Rural Community Development in Europe An initial scoping study for the Carnegie UK Trust

Gary Craig (University of Hull), and Mark Shucksmith and Lucy Young-Smith (University of Aberdeen)

June 2004 Contact details: [email protected] [email protected]

Draft: not to be cited without the permission of the authors

Rural community development in Europe An initial scoping study for the Carnegie UK Trust Gary Craig (University of Hull), Mark Shucksmith and Lucy Young-Smith (both University of Aberdeen)

Table of contents

1: Introduction

1

2: Rural community development policy and practice, programmes and agencies

4

3: Country case studies

11

4: Country case studies: synthesis

54

Conclusions: issues and challenges for the Carnegie UK Trust

58

Appendix 1: Bibliography

61

Appendix 2: Sources for other relevant institutions and organisations

64

Appendix 3: Other country experience – brief notes

66

Appendix 4: Budapest Declaration

71

1:

Introduction

This is a brief scoping study of the extent and nature of rural community development in Europe, which sets out to review both the range of community development practice in rural areas and the policy framework(s) in which that practice has been set. The policy frameworks cover both pan-European funding and policy arrangements, as well as national programmes. The intention of this study is to inform the work of the newly-established Carnegie Commission for Rural Community Development. We are defining Europe here as including both the countries of the European Union and the Council of Europe but excluding the UK and Ireland which are the subject of a separate parallel scoping study. In reviewing the literature, we have drawn on a wide range of material across the whole of Europe but, for the purposes of comparative case studies (in Section 3), we have focused on ten countries which provide a reasonably representative sample of practice and policy: these countries are Austria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden. This is not to say that there is not a considerable amount of interesting work going on in other countries which have not been chosen as case studies but, given the very short time period within which this study has been undertaken, it was necessary to make a choice of a manageable sample which would give a spread of countries varying in terms of their geography, rurality, demography, and political and policy history. In an appendix (Appendix 3), we provide some notes about other countries which are not part of the case study sample. It is important to state immediately that the review has been based on secondary sources and, although there is enough material to make some broad judgements about trends and the scope of rural community development policy and practice, it has not been open to us to provide any detailed evaluation of the range of work in progress. Data emerging about the accession countries over the past years shows them to be widely varied both in terms of their degree and type of rurality (see e.g. Majewski et al. 2003) but it is fair to say that the accession of ten countries in 2004 has made Europe even more rural than hitherto. Rural policy, and thus – at least potentially the engagement of local people in developing rural policy and practice, is thus likely to become even more significant than hitherto. It is also worth noting that levels of inequality in income have generally grown in accession countries as have levels of poverty and the differential ability of people to access adequate welfare services (see e.g. Craig 2001). In countries such as Romania, poverty levels - defined in terms of the World Bank’s somewhat conservative threshold - are about 20% of the population and particular groups are most at risk. These include young people, older people (of which rural areas have a greater share), minority groups such as the Roma (found predominantly in rural areas), children and farmers and former farmers. A recent report from the European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions (2004) shows that, while there is little difference between household incomes in rural and urban areas in the EU15, people in rural areas of the New Member States and the Candidate Countries have much lower incomes than those in urban areas. Moreover, deprivation levels are far higher in the rural areas of the Candidate Countries and the New Member States than in the EU15. There have been problems about definition and about the boundaries of this study. First, although the term community development is increasingly used within

1

European countries, it is a term which has characteristically been used loosely by a very wide variety of agencies, often for political rather than professional or practice reasons. Here we define community development in the following way, drawing on the definition agreed by a conference of about 130 delegates to a pan-European community development conference in Budapest in March 2004, organised by the International Association for Community Development, the Combined European Bureau for Social Development and the Hungarian Association for Community Development. This conference agreed a declaration which it issued to the European Union, the Council of Europe and other pan-European organisations (see Appendix 4 for the full text, which includes a section on rural community development). Community development is a way of strengthening civil society by prioritising the actions of communities, and their perspectives in the development of social, economic and environmental policy. It seeks the empowerment of local communities, taken to mean both geographical communities, communities of interest or identity and communities organising around specific themes or policy initiatives. It strengthens the capacity of people as active citizens through their community groups, organisations and networks; and the capacity of institutions and agencies (public, private and non-governmental) to work in dialogue with citizens to shape and determine change in their communities. It plays a crucial role in supporting active democratic life by promoting the autonomous voice of disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. It has a set of core values/social principles covering human rights, social inclusion, equality and respect for diversity; and a specific skills and knowledge base. We have attempted to reflect this definition in our choice of programmes to review although clearly there have been some difficulties at the margins. Many countries (and indeed the EU itself) have rural development programmes which are not concerned with the empowerment of local communities and, in general, we have tended to exclude these programmes from the present discussion where that distinction is a clear-cut one. Secondly, there are differing understandings of the meaning of rurality. Debates about the characteristics of rurality have continued within the UK for some years with, for example, a distinction drawn between rural and remote areas, and an exploration of the relationship between urban areas and their rural hinterlands. There has also been an increasingly central policy debate which has attempted to separate out the distinctive characteristics of poverty and exclusion in rural areas as opposed to urban areas (see e.g. Chapman et al. 1998; Dunn et al. 1998; Shucksmith 2000; Cornish et al. 2002), a debate which has been mirrored in other countries and which is significant since community development tends to focus on areas of deprivation. In the varying classifications of rurality in the UK, many areas are characterised as mixed urban and rural which is a further complicating factor (see for example Cloke and Edwards 1986; Craig and Manthorpe 2000). It has not been open to us to engage in a probably fruitless attempt to define the nature of rurality in a way which applies across the whole of Europe and we have simply followed local practice. If a particular programme is said to be a rural programme, that has been the definition which we have used. It is worth observing however, both that there is a marked difference between the characteristics of remote communities in northern Finland or Sweden on the one hand, the rural hinterlands of large towns and cities in Germany, the mountainous areas of Switzerland or Austria, and the large rural areas of, say, Romania and Bulgaria, and that the importance of

2

rural programmes are much greater in countries which are predominantly rural and agricultural (such as Romania) than in some more highly industrialised western European countries such as Denmark. Again, given the short timeframe for this study (3 months), it has been necessary to be highly derivative in the methodology used to collect information 1. We have largely relied on a relatively small developing literature, on accessing a very wide range of official and non-official websites, but most of all on networks of contacts through which we have been able to snowball our requests for information about policy and practice. The end result is doubtless not completely representative of every aspect of rural community development policy and practice across Europe and there have been some countries (e.g. France) where, for lack of an adequate access point, our information is less full than it might have been given more time. In some instances we have raised more questions than answers. However, we are confident that we have identified many of the key policy issues facing the Carnegie Trust as it embarks on this new programme. How the Trust uses this material clearly is a matter for the Trustees; the material we have collected points to areas where support for new programmes, further research, experimentation or the development of pilot projects might each be an appropriate way forward. We have also, in the course of this work, developed what might be a highly useful network of country contacts which could inform future developmental or comparative work. We are very grateful to all those who provided information at very short notice to us to inform this report. In Section 2, we give a brief overview of rural community development policy and practice in Europe, and outline some of the key agencies and programmes relevant to rural community development in Europe. Section 3 provides ten country case studies organised in such a way that some comparison is possible where appropriate; a synthesis is provided. The final main Section (4) summarises some key issues drawn from European experience for the Carnegie UK Trust in thinking about support for rural community development, and these lead into the Conclusion (Section 5). Appendices 1-3 summarise key literature, useful contacts, and some brief notes about other countries not included in our selection of case studies; Appendix 4 presents the full text of the Budapest Declaration.

1 We have also not looked at all at the bilateral activities of the EU. For example the EU spends almost £0.5Bn per year on bilateral research and development work in more than 200 collaborative programmes. Similarly, organisations such as the OECD undertake research which feeds into policy regarding rural development (see eg OECD 2003) but do not support action initiatives.

3

2:

Rural community development policy and practice, programmes and agencies

The policy framework Community development has never had a strong foothold within European Union policy. Indeed, the last time that an explicit pan-European statement on community development was published (in 1989), it was sponsored by the Council of Europe and not by the EU. This statement urged local and regional authorities to promote community development. The EU itself has not had a clear policy position on community development as such and much of the relatively limited amount of rural community development work which has emerged in recent years (particularly through the LEADER programme – see below) has done so through the mechanism of rural i.e. agricultural policy. There is no clear location for rural community development policy within the EU as it falls between the varying interests of directorates concerned with rural and agricultural policy, poverty and social inclusion, and social, regional and economic policy more generally. It is also worth noting that there has been some tension over who has the responsibility for rural policy between DG Agriculture (for whom rural areas might be subject to a sectoral policy) and DG Regional (for whom rural areas might be the subject of a territorial policy). In 1999, as part of its Agenda 2000 reforms, the European Union agreed the Rural Development Regulation to establish rural development as a new ‘second pillar’ of the Common Agricultural Policy. However, this is highly misleading since the Rural Development Regulation is very largely concerned with payments to farmers for environmental measures and on-farm diversification, and has little to do with rural community development as defined above. The CAP, has of course had a central place in the development of policy for the European Union and is projected to continue payments to farmers and landowners of some €42bn pa (mainly direct payments and export refunds), even without counting the subsidies implicit in market support (estimated by OECD as a further €56bn)2. This is hardly surprising since more than 80% of Europe’s land surface is rural and half its population lives in rural areas. These proportions are greater in some countries. The CAP is changing slowly, however, in response to the pressures of WTO talks and EU enlargement, among other factors, and it is expected that in the future more emphasis will be placed on the multifunctional aspects of agriculture (environmental and amenity benefits, although this is contested): it is these aspects that tend to be described in agricultural circles as ‘rural development’. Notwithstanding this, the EU has had a very important role in promoting and encouraging rural community development in Europe, primarily through its community initiative, the LEADER programme. The EU’s declared objective for LEADER was to find innovative solutions to rural problems which could reflect what is best suited to specific areas and also serve as models for developing rural areas elsewhere. Ray (1999c) identifies three aspects to this approach: a territorial basis; the use of local resources; and local contextualisation through active public participation. The approach holds out the prospect of ‘local areas assuming greater control of development by reorienting development around local resources and by 2

