevailing political tendency towards

decentralisation on one side and the ability of local groups to acquire a relevant territorial function, combined with a

certain degree of autonomy of decision making and development financing on the other side.

The probable outcomes of the implantation of a LEADER type initiative are depicted in the following matrix. For reasons of simplicity, we reduce the ECOTEC types to two idealtypes at the poles of a continuum (free space – crowded space):

Fig. 6: LEADER and local governance

Free local governance space

Crowded local governance space

Weak political tendency towards decentralisation

Territorial development enterprises with broad range of competences, but restricted by

heavy central administrative and control requirements.

a) Weak partnerships. The programme delivery is not very

distinctive from other programmes. In some cases it is possible to

occupy small, but exquisite niches of innovation.

b) Duplication of existing similar structures, scepticism of local/regional politicians.

Local partnerships instruments of local governance, reshaping local

Rather autonomous, dynamic local partnerships functioning as nodes

Strong political tendency towards decentralisation

decision making structures. in local negotiation networks.Best chance to fully implement the LEADER method as embodied in the combined application of the

eight specific features.

7. Conclusions

The evaluation of LEADER II was felt as an additional burden by some evaluation-ridden actors in all member states. However, our experience shows that there is an active core of interlocutors, state or regional officials, experts, consultants, and last but not least local actors, who considered the evaluation request as one of the rare opportunities to reflect upon the experience made during an initiative, which had started as a sort of “institutional anomaly” in LEADER I, but got subsequently “regularised” in national and regional programme delivery framework. The approach of LEADER II tried to combine the experimental thrust of the first period with the diversity of the member states’ political contexts. LEADER found manifold expressions according to the available spaces of local governance and other context factors. In those “gouvernotopes” where it was implemented in a way that the combined specific features of the “LEADER approach” were at work, it allowed local development promoters to discover that what they were doing – some of them through all their career – had a genuinely European dimension and that they were not alone in this strive.

The answers to our questionnaires brought us to conclude that the multi-tiered implementation of the LEADER initiative, with the European Observatory, the national networking units and the occasional regional networks was able to trigger collective learning processes. People discovered similarities and differences in problem perception and problem solving. Through trans-national cooperation the initiative even allowed to launch common activities across borders and language barriers.

This learning effect was highlighted by actors of each level. It is extremely encouraging to hear that local partnerships in rural areas have acquired knowledge, tools and instruments, which enable them to change from the effect side to the cause side of development.

This evaluation makes the importance of time and continuity evident, because we see a significant correlation between the previous experiences of LEADER I and the implementation of participation, the viability of the local partnership, the usefulness of networking for the local actors and other variables.

Learning can not be measured by static efficiency or effectiveness indicators; it constitutes a behavioural change which contributes to outcomes. Learning is a systemic phenomenon, but individuals play a crucial role in it; and it can best be perceived in the differences of how individuals act and interact.

The local actors and even officials at all levels were difficult to mobilise to fill the questionnaires, but the focus groups in the proposed design produced surprisingly positive echoes. In focus groups the narrative of local development is not only reflected, it gets co-created there. They are part of local knowledge creation, free for people and institutions being ready to learn.

It would be a mistake to miss learning opportunities such as offered by the LEADER initiative. The imperfection of such a programme must not be seen as a default, but as a factor inherent to innovation. To use Elliott Sterns expression: Once proved to be accountable for learning, the local partnerships learn to be accountable. Maybe the LEADER experience may open the door to conceptualise a new mission of local development programmes in general: To regard local development programmes as learning soft wares designed to generate collective capacity for steering self-determined development processes. In such a scenario evaluations would become assessment tools for the mechanisms and the advancement of the on-going collective learning process, interlinked with analogous processes at each level of subsidiary decision making.