improving coherence and coordination between policies and funds for rural areas janet dwyer, ccri,...
TRANSCRIPT
Improving coherence and coordination between
policies and funds for rural areas
Janet Dwyer, CCRI, University of Gloucestershire, and Francesco
Mantino, INEA.
Coherence and co-ordination
COHERENCE – fitting together in a logical way (pursuing shared overarching strategies and
objectives), working well with each other, avoiding conflict, overlap, confusion or
duplication
CO-ORDINATION – the processes that should ensure coherence in
policy design, targeting,
implementation, control, monitoring and evaluation
CoherenceCommunication – who we are, what we do
Consultation – we do this: what is your opinion?
Co-ordination – if you do this, we’ll do that
Collaboration – let’s do these things together
Integration – let’s merge
From this……………………..…
… to these?
Types of coherence & co-ordination
Vertical – between different layers in the policy hierarchy: EU, Member State, Region, sub-regional bodies
Horizontal – between different institutions / actors / funding sources at the same level within the policy hierarchy: e.g. EAFRD with ERDF and ESF, and national funds for RD
Coherence in design & targeting
Dialogue – aiming for common understanding of complementary goals and roles
NOT just an exercise in demarcation
e.g. Joint planning processesIntegrated visions / strategiesMutually-agreed areas of competenceTargets and eligibility criteria explained in consistent language, guided by clear
rationales
Coherence in design: examples
Horizontal -• Joint strategies and framework for EU and national funds,
Italy• Regional Implementation Plans, England• Joint task groups and committees, Germany
Vertical –• Contractual agreements between layers: CPER in France,
RGC in Sweden• Co-owned monitoring and reporting - Wales• Delegated agency models – expertise and more local
presence (many countries)
Coherence in delivery & monitoringJust as critical as design………..
• Complementary instruments and eligibility criteria
• Co-ordinated ways of working – consistent timelines, dovetailed targeting and promotion
• Formal structures – e.g. monitoring committees, officials, good practice groups or networks
• Informal joint working – e.g. common extension agents, common sub-regional partners, joint consultation arrangements with stakeholders
• Joint consideration of impacts and potential modifications (common evaluations?)
Coherence in delivery: examples
‘Local Action’ former LAGs, Ireland: single institutions deliver several funds (EAFRD axis 4, national social schemes) within an overarching National Plan
Regional Development Agencies, England: combine funds from different EU and national ‘pots’, work with a range of sub-regional partners (LAGs, Local authorities, enterprise groups)
Coherence in delivery: examples (2)
Local Partnerships, several countries: single institutions combine several schemes and funds (e.g. Leader, Interreg, single measures of mainstream programmes, national schemes) within a territorial plan
Some thorny issues – local level
• Black holes – the nature of the beneficiary and ‘type of aid’ issues: standard cultures/ ways of working may differ, leaving gaps
• Confusing procedures, and over-strict delineations: Who acts as first point of call? Who decides which fund is more appropriate? Are criteria designed to achieve better targeting, or easier fund management? How transparent are these processes?
• Poor relationships: with stakeholders -refusals fostering misinformation; with other funders -institutional competition, with the centre – exhaustion of capacity (too many planning processes, not enough action)……
Thorny issues – EU level
Rural needs and opportunities are
multi-sectoral, multi-objective, often jointly deliverable or inter-related
= the ‘golden triangle’ of sustainable development:
Economic
integrated
Environmental Social
Integrated routes to SRDLocal products, historic sites and traditional skills interwoven:
Parc Naturel Regional de Vercors
‘Social farming’, Columbini, Italy
Thorny issues – EU level
Economic
integrated
Environmental Social
Sectoral DGs – agri, regio (economy), environment, employment
• Who carries the social competence (social capital, QoL)?• Who ‘owns’ the funds?
One programme, one fund – provides top-down clarity but gives a major challenge of coherence to lower levels:especially in new MS / poorest regions/ decentralised systems
New emphasis upon controls, monitoring and evaluation
May give counter-incentives to those at the bottom of the implementation hierarchy
How to improve?Some possibilities* Acceptance of collaborative or integrated structures and processes at
local level, by higher levels
‘Streamlining’ planned jointly by different funders
Joint Strategic planning (e.g. one National Strategic Framework for all Funds, with common visions and objectives);
Common definition of rural areas for planning;
Possibly more common implementing rules and procedures;
Common monitoring and evaluation processes and methods;
Considering new organisational models / concepts from commerce and the NGO sector (systems thinking, operational ‘cells’, web-based communication networks, ‘making it fun’ ….)
Commitment to ongoing learning and adaptation, within and between levels
Whatever the outcome of EU institutional discussions, coherence will remain central, beyond 2013
- there is much to be done, at all levels!
*Track our more detailed analyses on www.rudi-europe.net
So......