Arkleton Centre, University of Aberdeen (2003) The Territorial Impact of CAP and Rural Development Policy, report to ESPON programme. http://www.espon.lu/online/documentation/projects/index.html

4

setting up structures to sustain the local development momentum after the initial “official” intervention’. This feature, of endogenous development as building the capacity of localities or territories to resist broader forces of global competition, fiscal crisis or social exclusion, has been commented on extensively in the academic literature (see Kearney et al 1994; Ray 1998, 1999a, 1999b; Philip and Shucksmith 1999; Shortall and Shucksmith 1998; Shucksmith 2000). Even though the sums of money attached to LEADER have been insignificant in comparison to those of the CAP, the programme has influenced many countries’ rural policy and practice, as we will see in Section 3, through what Shortall and Shucksmith have referred to as a ‘Europeanisation of rural policy’. This approach has also exerted a strong influence on discussions of rural policy (eg. the EU Commission’s Salzburg conference on rural development in 2003: see http://europe.eu.int/comm/ agriculture/ecrd2003/ ) LEADER, however, is under threat as a result of the latest proposals in 2004, which propose the end of this community initiative, with a single rural development fund instead under the control of DG Agriculture and deriving from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, which must be used for the benefit of farmers and not normally for the wider rural population. In June 2004, however, the Deputy Director-General of DG Agriculture insisted that “territorial and bottom-up approaches would appear to be the most promising policy directions for the future to promote rural development” and therefore that “the successful integration of the LEADER approach into the mainstream of the future rural development policy is absolutely crucial” (Ahner 2004). This is a crucial issue for the future of EU rural development policy, and potentially for rural community development. Some detailed evaluation reports have been produced on country LEADER programmes, occasionally with the aim of informing local/regional rural development more widely (see e.g. Seibert and Geissendorfer 2000; Geissendorfer and Seibert 2004), and an EU-wide ex-post evaluation of LEADER2 has also been conducted http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/reports/leader2/index_en.htm. Another EU study examines the potential for the mainstreaming of the LEADER approach http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/reports/leader/index_en.htm , concluding among other things that mainstreaming would require permanent support structures for capacity-building, networking and administrative coordination. Financing of such initiatives is on a co-financing basis between the EU and member states with the principle of subsidiarity paramount: member states play the major role in setting the parameters of rural development programmes and are responsible for their management. The Salzburg conference called for a broadening of rural development policy with local actors and regions being given a greater role to play. The forthcoming European Agricultural Convention (Brussels June 2004) has called for the ‘release of the enterprise and energy of people at local levels to take control of their own destinies and to take the initiative in programmes and projects to benefit their own area’ and for the EU to recognise the barriers that now exist and take active steps to empower the people’.3 The Convention has also emphasised the importance of a participatory democracy, to be achieved through a wide range of programmes and initiatives. It has also, interestingly, called for a new typology of rural areas to be developed, which can clearly mark out differing understandings of social, economic and environmental needs.

3

(www.agriculturalconvention.org/draft/EACdraft29April _en.htm)

5

The other relevant area of policy concerns the Structural Funds. Most funding under the Structural Funds is allocated to integrated programmes in regions where development is lagging behind and where GDP per capita is less than 75% of the EU average (Objective 1 regions). In the future these will mainly be in the accession countries and to a lesser extent in Mediterranean regions. A far smaller amount has been allocated to supporting programmes concerned with the development of areas of agricultural decline (during the 1990s, Objective 5b, now part of Objective 2). The most recent proposals from the EU Commission (2004) foresee no such funds being allocated to rural areas, except under Objective 1, with all responsibility for rural areas passing to DG Agriculture under FEOGA (the agricultural budget). Very few rural areas of Western Europe will thenceforth benefit from structural funding. Together with the proposals for the ending of the LEADER community initiative (unless it is ‘mainstreamed’ as a substantial part of the rural development fund) and the consolidation of all ‘rural development’ spending under DG Agriculture, except for that within Objective 1 programmes, this indicates that outside the poorest regions of the enlarged community there is expected to be little funding available from the EU for rural community development as defined in this report.

Programmes Within this framework and policy approach, certain programmes have provided for more participatory rural development approaches. The major initiative here was the LEADER+ programme (constituting 73 programmes in reality and which followed LEADER 1 – from 1991 - and LEADER 2 – from 1994, programmes) absorbing about 4% of the total EU funding for rural development for the period 2000-06 of about €50bn. LEADER+, the nearest thing to a pan-European community development funding programme, and one of the four ‘Community Initiatives’ financed from EU structural funds (OJ C 139 18.5.2000), is designed to help rural actors improve the long-term potential of their local region, and is described as an innovative rural development policy which stresses ‘the implementation of integrated, high-quality and sustainable development … [with a] … focus on partnership and networks of exchange of experience’. It builds on LEADER 1 which was a new approach to rural development, territorially based, integrated and participative and on LEADER 2, which placed more emphasis on innovation. LEADER+, which is due to come to an end in 2006 (with no plans for its replacement by a subsequent programme in the context of a proposed cut in rural development funding overall) has the distinctive feature of ‘integrated development programmes for local rural areas, drawn up and implemented by broad-based local partnerships, called Local Action Groups.’ LEADER has thus offered considerable scope, at least potentially, for the development of community development approaches and some of these are highlighted in the country case studies in Section 4. It should be noted that LEADER has been implemented in very different ways in each member state, so that in some countries it has had many features of rural community development (with an emphasis on capacity-building, inclusion and empowerment) while in others it has been more ‘topdown’4. It also offers the opportunity to network and co-operate at both national and transnational levels. However, its short time-frame has limited the ability of many countries to engage in effective local capacity-building.

4

See the special issue of Sociologia Ruralis on LEADER in 2000.

6

LEADER+ has focused on several priority themes including improving the quality of life, adding value to local products, the use of ‘know-how’ and making good use of natural and cultural resources; the kinds of activities which were common in these programmes were about the improvement of basic services for the rural population, development of villages, diversification of the local economy and support for tourism and craft; specific population target groups were identified including women and young people. In all, more than 800 Local Action Groups were established in EU member states by mid-2003 and in 10 of the EU 15, national networks have been established to disseminate information and share knowledge and know-how. As LEADER+ is coming to an end, key questions emerging from it for those concerned with local participation have been to do with how effective it has been in mobilising local actors, how it could successfully be mainstreamed whilst maintaining its bottom-up approach, and whether networking and co-operation could be sustained. There is one bottom-up initiative (see below) to promote an ongoing network of projects. Comment on LEADER’s progress to date also points to the long-term nature of development work where there are weak civil society structures in place; in such areas, the first task has been to engage in serious capacity-building work (Uusitalo 2003). Overall, LEADER has been judged to be a successful programme in terms of the strengthening of social capital, local involvement and engagement in rural areas and in contributing to the search for new forms of governance but a failure in terms of its ability to engage effectively with the farming community (Ploeg 2003). Other commentators have argued that the strength of LEADER lies in its territoriality (as opposed to the sectoral approach of much farm subsidy financing). Much of LEADER’s work has been monitored by a European Observatory. From the perspective of rural community development, it seems reasonable to suggest from the analysis in this paper that LEADER has helped to broaden understandings of what rural policy might entail, particularly in terms of wider involvement of rural people themselves, but that it has provided some examples much more effective rural community development practice where community development was already a known form of practice. LEADER has helped to stimulate a transnational network, ELARD, which incorporates a number of national networks of LEADER Local Action Groups as well as projects, programmes and initiatives not associated with LEADER. ELARD covers national networks in Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy and Portugal and is aiming to establish a fulltime base in Brussels together with an ongoing European Congress of Rural Development. 5 Some of the groups involved in ELARD have a focus on rural community development. Two pre-accession funds were established for candidate countries, mainly to assist in the restructuring of the farm and rural sectors of accession states. Malta and Cyprus were excluded from these provisions and after May 2004, only Romania and Bulgaria will continue to access them. One of these, SAPARD (Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development), has a wider general remit than many of the EU’s rural development programmes but although there is some scope for participatory projects, it is clear that the main thrust is to facilitate the process of delivering European Community policies after accession. The total budget for SAPARD is around €520m pa across all ten countries. Most of the acceding countries 5

http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/elard/TEMPLATES/Plans.htm

7

are now covered by Objective One funding arrangements also, and in future, as noted, it is anticipated that these countries will receive the bulk of Objective One funding. The PREPARE (Pre-Accession Partnership for Rural Europe) programme, which started in 1999, is a multinational programme sponsored by government and officials and NGOs supporting the 10 pre-accession countries in terms of rural co-operation. It aims to ‘strengthen civil society and promote multinational exchange in rural development’ and involves mainly Scandinavian countries and organisations based in Estonia, Poland, Hungary (see country case studies: Section 4), Slovakia and Slovenia, although it has links with other EU countries and with organisations in Bulgaria and Romania. The PREPARE network of organisations has organised a first major gathering in Slovakia in late 2003, preceded by a series of travelling workshops as delegates made their way to Slovakia. A travelling workshop enables people to exchange ideas between different countries, the first of them being organised in Sweden and Estonia in 1999: delegates met in Estonia for several days with field visits and then travelled to Sweden for a further few days with complementary field visits. The projects studied were all characterised by the bottom-up LEADER approach.

