1.7 THE LEADER APPROACH
Within the setting of the reforms which spanned regional policy to the Common Agricultural Policy, the EU Commission also introduced its own pilot interventions or ‘Community initiatives’, of which the rural development version was LEADER (Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de lʹEconomie Rurale) (see Ray 2001). Kovách (2000, 182) considers such a programme as “an advanced model of rural policy, for it is within its ideology and practice that we can trace the dynamics of CAP reform and the raw material of a new rural policy regime”.
LEADER was introduced in 1991 for a three‐year period and was extended in 1995 by an expanded five‐year version, LEADER II, and later by LEADER+
(2000–2006). LEADER I (1991–93), LEADER II (1994–99), and LEADER+ (2000–06) were financed by EU Structural Funds, and Member States and regions had separate LEADER programmes funded separately by the European Union. On the basis of the 2003 and 2004 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, Council Regulation (CE) no 1698/2005 established that, for the current 2007–2013 period, the LEADER method is one of the axes of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. As a result, LEADER is no longer autonomous, but has been incorporated into national and regional rural development programmes, alongside other rural development axes. The adoption of the LEADER Programme started as a voluntary policy; it was up to the Member States to decide whether to apply for it or not. Being a completely new procedure and way of thinking for several of them, LEADER was often regarded as disruptive to the local administrative culture, and at the same time an unappreciated intrusion by the EU at the national level. In the end all the
Member States applied, even though with different degrees of support (Saraceno 1999, 444).
Several features characterize this rural development method. It has to follow a locally‐based approach, which means that the target area has to be of small size (from 5000 to 100 000 residents), and homogenous: areas covered by the LEADER Programme may include a mountain community, a small island, an area with a common cultural heritage, an area characterized by a specific environmental problem, or a distinctive economic resource (Saraceno 1999, 443).
Therefore, LEADER emphasizes local resources, and different cultural and institutional contexts (High & Nemes 2007, 108). Another feature is the bottom‐
up approach: the main emphasis is on the ‘grass‐roots’, concerning both those handling the assistance at the local level in their formulation of programmes and projects and in relation to the recipients of the financial support (Barke &
Newton 1997; High & Nemes 2007). This means that according to the subsidiarity principle, “decisions should be taken by bodies located as close as possible to the areas of intervention” (Osti 2000, 172). The actors responsible for the ‘grass‐root’ programming are the so‐called local action groups, composed of private and public components, which must be the expression of a specific rural territory. According to the partnership principle, “the hierarchy of decision‐
making functions should be replaced by negotiating mechanisms which theoretically involve all bodies on an equal footing” (Osti 2000, 172). The task of the local action groups5 is to develop a strategic plan for the rural area under their competence, and they are also responsible for its implementation. Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that the local action groups must represent:
“partners from the various locally based socio‐economic sectors in the territory concerned. At the decision‐making level, the economic and social partners, as well as other representatives of the civil society, such as farmers, rural women, young people and their associations, must make up at least 50% of the local partnership”.
Another important feature of the LEADER approach is an emphasis on innovative actions, defined as “actions not available through other sources of funding or never tried before in the area” (Saraceno 1999, 443). These may
5 The constitution of a Local Action Group follows the legal system of each member country, and, as
such, does not have a pre‐established legal form. On the basis of these premises, the formation of local action groups has not been homogenous in the European Union (not only among the different Member States, but also within the same country). Some states have imposed a particular legal form;
in Estonia for instance, the Ministry of Agriculture has imposed the NGO (non‐governative organization) form on the local action groups, while in Finland all local action groups have been constituted as registered associations. In contrast, in other countries the government has only claimed that the constitution of a Local Action Group has to conform to law regulations, but without any further suggestion regarding its legal form, such as in the cases of Italy and Spain. In Italy, local action groups can have the form of a consortium, cooperative, recognized association, not recognized association, etc (Rete Nazionale…2007).
include a resource which has been previously poorly exploited or a typical local product. A fourth important feature is an integrated approach, which links together the most important sectors of the local economy in a holistic strategy for the future of a particular area. Last but not least, another characteristic of the LEADER Programme is the promotion of networking activities among the various local action groups. Because of the intrinsic nature of the LEADER initiative, activities directly related to agricultural production are not eligible for support (Barke & Newton 1997, 322).
Ray (2001) argues that the LEADER method represents a mode of capitalist production in which the new territories, along with local enterprises and other collective bodies, function as units in a European economy. Osti (2000, 172–178) further elaborates such argumentation by claiming that in LEADER areas “a principle of command is being replaced by one of competition and negotiation as the system shifts from hierarchy to markets”; in such a quasi‐market regime,
“LAGS act as instruments of light‐handed control”. Both Osti (2000) and Kovách (2000) interpret this type of quasi‐market regime on the basis of Polanyi’s views, according to whom the criteria of the general distribution of economic goods are market exchange, reciprocity, or redistribution. While Osti (2000) emphasizes more the reciprocity point of view, Kovách (2000) claims that redistribution has a more explicative power, since the EU, thorough LEADER, redistributes political power to local and rural actors, and at the same time limits its function by promoting local capacity‐building and actor networks. Through another point of view, LEADER can be envisaged as a ‘coping’ or ‘survival’ strategy, since it represents a measure, or better, a reaction adopted by European authorities to improve the socio‐economic situation of specific actors in a variety of geographical, rural settings (Tykkyläinen, 1999a).
LEADER’s input has varied according to the region in which it has been implemented. In those areas that already had a relatively efficient institutional structure, LEADER’s main impact has been the creation of weak ties strengthening collective action. In contrast, in regions characterized by an institutional vacuum, especially Objective 1 areas, LEADER has emphasized the need for an effective institutional response (Farrel & Thirion 2005). Beyond institutional capacity‐building, many different parameters can be used for evaluating LEADER; they include innovation, social capital, sustainable rural development etc.; one parameter used in this study is given by the inclusion/exclusion of rural actors, particularly farmers/non‐farmers, public/private sector. In this regard, Shucksmith (2000), in his review of LEADER in the UK, claims that by adopting an endogenous development initiative, there is a risk of favouring those groups who are already powerful and have a greater capacity to take advantage of this initiative.
On the basis of the above‐mentioned LEADER characteristics, Ray (2000a) states that there are three significant reasons which researchers should pay attention to in a programme like this. Firstly, it is a modern form of intervention,
which, beyond the small commitment of public money, considers the active role of private and voluntary sectors. Secondly, it is defined as a post‐modern,
‘anarchic’ form of intervention, which characterizes the design and implementation of development action: not only traditional public bodies such as municipalities have to find a new role, but also new groups of actors have the possibility of expressing their perspectives (Farrel & Thirion 2005). Thirdly, as already noted in Section 1.1, Ray (2000a) defines LEADER as a pan‐EU laboratory: although there are general guidelines for the use of funds by the LAGS, at the same time discretion in implementation is dependent on latitude.