3.3.5. A bottom-up, participatory approach (Local Initiatives)

LEADER I and II experiences

An innovative approach with promotion of bottom-up oriented rural development was launched by the LEADER I Community Initiative in 1991. The two generations of LEADER projects have proved to be successful in many respects, although the growing bureaucracy in LEADER II has been criticised. Above all, LEADER has strengthened the principle of partnership. The rural development programmes are not so much about money as they are about the process. Working in a wider policy network, the regions are not just pursuing their own narrow development objectives but also contribute to the achievement of wider policy objectives.

However, the two generations of LEADER Initiative have also shown some important deficiencies. One such deficiency is a lack of sufficient transnational co-operation between projects. This co-operation is essential in terms of innovations and good practice and also in the catalytic effect successful programmes can have on other rural areas. More importantly, the LEADER Community Initiative is not as efficient as usually thought and the financial uptake of LEADER II in many countries is so far rather poor. In the future, the Commission suggests a stricter evaluation of the quality of programmes, concentrating on the number of jobs created or retained and on their sustainability.

Negative experiences from LEADER II derive from an abundance of approved projects (over 900 vs. 217 LEADER I Local Action Groups) which has logically resulted in the watering down of their financial and other resources as well as its transformation from an experimental scheme to one which is more mainstream. The LEADER Observatory proposes that the new Rural Development Community Initiative insists on a ceiling of 300-350 approved programmes. However, this approach may appear to violate the principal strength of the LEADER objectives, which is not in financial or direct employment terms but rather in the stimulation of innovative approaches in diversification of rural economies and in local capacity building. Therefore, programmes under the new Rural Development Community Initiatives should not be approved purely on administrative selection criteria. The decision making process should involve the existing information and evaluation of the LEADER network which has achieved positive results.

Prospects for 'LEADER III'?

The need for bottom-up development involving both horizontal and vertical co-operation and partnership, suggests a combination of Structural Fund (Objective 1/5b) and LEADER mechanisms for planning and implementation of integrated rural programmes. This is reinforced in the Cork Declaration (Point 6), which stresses decentralisation, subsidiarity, and the need for flexibility. However, in many regions there is little sign of a bottom-up approach or of public participation in development planning and processes, despite the rhetoric.

Moreover, administrative regions, which we must assume for the present to be the level at which the European Commission will direct the new policies, are usually too large to make bottom-up participatory approaches feasible. Most likely, bottom-up will be a philosophy or approach to development on the one hand, and a set of eligible measures (on the LEADER model) on the other. There is no reason why LEADER type local development measures should not in future be supported by mainstream Objective 1 and 2 programmes, although there remains a good case for a selective, experimental scheme which focuses on socially fragile rural areas, stresses integrated (social, economic and environmental) development and emphasises partnership, participation and innovative methods. However, the bottom-up approach also has its hindrances. It is hard to expect that the bottom-up orientation of rural development policies will be efficient if all the remaining public structures are top-down oriented.

Agenda 2000 proposes a rural 'Community Initiative' which the Commission wants to be 'at least as innovative as LEADER I'. Informally, this is being called LEADER III. It is understood that the Commissioner favours LEADER III being available in all rural areas, albeit with a mechanism for prioritising eligible areas or themes such that the total number of such areas will be reduced. Moreover, since the initiatives will be 'single fund' financed, 'LEADER III' will be financed by EAGGF Guidance. Such an outcome presents many of the same issues as the proposed rural Accompanying Measure regarding: scope and content, eligible clients, modulation of EU support, etc. Funding of the rural 'Community Initiative' explicitly from EAGGF on a 'horizontal' basis would aggravate the cohesion principle of its implementation, although this objection could be alleviated by a tighter system of prioritising economically and socially fragile areas.

The discussion did not result in a clear answer about the future of Community Initiatives as far as the viability of the LEADER programmes are concerened. However, it succeeded in highlighting various elements of rural 'cross-complexity'.