Agencies and networks ECOVAST is an NGO (the European Council for the Village and Small Town) which is established to promote the well-being of rural communities throughout Europe; it has 600+ members in East and West Europe and operates as a mutual support network. It has consultative status with the Council of Europe. Although it does not received structural funding for its work, it has supported community development activities and has published a manual on ‘Integrated Rural Community Development’. Its statement of purpose (Strategy for Rural Europe: http://www.ecovast.org.str4e.htm) argues that local people should be consulted and involved in local policy and service development. It has working groups on, for example, rural development and rural tourism and offers training, consultancy and research. A parallel organisation, TERN (Trans-European Rural Network), no longer exists. SOS (Sustainable Open Space) is a network concerned with open spaces under urban pressure. The network covers seven regions and 16 organisations, including local governments, in five EU countries (Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Denmark and France). These open spaces are on the margins of urban areas and thus involve both urban pressure and rural decline. The latest project SOSII, starting in 2003 under the INTERREG IIIB, is concerned, inter alia with establishing a knowledge exchange network and a sustainable partnership (‘lobby network’) to work on the issue of sustainable open space. There are thus elements of capacity building at both local and international levels, with community involvement in landscape enhancement, for example, and networking and lobbying at the transnational level. COGEN Europe is a network concerned with energy efficiency particularly through the approach of cogeneration known to many still as Combined Heat and Power schemes). As a decentralised technique, it claims that it has an important role to play in rural development and the empowerment of rural communities, i.e. through

8

the development of mechanisms whereby local communities can take greater control over locally-base energy generation schemes using LPG or biogas. There have been instances of other collaborations which, whilst they have focused on other aspects of rurality, have also promoted forms of capacity-building. One example of this type of initiative is PACE (Prevenir et Agir Contre l’Exclusion), a collaboration between projects in rural areas of several European countries (France, Germany, Ireland and Portugal) to combat poverty and social exclusion in rural areas. The network met on four occasions and in a final seminar at Dresden in early 2003, to exchange work, identify working methods and to discuss how best practice might be adapted for use in other countries. A final report (PACE 2003) summarises the findings of the network: this pointed to the importance of three key processes – local participation, co-ordination of local actors, and linkages between local action and national policies. LYDIA is a faith-based women’s network supporting women in Eastern Europe to develop the necessary skills to develop local community development projects focusing on the needs of excluded people. It is funded in part by the Lloyds TSB Trust to develop skills networks. The project is co-organised by one Eastern European organiser and one based at the SCVO in Scotland. To date it has organised four major events including two training programmes, one in Scotland and one in the Black Sea region (covering six countries). Major involvement has come from countries such as Georgia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Romania, Moldova, Yugoslavia and Ukraine. ALLAVIDA is a consultancy and social development organisation (growing out of the former Charity Know How organisation) which works in, inter alia, South East Europe to ‘enable local action … [through helping] … people acquire the skills, knowledge, confidence and resources to lead local action and achieve constructive change in their communities.’ It is currently working in depth in Romania, Bosnia, Croatia and Bulgaria. It works closely with local organisations, supporting their own development, provides training and consultancy, and supports networking and partnership working. It also manages a small grants programme with a series of grants of, typically, £2000 to £10000 made to local community organisations in the area. The DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL is an educational organisation, providing postgraduate accreditation to community development workers and managers working in Eastern, Central and South East Europe and established to ‘build the art of effective social development practice characterised by understanding change and development, working from a systemic perspective, placing emphasis on the development of practitioners’ skills, focusing on the importance of self-awareness and reflective practice, and emphasising the importance of cultural difference.’ Its courses are accredited by London Metropolitan University and the first cohort of about 20 postgraduate diploma students from three East and Central European countries – Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary - graduated in 2003. Students effectively work on a release basis from their employment so that strong links can be made between the development of theory, policy and practice. The School has close links with a range of charitable foundations active in the region. It also offers learning programmes for donors and policy-makers, cross-sectoral dialogues on development issues, publications and participative process consultancy.

9

EAPN is the European Anti-Poverty Network. Whilst it is not a community development network, it does have a membership which incorporates community development organisations. EAPN, which is funded by the EU and by member national organisations, subscriptions and sales of publications, has corresponding national anti-poverty networks in many European countries with paid staff and is managed by a federal structure. It produces a regular bi-monthly Newsletter, Network News, which campaigns around issues of poverty and inequality covering themes such as homelessness, income inequality, minorities and discrimination, and with a regular commentary on EU legislation. It produces regular updates on the levels of poverty in EU member states. EAPN also used to have a transnational rural network but this appears now to be defunct. Email contact [email protected], internet http://www.eapn.org IACD, the International Association for Community Development, is a not-for-profit, non-governmental membership organisation, acting as the major global organisation representing the interests of community development to international, regional and national organisations. It has special consultative status with the UN and its associated agencies and is consulted on a range of issues specific to community development. It organises conferences and seminars and produces publications and regional and international newsletters as well as undertaking policy work at international and national levels. It is managed by an elected Board of 20 representing all regions of the world and members can be individuals, organisations or networks. Within Europe, it has an email list-serve [email protected] and has organised two major international conferences, in London and Budapest, in the past three years, working increasingly closely with partner organisations such as CEBSD (see below) and the International Federation of Settlements. It is largely run by volunteers although a recent grant from the Carnegie UK Trust will enable it to employ a part-time co-ordinator. Email contact [email protected], website www.iacdglobal.org

CESBD, the Combined European Bureau for Social Development is, as its title suggests, a federal structure involving (at present) twelve national associations concerned with social or community development, from Sweden to Spain, from Ireland to Hungary. The Bureau has a ‘virtual’ existence and the action plan drawn up by member organisations through its Board is staffed by short-term contracts. It employs a part-time co-ordinator, funded from contracts and subscriptions. CEBSD has influencing policy as one of its three major priorities but, as in the case of the IACD, works with better-resourced networks to achieve its policy priorities. The CEBSD has produced policy papers and research reports, based on specific funding streams, and issues a monthly bulletin. Further details available from the coordinator at [email protected] or from [email protected] The Bureau has an egroup which it uses to disseminate information about community development; its website is http://www.cebsd.org The countries with CEBSD members are as follows: Norway, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Germany, Hungary, UK, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Czech Republic. Those underlined are discussed in detail in the country case studies in the next section. Most are country-wide agencies and cover rural and urban issues but some, such as CESAM in Sweden and Idebanken in Norway, have a particular focus on rurality.

10

National networks are common in the twelve countries covered by the CEBSD, of course, including Hungary, which has been relatively recent in its engagement with community development (see e.g. Tausz 1990). National networks are, however, beginning to be formed in other countries such as Romania which aim to exchange information, provide mutual support and campaign for an extended role for community development. Foundation activity This is dealt with under the discussion of individual country case studies (see next section) but it is important to note that there has been a substantial amount of philanthropic foundation activity in East and Central Europe since the late 1980s. This has been co-ordinated to some degree through an East and Central European caucus of the European Foundation Centre (see Appendix 2). Major foundations such as the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Soros Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation have supported emerging civil society activity, including some community development work, but these funding streams are being cut at present in many cases. The Carnegie Moscow Centre, a sister foundation to the UK Carnegie Trust, has supported the promotion of democracy and civil society but not rural community development to any significant degree.

11

3: Country case studies The following ten country case studies have been selected to provide a reasonably representative sample in terms of geography, demography, political history and engagement with rural community development. They are all structured to a common format and are presented alphabetically. The countries reviewed are Austria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden. Given the constraints on this piece of research (i.e. a desk-based piece of research conducted within a short timespan and drawing substantially on published and unpublished secondary sources, it is not possible to evaluate the extent to which what is described as rural community development actually fits with the definition of community development outlined in Section One or to provide a commentary on the extent to which this activity fits within broader activities supporting the strengthening of civil society more generally. What seems apparent however is that a substantial part of the activity described here might reasonably not be regarded as rural community development; much of it appears either to be operating within the general framework of rural community economic development work or rural development work more generally. This exercise has therefore, quite apart from the findings outlined in later sections, pointed to the need for a more focused and informed evaluation of the more promising areas of activity described below which could also examine the national policy and political frameworks promoting community development as a recognisable form of professional activity.

AUSTRIA Demography Austria has a population density of 96/km2. It is one of Europe's most heavily wooded countries and 70% of its territory is mountainous and rural. The population density in rural areas is approximately 50/km2. As is the case is many countries, there is an ongoing loss of active population in rural areas. Policy World Responsibility for regional policy is split between different administrative and political levels. There are three tiers of political/legislative competence – federal, regional and municipal. At the federal level the Ministry of Agriculture6 shapes the policy framework for rural areas through the Rural Development Programme (RDP)7. The Lander (regions) legislate on rural matters, helped to develop the RDP and are responsible for rural development programmes at a regional level, including the implementation of LEADER +. The Federal Chancellery8 is responsible for coordinating the spatial planning bodies9 that implement the legislation of the nine Lander10. 6

BMLFUW Approved by the EC on 14.07/00 8 BKA 9 Through the OROK (Austrian Spatial Coordination Conference). 10 It was also responsible for the LEADER II programme (1996-1999). 7

12

Territorial equilibrium and political decentralisation have been on the political agenda since the 1970s. Within the last 20 years, the Chancellery has played an important role in the development of the Austrian concept of endogenous regional development, which has a strong bottom-up component and is similar to the concept underpinning LEADER. It created a national programme named FER11, which supported innovative projects in rural areas and co-financed local development associations/managers (RMs) who identified and initiated projects at a local level and brought together local and regional actors and funding institutions. The FER no longer operates but due to its success similar funding programmes were initiated at the regional level during the 1980s12,13. There are two local development agencies (RMs) and a labour market service (AMS) implementing ERDF, EAGGF and ESF programmes, in most Lander, together with local action groups (LAGs) set up under the LEADER programmes. Rural amenity is highly valued. Joining the EU in 1995 brought a shift to multiannual policies and regional power but also less flexibility to respond to local needs at a regional level and more pressure on the local level. However the availability of structural funds has led to a vast increase in endogenous rural community development. Since 1995 more than 20 RMs and 56 LAGs have been set up at the regional level but he overall proportion of funding going to LEADER programmes was relatively small. Since 2000 the areas eligible for structural funds have been cut by one third putting greater responsibility on national authorities for regional development. LEADER LEADER II energised rural areas and led to the creation of networks, especially by providing the means for brainstorming. Niche policies that pre-existed in Austria shifted into the mainstream. Building regional consensus that supercedes sector/ political interests has been considered very important in order to (1) build trust, loyalty and commitment from local communities and (2) overcome barriers created by Lander, Federation and EU sector-oriented instruments. The LEADER + regulations have decreased the likelihood of LAGs being dominated by local political figures14. A one-stop system for consideration of project applications only operates in one of the regions. In all the others, all departments concerned have to approve it, which is time-consuming. Experience of Rural Community Development (RCD) The experience of RCD in Austria can be separated into several themes: politics, institutions, attitudes to change, community capacity, programme administration, programme strategy and research.

Politics Local Development Agencies can face considerable political pressure from the municipal and Lander levels. This can block processes and lead to project failure. 11

Fund for Endogenous, Local and Regional Development Asamer-Handler & Lukesch, R. (2000). 13 E.g. Carinthia – ORE, Local and Regional Development Programme & Styria STEFREI, Styrian Fund for Local Endogenous Initiatives 14 It is worth noting that the mayors of the municipalities dominated nearly all LEADER II LAGs. 12

13

Local managers must be familiar with local actors in order constructively to deal with this and build trust and support. Political consensus and identification of the local population with the development aims of a local development plan is connected to commitment to and success of a project. The hardest task can be to establish a common basis for co-operative action in small mountain communities15. The issue of keeping momentum now that a certain amount of development has taken place in rural communities is key. Facilitation of discussion and negotiation by an external expert can contribute to the resolution of conflicts between actors.

Institutions Lack of co-ordination on the higher levels can make it difficult to create local networks between sectors. The right institutional framework in an area is connected to the success of a project. A prevailing attitude of ‘everything which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden’ hampers development. It is felt that there is a lack of transparency during the development of programmes with any consultation carried out at a late stage. Sometimes informal partnership mechanisms such as platforms, fora and round table discussions are seen as opaque and exclusive, thus hampering democracy and participation. Models for citizen participation on higher than municipal level is felt to be missing. Helpful civil servants are important when facing unfamiliar legal and administrative procedures and completing paperwork during the initial stages of a project16.

Attitude to change People are individualistic rather than co-operative. Local communities are resistant to change and often do not share the current political ideology of the federal government and the EU. Discussions have however stimulated an understanding of local identity and development and the relevance of participation and co-operation. Encouraging and supporting local people to think about the long-term potential of their area and be creative in their thinking is essential. Inter-sectoral co-operation is becoming a cornerstone for local economic development.

Community capacity The technical assistance from RMs for project development, funding applications, administrative procedures, awareness-raising/mobilisation of local people and the creation of networks is invaluable and is a decisive factor in the success of a project. Because of a low level of confidence, ignorance of how to value and use the resources of their own area in a different way and lack of capacity to articulate themselves at more than a local level, rural communities have been prevented from taking the future into their hands to any significant extent. Education and training, particularly in project management and other skills are essential. Successful RCD needs the initiative and know-how of at least one creative and determined individual.

Programme administration Good projects have been threatened in their early stages due to lack of financial resources. A large proportion of human resources is directed to administration 15 16

Dax, T. (2001) Wickenhagen, A, Pontieri, A & Heilig, G (2002).

14

rather than extension and project support, both of which are considered more important in sustaining projects.

Programme Strategy Many people feel that trans-sectoral measures in the RDP are insufficient and that networking has not been sufficiently taken into account. It is felt that funding programmes should be flexible enough to be customised and adapted to microregions in order to meet local needs, otherwise local projects may be unsustainable. Key projects need longer-lasting17 support for consolidation and for overcoming setbacks. In order to mobilise people sufficient resources are felt to be highly necessary, alongside other forms of support.18

Research Research is needed to support and guide local action. Key texts •

•

•

•

•

•

•

17 18

Asamer-Handler & Lukesch, R. (2000) Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Austrian National Report to the World-Wide Fund for nature and the Statutory Countryside agencies of Great Britain, Available [online] at http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/policy_a nd_events/epo/initiatives/rural_development.cfmEuropean Dax, T. (2001) ‘Endogenous Development in Austria's Mountain Regions: From a Source of Irritation to a Mainstream Movement’. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 21,No. 3, pp. 231–235. Available [online] at http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-document&issn=02764741&volume=021&issue=03&page=0231. Accessed on 18 April 2004. Dax, T. & Hovorka, G. (2002), Co-operative strategies and institutional development in the Alpine pasture area Teichalm-Sommeralm, Austria. Discussion Paper 5, Thessaloniki seminar, 17-18 March 2002. Innovative Structures for the Sustainable Development of Mountainous Areas, ISDEMA Project. Available [online] at http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/daxtx02a.htm DGREGIO/Unit D3/PL (2000), Welcome to Objective 2 Programme, Neiderostereich, Austria, 2000-2006, Powerpoint presentation available [online] at http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/country/overmap/ppt_region/ nieder.ppt, Accessed 18 April 2004. European Commission - Directorate -General for Agriculture (ed) (2000) Austria: Rural Development Programme 2000-2006, Brussels, Commission - Directorate General for Agriculture, available [online] at http://europa.eu.int/comm/ dg06/index.htm, accessed 17 April 2004. Huber, W. (1999), Austria: LEADER action groups as useful complements competition or parallel action? Available [online] at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/archives/leader2/rural-en/plr/mainstream/autri-en.doc, accessed 18 April 2004. Wickenhagen, A., Pontieri, A. & Heilig, G. (2002), A private initiative to establish a high-tech company in Carinthia, Austria, Innovative Rural Development initiatives, Case Study 5: me.chanic, available [online] on the website of the

i.e more than three years. Asamer-Handler & Lukesch, R. (2000).

15

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), http://www.iiasa. ac.at/Research/ERD/CS/case_3.htm Other sources •

Huber, W. (1999), LEADER regional advisory, co-ordination and development organizations - LEADER action groups as useful complements, competition or parallel action? In: LEADER-Seminar, June 1999, Gesves (Wallonia - Belgium, http://www.rural-europe.aeidl.be/cgi-win/t_adresse.exe/action

•

Dax, T. and Oedl-Wieser, T. (1995), Ex-ante Evaluation of the Rural Development Programmes (1995-1999) for the 5b regions in Austria, Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, Vienna.

•

Dax, T. (1999), ‘The Emergence of New Uses for Rural Spaces and Interrelations of Rural and Urban Labour Markets’, In: Crampton, G. (ed.): Regional

Unemployment, Job Matching, and Migration, European research in regional science 9, London: Pion Ltd.: 221-234. •

Dax, T. and Hovorka, G. (2000), A policy package for Austria's mountain areas? Results of various evaluations and perspectives for mountain policy, paper at the 6th Regional Science Association International (RSAI) World Congress, 16-20 May, Lugano, Switzerland.

Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, Federal Institute for Less-favoured and Mountainous Areas. http://www.rural-austria.at/ http://www.aeidl.be/, accessed 17 April 2004. http://www.babf.bmlf.gv.at/2002/, accessed 17 April 2004.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FINLAND Demography Finland has an average population density of 15/km2 19 but this varies widely depending on area, e.g. Lapland, covering 29.3 percent of the nation's area has an extremely low population density of around 2/km2. Finland is one of the most rural EU countries with 94% of its territory defined as rural, covering 40% of its population. Kymi, Hame, and Turku ja Pori, provinces in south-central Finland are both urban and rural in character and have an average population density of around 35/km2. Rural migration to the urban areas is a major issue and is one of the six foci for the Finnish LEADER programmes. Policy World Villages in Finland are considered to be the functional community unit. They tend to be sparsely populated and scattered over a large area. From the 1800s, villagers 19

http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Europe/finlandg.htm

16

have co-operated in voluntary work based on the need to survive and the planning of social events. However, from the mid 1970s on, in response to depopulation and other economic changes weakening the vitality of rural areas, village committees and associations were formed. Their purpose was to develop their community and increase community vitality and welfare. Activity was limited by lack of substantial external funding and villages tended to act in isolation with one or two notable exceptions. Government policies, relating to e.g. agriculture, forestry and the welfare state, were influencing rural areas but there was no comprehensive National Rural Programme until the early 1980s. The aim of this Programme was to support all areas of the rural economy by promoting networks and competitiveness, supporting rural industry and pluri-active farming, and re-organising and de-centralising the provision of services. However rural policy remained largely a matter of rhetoric. In 1995 Finland joined the EU and through the LEADER II programme a substantial amount of funding became available with which to implement rural projects in some rural areas and try out long-term ideas for the first time. Local Action Groups (LAGs), with partners from different socio-economic sectors, were formed to implement regional development programmes tailored to the needs of local rural areas. Villages took part in planning the regional programme and have been lively initiators of projects to implement it. Rural community development became a practical reality. In response to local level opinion that the Government needed to revise its procedures and approach to rural development work, Finland developed a nationally funded LEADER-like programme called POMO20 (Local Self-Governed Rural Development) in 1997. POMO was available to rural areas where LEADER was not and POMO+, the second generation programme, aims to provide development tools21 (see also Isosuo 1999). As a result of these programmes there were fifty-eight LAGs across Finland by 1999 and around 4000 local rural development projects had taken place, including many funded through national measures, and including a guarantee and loan fund for citizens action. 22 There were active rural development groups in two-thirds of rural Finland. These and other forms of partnership developed and networks were created across village, municipal and regional boundaries. LEADER+ has a total of 25 Local Action Groups, supported by the national network and generally mainstreamed into regional programmes. There are now 12 regional village consortiums that facilitate co-operation and look after the interests of village activity, an annual nationwide village activity event with development agents from all over Finland taking part, and a Village Action Association of Finland (SYTY) to co-ordinate activity and interests and facilitate networking. An analysis of LEADER projects in Finland carried out by the Chairman of the Village Action Association 23 suggests that preconditions for powerful LAGS are that they are mixed, that they have real power with their own grant budget to spend, that they own the plan and programme and involve a wide range of projects (Uusitalo 2002; see also Hyyrylainen 1999). 20

Programme for Spontaneous Rural Development. See Implementing EU Rural Development, 2000-2006, the Finnish Case, E1 Unit, European Commission. 22 See Countryside for the People – Rural policy based on will, National Rural Policy document, (2000), Rural Policy Unit, Ministry of the Interior, Helsinki. 23 The Village Action Association supports the LEADER+ LAG network: www.maaseutuplus.net or www.kylatoiminta.fi 21

17

The LEADER and POMO experience has been a positive one for Finland. In 2000 the LEADER and POMO networks were combined and a Rural Local Operators’ Service Unit was established to work with SYTY to provide support and network services for LAGs and all rural activity groups. They collect and distribute information with respect to groups and projects by means of a rural areas newspaper. As a result, Finland is now regarded as the only country which has fully mainstreamed LEADER and as a model for the future mainstreaming of the LEADER approach across rural Europe http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/eval/reports/leader/index_en.htm. Regional development research institutions and advice centres have played an active and important role in rural community development in terms of research, advice, training and educational support. This can clearly be seen in the case of Kainuu Region from the mid-1980s onwards.24 Since the 1980s Finland has had programmes to promote entrepreneurship in rural areas, namely the 1987 law for promoting small-scale enterprise and the 1991 law on rural occupations.

Experience of Rural Community Development A review of the experience of rural community development work in Finland yields the following key points:

Institutions





Administration and bureaucracy undermine commitment especially where there is not sufficient social capital to deal with them. Finance-based development requires special skills and abilities. Village Development Officers employed by village communities and trained and funded (labour administration funds) by regional authorities, have played an effective role in rural community development as an internal mental resource but short-term employment periods of 6 months have undermined this.

Attitude to change Resistance to change can be a problem.
In under-developed rural districts, it was found that, in spite of possibilities for enterprise in terms of demand or vacant niches, the local population lacked the desire to become entrepreneurs (Nittykangas 1992).
Rural entrepreneurs were found more likely to emerge in villages where there is an active attitude to development.

Community capacity


Functional differences in the development of different rural communities can be explained by differences in social capital. Those communities with people who are capable of initiating, planning and developing a project or where key people had attended training events in community development work had a higher

24

The University of Oulu, the Research and Development Centre at Kajaani & the Rural Advisory Centre in Kainuu.

18









degree of participation in community development work, a higher degree of participation by youth and a higher degree of awareness of community development work by the villagers25. They were also more likely to have improved their quality of life. Those villages that have a history of communal activity and skilled, active and industrious residents best embrace community development work. RCD increases the demand for sources of knowledge and training. The most common problem in POMO projects was insufficient project readiness. The LAGs knew the local groups needed training and guidance but were unable to provide this due to limited resources. As a result POMO projects were seen, by many, as a learning process during which experience of project work could be acquired26. External finance may lead to conflicts between participants especially if there is no previous experience of development work. Small rural entrepreneurs felt that they were able in general but were aware of deficiencies in their knowledge and skills relating to running a business. (Pitkanen & Vesala 1988)

Project Management








It is important to bring conflicting interests into the open in order to negotiate a common vision or plan that is understood and supported by all sectors of the community and to monitor commitment to it and motivation as the project develops. Such a common vision and a positive group attitude promote discussion and successful creative activity, which in turn secures commitment. Decision-making should take place according to principles commonly agreed in advance Commitment is secured by the presence of effective credible key players and a project with tangible and practical intermediate goals. The number of key players with commitment and skills are few. As a result, they can begin to experience the commitment as exhausting. Decisions relating to division of labour must be made at the outset to avoid this.

Programme Strategy








The Life Cycle of a project is a social learning process, which may appear slow because the image of development creates an expectation of projects as only producing concrete and measurable results27. The intangible results such as trust, the development of co-operative networks and the building and strengthening of social capital are time-consuming pre-requisites to the more concrete measurable results. The budget of POMO was around half that of LEADER with an average of around 17000 Euros available per project but a corresponding difference in the results of the projects under each scheme has not as yet been found. Unlike LEADER, POMO was more of a funding institution than an initiator of a coordinated development process with a strategic plan, a development strategy and a baseline survey. An inability to prioritise meant that sometimes not much of substance was done, with the programme being determined by project ideas

25

Nieminen, Kalle. Isosuo, Tuula. 27 Lehto, Esko. 26

19







rather than the other way round. However it did mean that there was more freedom and flexibility to respond to local needs28. RCD projects to date have resulted in an increase in community spirit, in participation, in an atmosphere of co-operation and an improvement in the environment and the pleasantness of life rather than in obvious economic development. Administration and bureaucracy undermine commitment especially where there is not sufficient social capital to deal with them. Finance-based development requires special skills and abilities.

Research Regional development research institutions have played an active and important role in rural community development in terms of research, advice, training and educational support. Key texts Direct sources Esko Lehto (2001) EU Northern Periphery Programme, Rural Transfer Network project: Social Capital in Rural Development, Finland. [online]. Aberdeen, University of Aberdeen. Available from:http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/ npp/pdf/finland1.pdf [Accessed March 2004] The Arkleton Institute (2001), EU Northern Periphery Programme, Rural Transfer Network project: Literature Review/Finland. [online]. Aberdeen, University of Aberdeen. Available from: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/npp/litfin.doc [Accessed March 2004] The Arkleton Institute (2001), EU Northern Periphery Programme, Rural Transfer Network project: Villages as development agents in Finland. [online]. Aberdeen, University of Aberdeen. Available from: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/npp/ FINMOD2.DOC [Accessed March 2004] Tuula Isosuo (2001), EU Northern Periphery Programme, Rural Transfer Network project: Promoting the activities of Local Action Groups in Finland. [online]. Aberdeen, University of Aberdeen. Available from: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/npp/FINMOD1.DOC [Accessed March 2004] Other sources Harkonen, Ene & Kahila, Petri (1999) ‘National initiatives adding to the EUprogrammes’ In Westholm et al. (eds) Local Partnerships and Rural Development in Europe. A Literature Review of Practice and Theory. Falun, Sweden: Dalarna Research Institute in association with the Countryside and Community Research unit, Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education, UK: 129-136. Hyyrylainen, Torsti (1999) ‘Changing Structures of Finnish Village Action’, Finnish

Journal of Rural Research and Policy, 2/99: 98-105. 28

Isosuo, Tuula.

20

‘Historical Transformations of Rural Finland’, Finnish Journal of Research and Policy [Maaseudun uusia aika, English Supplement.] 2/99:

Katajamaki, Hannu (1999) 11-20.

Lehto, Esko & Pertti, Ranniko (1999) Implementation of the EU LEADER II programme and struggle for local power in Finland. Paper presented at the XVIII Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, Working Group 2: Local Rural Development and the Concept of Agency, 24-28 August 1999, Lund, Sweden. Malinen, Pentti (1993). ‘From Village Research to Development: village as rural development agent.’ In Finland’s National Rural Policy facing the Challenge of European Integration, University of Oulu. Research Institute of Northern Finland. Research Reports 114: 148-169. Malinen, Pentti (1996). ‘Changing Rural Policy in Finland’, Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy: 35-52. Nieminen, Kalle & Malinen, Pentti (1999) The Kainuu Model of Village Development. An Overview of Development Activity and Methods in Kainuu, Maaseudun uusia aika, 2/99: 106-112. Oksa, Jukka (1999) ‘For and against the Windmills. Changing concepts of local activity’, New Rural Policy. Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy, 2/99: 6974. Ussitalo, Eero (1999) ‘ Finnish Rural Policy and Local Initiatives’, Finnish Journal of Rural Reseach and Policy, 2/99: 50-69.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX GERMANY Demography Germany has a high population density of 230/km2. It is significantly more rural since re-unification, with more than 53% of its toal land area being utilised agricultural land. In West Germany, very few rural areas are at a distance from urban agglomerations due to polycentric urbanisation. Few parts of West Germany are both rural in nature and have low population densities. However in North Eastern Germany there are some communities with a population density of less than 50/km2. Post-unification, areas of East Germany that are both rural and peripheral have lost population, particularly young people. This trend is likely to continue. Many areas in West Germany that were considered rural have become or are becoming suburban in character. 29 Levels of poverty and deprivation are substantially higher in the former GDR than in the former FDR and particular groups in the former DDR in particular are at risk of exclusion (Chamberlayne 1993).

29

Bucher, H. (2001).

21

Policy World The notion ofcultural landscapes which emerged during the age of the Enlightenment resulted in the German people having a specific emotional relationship with rural areas. 30 This relationship forms an important part of identity in rural areas. West German policy with regard to rural development has emerged more or less in tandem with that of the EU. The responsibility for some of the most important policy related to rural development lies at the level of the 16 states or Bundeslander. 31 In terms of the constitution, federal government is able to influence their policy on agriculture and economic development and the Ministries of Agriculture and Economy from both jointly develop programmes in this respect. The development of rural areas is affected by at least eight different policy sectors. Horizontal and vertical participatory traditions are very new to Government, which has tended to impose top-down approaches. West Germany first introduced a Village Renewal (agrarian/structural) funding programme in 1977. This was widened to include village conservation (late 1970s), environmental protection (mid-1980s) and socio-economic development (early 1990s) and is now referred to as Integrated Rural Development. It is particularly focused on citizen involvement in community development. Funding from federal government has decreased and funding by state government has increased. There are other rural development programmes and opportunities available to local communities. The availability of structural funds from the EU has made a substantial difference to the ability of local communities to develop. The uptake of Village Renewal in the former GDR has been fairly rapid since re-unification. LEADER The experience of LEADER II has contributed to an enhanced understanding of endogenous development. Valuable experience has been gained. Some Bundeslander regions have experienced difficulty in co-funding measures. EU cofinanced schemes have been found very complex to administer, mainly due to accountability to the tax payer and the requirement for transparency. 32 The German Leader+ network has published a list of ideas for transnational cooperation projects (March 2003) covering such issues as renewable energy, culture, tourism and local products. 33 LEADER+ has 14 programmes in all in Germany. Experience of Rural Community Development (RCD) CEBSD (see Section 2) has a member organisation in Germany based in Rheinland Pfalz.Saarland, with a predominantly urban agenda.34

30

Klaus & Magel (2000). Schbert, D. & Todt, A. (2000). 32 Ibid.. 33 see www.leaderplus.de/kooperation 34 Paritaetisches Bildungswek Rheinland Pfalz/Saarland, at www.gemainwesenarbeit.de 31

22

The experience of RCD in Germany can again be analysed in terms of key themes: politics, institutions, project management, attitude to change, community capacity, programme strategy and research.

Politics The democratic legitimacy of decisions made as a result of participatory processes may be a limiting factor in what they can achieve. Time and tangible results have been necessary for many local politicians to accept the bottom-up concept of Village Renewal. Local political support for and co-operation with community involvement is important, as is an acceptance of the results of community work that does not conflict with federal, state & EU interests. The ability of politicians and administration to listen must be consciously developed and maintained.

Institutions Integration of policy makes a great demand on government and administration. Information exchange and discussion needs to be supported. Financial support and partnership between the public and private sectors, experienced expert advisors and the community, are all key to the success of RCED35, since the future is dependent on having a solid economic base 36. At present there is a gap in the support available to small businesses at lower than the regional level. There have been positive examples of local co-operative networks leading to local supply networks and co-operation between enterprises to their mutual benefit, which in turn has created jobs and training opportunities and strengthened local identity and culture to the benefit of the community at large. 37 However, local co-operative decision-making is not enough to combat the social and economic problems besetting rural areas. Therefore inter-communal partnerships are important to strengthen rural regions in order to develop self-sustaining economic and financial cycles and remain competitive in national and global terms. ‘Bottom-up’ approaches are not yet connected with ‘top-down’ approaches. Complex and costly administrative procedures can clearly hinder the success of RCD. 38 Administration should be transparent and user-friendly. Clear lines of communication between administration and community need to be established with information on matters relating to the community available at an early stage if meaningful participation is to take place. In the former GDR, competing claims for utilization and ownership of land need to be settled and land provided for infrastructure projects.

Project management Plans and processes need to take into account the fact that people’s time is a precious resource and should not be abused. If a large financial burden falls on a community, realistic projects may take up to 8-10 years to complete. 39 35

Neu, C. (2000). Magel (n.d.). 37 See example of Multifunctional Centre, Scheunenhof, reference below. 38 E.g. difficulties & expense in acquiring the permit necessary for signboards, Scheunenhof, ref. below. 39 Magel (2000). 36

23

Attitude to change Consumer behaviour with regard to buying local produce is important for product development for local markets.

Community Capacity In East Germany, it is considered important to spread a culture of entrepreneurship and to ensure that people receive the training necessary to keep pace with current ICT developments. 40 In general, further education and capacity-building is essential, particularly with regard to discussion, negotiation, consensus-building and careful planning/prioritizing. The Village Renewal and Land Development schools in Bavaria, which citizens and members of the administration attend, is considered to be a good model for training. 41 Participatory approaches are open to abuse/failure of different kinds. 42 Different methods of participation should be well-known and adapted to each community – preparation and follow-up are also essential. RCD requires highly qualified personnel. Communities need to have access to good advice and assistance. Klaus and Magel’s work (2001) on rural community development in Bavaria through the Village Renewal 2000+ programme, suggests that local planning processes should not only engage local communities but plan for their increasing levels of control over local processes, with capacity building separate from government funding streams.

Programme Strategy External capital is more important for areas starting RCD with no or little private capital in the community. Programme support for economic development should not be short-term. Local communities are complex. Development processes therefore take time, a fact that should be recognized in programme development. It is not realistic to expect participatory processes alone to solve the difficulties facing rural areas. In future more regard has to be given to Rural Community Economic Development (RCED). Regional funding may strengthen identity.

Research RCD requires related research to guide it. Key texts •

• •

Bucher, H. (2001), Ageing & Depopulation of Rural Areas in Europe - the German Example, presented at the European Rural Development Workshop by IIASA & PAN, Warsaw May 7 to 9, 2001, available [online] at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/ Research/ERD/net/pdf/bucher_1.pdf, accessed 19 April 2004. Klaus, M. & Magel, H. (2001), Rural Community Development in a Civil Society, paper presented to Rural 21 in Potsdam, June 2000. Korf, B. (2003), Making sense of “Bottom-up” in Rural Development”, Paper presented at the 80th Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE), ‘New Policies and Institutions for European Agriculture’ in Ghent (Belgium), 24-26 September.

40

Neu, C (2000). Klaus & Magel (1999). 42 E.g. domination by the middle classes and/or insider cliques. 41

24

•

•

•

•

Magel, H (n.d.), Village Renewal in Germany – Objectives, Measures, Success, available [online] at http://www.landentwicklung-muenchen.de/mitarbeit/ magel/aufsaetze_englisch/village.htm, accessed 19 April 2004. Neu, C (2000), Reunified Germany – Separate rural developments, workshop given at Expo 2000: Global Dialogue 15-17.8.2000, available [online] at http://www.zef.de/gdialogue/Program/Papers_Day_2/ws-employment-neu.pdf, accessed 19 April 2004. Schbert, D. & Todt, A. (2000),The Nature of Rural Development:

Towards a Sustainable Integrated Rural Policy in Europe - The German National Report, available [online] at http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/ germany.pdf, accessed 19 April 2004. Wickenhagen, A., Pontieri, A. & Heilig, G.K. (2001), A project to promote direct marketing of organic farming products in Eastern Germany, Innovative Rural Development Initiatives, Case Study 1: Scheunenhof, available [online] at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/net/pdf/CaseStudies/Scheunen_3.pdf, accessed 19 April 2004.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

GREECE Demography Greece has a population density (per km2) of 80. 43 Ninety five percent of Greece’s area is rural and 41% of the population lives in these rural areas although agricultural employment is only 17% of the national total and those employed in rural areas are ageing (with 57% of farm owners over the age of 55). There is significant diversity due to differences in geographical features 44 although most rural areas can be said to be mountainous. Rural areas have suffered from a decline in population and a lack of services. Policy world Post WWII and the subsequent civil war there was a great need for rural community projects to rebuild local infrastructure. This was a top-down non-participatory process. By 1970, RCD had completely disappeared. Daoutopoulos (1991) considers the following factors to have been at play: political upheaval, personnel needs being met through short training programmes addressed to local people, migration, centralisation and a culture of individualism and self-reliance. During the 1980s, local autonomy was given a higher political priority. Legislation was passed giving local communities more opportunity for autonomy and providing for the establishment of nationally and EC-funded development associations. However the majority of rural communities did not take advantage of the new legislation. Daoutopoulos (1991) suggests this was due to a lack of (1) a network providing education and information, (2) local research findings to guide action, (3) financial resources, (4) trained manpower, and (5) information on financial assistance available together with a climate of inertia, self-reliance and distrust of 43 44

http://www.unece.org/stats/trend/grc.pdf Efstratoglou, E et al. (2001).

25

anyone beyond the family, resistance to programmes such as CARE-FOUR 45 from local extension services and the top-down nature of the movement. Stathopoulos (1991) agrees but adds dependence on and distrust of government (the latter due to failed promises) and the fact that local members of the political parties hijacked and manipulated the participatory process to promote their parties’ interests at a local level, thus alienating ordinary citizens. A study on networks and partnership in 1996 found that there was no culture of cooperation or participation within the public sector or society at large; administration was centralised and bureaucratic; there was limited presence and legitimacy of independent local government and weak grassroots structures as a result of individualisation. At present the Greek Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for rural development. Its principal political rhetoric is to balance social, environmental and economic development by maintaining the environment and creating supplementary income for local societies. There is a tendency to focus on agri/eco-tourism as the sector through which this will happen. 46 The entry of Greece into the EC provided impetus for new kinds of RCD projects as well as the necessary funding with which to implement them. 47 LEADER has been seen as the main tool for rural community development although, since many projects have been based on or related to environmental conservation/tourism other EU 48and private/conservation charity programme funding has been used. Funding has also been available from national projects, municipalities and local communities. LEADER II & LEADER + The aim of this programme in Greece is ‘compensating of the unfavourable consequences [of] … the [CAP] … and … the holding of the agrarian population in the countryside through interventions that ensure … sustainable development, the possibility of additional income … combating of unemployment … the preservation of … natural resources and the environment’s protection’. 49 It has been an excellent opportunity to promote ideas on diversification of the rural economy. The LEADER+ initiative covers the whole of the country. The Experience of Rural Community Development The experience of RCD in Greece can be analysed in terms of these common themes: politics, institutions, project management, attitude to change/areas designated for environmental protection, community capacity, programme administration, programme strategy and research.

Politics

45

Provided advice and assistance to communities on finance available in the EEC. The mountains are often regarded by both external and internal actors as a place for holidays, Katsros, D. (2002). 47 Stathopoulos, P. (1991). 48 E.g. ACE, CADISPA, PETRA & FAIR. 49 http://www.minagric.gr/en/3.3.2.html 46

26

The emergence of an innovative atmosphere can answer in part the difficulties encountered in mobilising local actors. On this base one can concentrate and coordinate the necessary dynamics for the realisation of community projects.

Institutions Rural areas tend to lack a culture of participation and democracy, which restricts developmental work. Despite the existence of village co-operatives common action rarely takes place with regard to the price of local produce. The secondary sector is small-scale and services tend to be poor. Public services have difficulty coordinating cross-sectoral projects. Bureaucracy, inadequate extension services and inadequate links among research, extension and education services prevent the introduction of innovation in the primary sector. The work of local development agencies is important. Their aims are to animate local development and mobilise local populations and resources by providing information, advice, support, training and facilitation of participation and the development of local plans. Many local plans and proposals have been realised with their help. Where there is lack of communication (both horizontal and vertical) they have often provided a networking service and the drive to facilitate communication between the different actors. Effective communication among all actors is essential for successful RCD. It is important to develop links and networks among actors, to minimise the bureaucracy involved in the administration of programmes, to have access to a person or body that is familiar with appropriate participatory methods of facilitation, to have participation of the local population and consensus that common action is necessary. Support for participatory institutions, administrative change, resources and training programmes are necessary pre-requisites to the formation of networks.

Project Management Facilitators from outside the local community are likely to lack understanding of their life and values leading to misunderstanding and paranoia. Therefore either non-local facilitators must maintain a long and consistent involvement with the community to allow trust to evolve, or local people must be trained to facilitate project management. Key local people are important. They have been able to generate support from the local community and at the same time, become the main contacts for outsiders who wished to invest in the conservation of the area.

Attitude to change/areas designated for environmental protection Experience of rural community development in environmentally-protected areas tells us that local people often feel that their rights have been infringed and that it is irrelevant to their daily lives. 50 Restrictions are usually ignored or sabotaged because of the infringements on locally-generated income. It is important to raise local 50

‘English, eh?’…’But tell me, you're not environmentalists are you?’ Everyone was visibly reassured when we shook our heads … ‘When outsiders think of Prespa, they think of pelicans, not people. We support the National Park. The lakes are our life: We're professors of the land! But our needs have to be considered too,’ Barba Nikos explained. From http://www.greece.gr/TRAVEL/MindAndBody/ LakePrespa1.stm

27

awareness of the relevance of sustainable management of resources, instil pride in their environmental heritage and find means to actively involve the people. It is also essential that alternative ways for the community to economically benefit from the local resources are found. 51

Community capacity Community capacity, particularly in terms of institutional responsiveness, networking capacity, responsive entrepreneurial capacity (ability to identify opportunities), and ability to adjust to change proved to be a determining factor in differential economic performance between two similar plains areas of rural Greece. In a comparison of two mountainous areas, differences in community capacity were also observed. In the more successful area there was entrepreneurial capacity and endogenous rather than exogenous investment. There were also innovative partnerships among actors and better institutional responsiveness. This capacity was found to be related to the maintenance of population and economic structures. 52 The existence of know-how with regard to community enterprise, local co-operatives, research, the knowledge and skills required for local development, the development of artisania and the nature of the territory can help combat difficulties encountered in mobilising a community.53

Programme Administration LEADER’s focus on output has been found to conflict with its endogenous development discourse. A focus on process rather than output by funding programmes would be considered to be helpful.

Programme Strategy Due to the requirement for matching funding, funding programmes have supplemented the capital resources of those who already have capital. The poorer among the local people, or whole communities of local people, can be excluded.

Research Neither the impact of community development policy and programmes nor the impact of community-initiated RCD on local communities has been examined systematically. Key texts •

Datoutopoulos, G.A. (1991) ‘Community Development in Greece’,

Community

Development Journal 26(2): 131-138. •

Efstratoglou, S., Papadopoulos, A., Efstratoglou, A. & Kouroussi, E. (2001) National Report - Greece, Athens, Agricultural University of Athens. Available [online] at

Dynamics of Rural Areas:

51

Valaoras (1997) Efstratoglou, S. et al. (2001). 53 Spilanis, I. and Sourbes, L. (1999). 52

28

•

Dimoulas, K., Papadogamvros, V., Robolis, S. & Sidira, V. (1996), The Role of Partnerships in Promoting Social Cohesion, Dublin, Research Report for Greece, European Foundation for the Improvement of living and Working Conditions, Working paper no. WP/96/30/EN.

•

Greek Ministry of Agriculture website www.minagric.gr/en/strategic_targets.html [online]. Accessed on 16 April 2004.

•

Katsaros, D. (2002) ‘Policies for the Development of the Greek Mountains’, In Koutsouris, A (ed.), The Proceedings of the Thessaloniki seminar of the

Innovative Structures for the Sustainable Development of Mountainous Areas ISDEMA Project, 17-18 March 2002, Thessaloniki, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Dept of Biology - Section of Ecology and Systematics. ISBN: 960-87475-0-3. Also available at http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ katsd02a.htm [online]. Accessed 16 April 2004. •

Koutsouros, A (2002) ‘Sustainable Rural Development and Innovative Mechanisms in Greece: The Case of the Lake Plastiras Area’ In Koutsouris, A (ed.), The Proceedings of the Thessaloniki seminar of the Innovative Structures

for the Sustainable Development of Mountainous Areas ISDEMA Project, 17-18 March 2002, Thessaloniki, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Dept of Biology - Section of Ecology and Systematics. ISBN: 960-87475-0-3. Also available at http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/kouta02b.htm [online]. Accessed 16 April 2004. •

Mountain Forum website. accessed on 16 April 2004

Available at http://www.mtnforum.org/[online],

•

PASOK (2004) Our Policy for Agriculture and Revitalising Rural Greece: Achievements and Goal. Available on [online]. Accessed 16 April 2004.

•

Spilanis I. Sourbes L. (1999) “Perspectives de durabilite du developpement dans I’espace insulaire: le cas des iles de l’Egee (Grece)” in Benhayoun G., Gaussier N. and Planque B. Economie des regions Mediterraneennes et developpement durable: Experiences mediterraneennes, Paris: L’Harmattan.

•

Stathopoulos, P. (1991) ‘Community Development in Rural Areas of Greece’. In: M. Hill (ed) Social Work and the European Community: The Social Policy and Practice Contexts. London, Jessica Kingsley: 115-128.

•

Valaoras, G., Pistola, N.A., & Pistola A.K. (1999), ‘The Role of Women in the Conservation and Development of the Dadia Forest Reserve, Greece’, In Gender & Tourism: Women’s Employment and Participation in Tourism, UNED, UK. Avaiable at http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/valax99a.htm

•

Valaoras, G. (1998) Alternative Development and Biodiversity Conservation: Two Case Studies from Greece. Athens

Further Reading •

Koutsouris, A. and Hatzantonis D. (2001). ‘The LEADER II Initiative: the Greek case’, in XIXe European Congress for Rural Sociology Society, Nature, Technology: The Contribution of Rural Sociology, Dijon, France (3-7/9/2001).

29

•

Koutsouris, A. (2001). ‘Innovative mechanisms for local development: the special case of mountainous areas’, In Problems and Prospects of Balkan Agriculture in a Restructuring Environment (Proceedings of the 70th EAAE Seminar). Eds. K. Mattas.

•

Koutsouris A. and Zacharopoulos T. (1998) ‘The Pindos Mt: methodological considerations for an alive rural space’, In The Mountainous Balkans, Konitsa Municipality, University of Ioannina, National Centre for Social Research, Konitsa/Epirus, (29-31/5/1998).

•

Koutsouris, A with N.Kanteres (2002) ‘Human activity systems and rural development’, with Ν. Kanteres, in Searching for the Future of the Greek Agriculture (Proceedings of the 6th Panhellenic Congress of Rural Economy), Athens: Stamoulis Ed.: 586 – 597.

•

Koutsouris, A (ed.) (2002) Innovative Structures for the Sustainable Development of Mountainous Areas, Vol. II, Proceedings of the ISDEMA Conference in Thessaloniki, Greece, November 8-9, 2002, Thessaloniki: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

HUNGARY Demography Hungary has a population density of 109 inhabitants/km2. None of the sub-regions outside Budapest and the surrounding agglomeration can be considered as urban and 50 out of the 150 have no settlements that could be described as urban in character. 73.6% of the population lives in rural areas. 54 The tendency for rural out-migration has substantially slowed in the last 10 years. Until 1990 there was no official unemployment in rural areas. Employment sectors were agriculture and industry. Pluri-activity, using small plots, was common. Policy World The Soviet era was characterised by a centralised and hierarchical structure and the self-organisation of local communities was not possible. Community development did not exist in anything like its present form until the early 1980s and indeed only began to emerge as a recognisable activity in the early 1990s, although even at that point there was little clarity about its role (Tausz 1990; Varga and Versceg 1991). Around 1992, following discussion with local communities, the Hungarian Association for Community Development, formed a few years earlier, recognised a need to support community-based economic development. There were no job opportunities, people were not willing to engage in enterprise and even if they were, there was no expertise or capital. Everything needed by them to support RCD was missing.

54

Nemes, G. (2000).

30

People were expecting others to initiate action and create opportunities. They saw themselves as a labour force only. Since 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has had overall responsibility for rural and regional development. In terms of local and regional development policy, RCD has played a marginal but fast-growing role. Factors leading to the growth in its role are (1) the EU integration process with micro-regions emerging and being informed by projects/programmes like SAPARD, LEADER and PREPARE (see section 2 above) 55, (2) the rural development rhetoric of the EU; and (3) the influence of the Hungarian Rural Parliament (HRP), which is the main mobilising agent for rural community development in Hungary. The HRP has a good working relationship with the government and contributed to the final version of the Hungarian Rural Development Strategy. 56,57 In June 2003, with the participation of 9 Ministries and representatives of Regional Development Councils, the Hungarian Rural Policy Council was established with a staff of eight people working to secure an integrated approach to rural development in Hungary. 58 For a list of institutions involved in rural development in Hungary see Annex One of the under-mentioned report. 59 SAPARD 60 Voluntary micro-regions were created or re-organised over a very short period of time, as an indirect result of this programme, in order to write strategic and operational local development programmes. This may prevent coherent development in the future. The Hungarian Rural Parliament The Hungarian Rural Parliament was established in 1998. It is registered as a public benefit organisation. It meets once a year to make decisions regarding strategy and have elections for a Praesidium. There are twelve working committees which report to the Praesidium. HRP has extensive networks across Europe and in Hungary - 490 local and national NGOs. Local action groups work under its umbrella for sustainable rural development. Its focus is to promote and support rural community development initiatives, strengthen the organisational capacity of communities and all sectors in rural areas, promote co-operation and participation, build networks and disseminate best practice of rural community development. It has well established working connections with 1000 villages. It organises national gatherings, workshops and training. The Hungarian Rural Parliament is a partner of the PREPARE project. The Carpathian Foundation 55

Pre-accession Partnership for Rural Europe. http://www.falunet.adatpark.hu/intro.htm 57 E.g Their formal recommendation to the government that key elements of Finnish rural policy be implemented into the Strategy, which led to the establishment of the Hungarian Rural Policy Council. 58 Http://www.preparenetwork.org/index.php?pno=6 56

59

Nemes, G (2000), Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Hungarian National Report. Available on the website of the World-Wide Fund for Nature 60 EU pre-accession programme aimed at institutional, system and human resource development

31

The Carpathian Foundation was founded in 1994 to create a vibrant community foundation for supporting citizen initiatives in the Carpathian region, which includes five counties in the north-east of Hungary, the most under-developed region and the area where many of the marginalised Roma are resident. One of its roles is to give financial support to local initiatives. Its Small Grants Programme provides grants of up to US$5,000 for community development or capacity-building. 61 Its Integrated Rural Community Development (ICRD) Program provides grants of up to $160,000. The Foundation supports community-based economic development (CED), promotes community-based local planning and development, partnerships and networking. Since 1997, the grantees have gained a considerable amount of experience and can be regarded as models of sustainable rural development. Many community organisations have been formed as a result of its work.62 Experience of rural community development (RCD) The experience of RCD in Hungary can be analysed again in terms of a series of following themes: politics, institutions, identity, attitudes to change, community capacity, programme strategy and research. It is important to note that, alongside several other East and Central European countries, Hungary has had access to funding streams from a variety of western donors including, in particular, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Soros Foundation and East-West Foundation. These have often focused on community development-related activities. Details of projects funded can be found through the relevant Foundation websites. However, many of these foundations are retrenching now from East and Central Europe. Soros, for example, is now focusing its attention more on China and the Mott Foundation has recently closed its Prague office. Hungary has a federal association, the Hungarian Association for Community Development, which is a member of CEBSD. It covers both urban and rural agendas.63

Politics Planning is inconceivable without suitable knowledge and information; Tensions and divisions within local areas, often rooted in the past, could restrict the potential for endogenous RCD. Therefore strategic participative planning by local inhabitants, organisations and politicians, in the spirit of protection of common interests, through an organisation established for that purpose, is advisable.

Institutions Self-organised rural community development is not enough for successful local economic development. The support of the public and private sector is necessary as is the provision of legal, financial and training needs. Extension services are important to provide information and training, as are networks of community development workers to provide support and share information with each other. 61

http://www.carpathianfoundation.org/languages/en/program.php?program=25&what=1 E.g. The North-Eastern Hungarian Community Development Association (NEHCDA) is an umbrella organisation that tries to develop and integrate disadvantaged rural regions through a promotion of bottom up initiatives. Its main strategic goal is the development and strengthening of the non-visible capacities of the region, especially the human capital. It was founded by 14 organisations and 3 individuals as a result of a training programme organised by the Carpathian Foundation in 1996/7. 63 Hungarian Association for Community Development, www.kka.hu 62

32

People need co-ordinated assistance to establish communication networks, identify resources and needs, build confidence and provide training, information and contacts. The services helping new enterprises have shortcomings and need to provide advice and training on an ongoing basis. Local authorities should seek to make use of local resources rather than concentrating on attracting external investment to the area. Links need to be made with areas throughout a region in order to define the regional unity through which development can be accomplished most effectively.

Identity In many rural areas cultural heritage is still very rich and can be considered part of the ‘glue’ holding together rural communities. Rural society in Hungary is still much closer to a traditional peasant stage than in most areas of Western Europe and is more community-based. Networks of family and friends are of great importance and are connected to most aspects of everyday life.

Attitude to change A change in attitude to entrepreneurship through technical diffusion and education is important. The capacity of Carpathian Foundation grantees has increased making them more able to adapt to alternative models of development.

Community capacity Education and training are essential pre-requisites to RCD both in terms of building the capacity of the community and in terms of the presence of properly-qualified RCD professionals. Building community capacity is a slow process, especially with few dedicated RCD professionals. However, the following initiatives are an example of progress to date. The Carpathian Foundation is in the process of organizing an integrated RCD training programme, where participants will get the latest information, share ideas and experiences in the field of community development and learn from invited speakers and from each other. The main topics covered are Integrated Rural Sustainable Development, Citizen Mobilization and Community-Based Economic Development. 64 The HACD 65 has a training centre for local community workers. Difficulties are encountered in accessing staff and funding for staff. Some of the participants are now co-operating with each other in small enterprises and some are working in communities. NEHDA 66 has run very successful training programmes, which create an opportunity to share information, develop relationships, consider EU development practices and the treatment of conflicts occurring in local community development work. 67

64

http://www.carpathianfoundation.org/languages/en/program.php?program=17&what=1 Hungarian Association for Community Development: see also section 2 above and Appendix 4. 66 North-East Hungarian Community Development Association. 67 Borsos, E. (1998). 65

33

Lack of confidence has been found to have a negative effect on co-operation and the ability to access sources of funding. The conditions for establishing community enterprises are developing slowly through a process of capacity-building.

Programme Strategy Co-ordinated, regular and long-term assistance (including capital) for RCD is still missing. Long-term financing of community development associations is essential since the member organisations cannot cover costs with their own resources. Competition for financial resources may inhibit co-operation and RCD. 68 Community development has been an undervalued profession and professionals have been unpaid for their work. It has been difficult to obtain funding for them. Community development processes, where the people become open to solving their own problems, develop a vision and obtain skills and confidence are time-intensive.

Research Some of the projects to date are being analysed but have not yet been reported on.69 There is a lack of systematic research on the impact of programmes, policy and projects 70 but perhaps a greater realisation of the need for this than in Western European countries.

Key texts •

• • • •

• •

Borsos, E (1998) The Possibilities of the Community-Based Economic Development in Hungary, and the North-Eastern Hungarian Community Development Association, paper presented at Donors’ and practitioners’ Roundtable on Community Economic Development, Warsaw, 5-6 October 1998 Carpathian Foundation (1998) Report 1995-97, Budapest, Beke-Print Inc. Carpathian Foundation website http://www.carpathianfoundation.org/languages/ en/program.php?program=1&what=0 [online]. Accessed 13 April 2004. Hungarian Rural parliament website http://www.falunet.adatpark.hu/intro.htm [online]. Accessed 13 April 2004. Nemes, G (2000), Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Hungarian National Report. Available on the website of the World-Wide Fund for Nature [online]. Accessed 20 March 2004. PREPARE - Pre-Accession Partnerships for Rural Europe website http://www.preparenetwork.org/index.php [online]. Accessed 13 April 2004. Vercseg, I. (1998) Community Development and Community Based Economic Development – Hungary, paper presented at Donors’ and practitioners’ Roundtable on Community Economic Development, Warsaw, 5-6 October.

Ferenczi, T. (n.d.) Rural Development in Hungary,mimeo.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

68

Nemes, G. (2000). Carpathian Foundation (1998). 70 With some exceptions e.g. the InnoRural Research study of NEHCDA’s work. 69

34

NORWAY Demography Norway has a population density of 14/km2. There are substantial differences among Norwegian municipalities with respect to area, topography, settlement patterns, population and industrial structure. Population density is extremely low, making the peripheral regions with the smaller populations very vulnerable. Of the 434 muncipalities constituing Norway, 160 have under 3000 inhabitants: many of the smaller communities are based on islands. Government has recently tended to try and get smaller municipalities to collaborate in the management of welfare services. Policy World Norway has a three-tier system of government – national, county and municipal. A history of municipal self-government with an high degree of independence and local decision-making in the delivery of services operates in tandem with a principal of equal access imposed by central government, subject to financial resources. Political support for municipalities is strong from both central government and local voters71. Norway has had a well-developed regional policy for some time. In the last few decades this has moved away from central redistribution of resources between regions towards a stronger emphasis on regionally- and locally-initiated projects for development, with responsibility for policy formulation and regional development programmes being given to counties or municipalities. The emphasis has been on local economic development although recently there has been a shift to social and cultural aspects. The aim of regional policy is to maintain the geographical settlement pattern 72 and therefore women-oriented policies are emphasised, more women than men having moved from the peripheries in the recent past. Since the 1970s, municipalities have acted as catalysts to stimulate local community development and integrate it with regional support, when regional policy failed to stimulate local action and promote economic regeneration 73 (see also Almas 1988). The government recognised the importance of local support structures and granted financial aid to certain municipalities to employ local development advisers. The role of the development advisers was to mobilise local expertise and establish market contacts and other networks over municipality borders. Most municipalities now have a development service offering support to local initiatives. 74 They tend to be stock companies in which the municipality and/or private interests own shares. In the late 1980s some Information and Community Service Centres (Telecottages) were set up to offer ITC access, training, consultancy and accounting services to local businesses. Initiatives under women-oriented regional policies have often focused on self-development and neighbourhood surroundings as well as education and entrepreneurship and the results are therefore often difficult to measure in terms of economic growth.75 In the 1990s, the focus narrowed to creating jobs and enrepreneurship.

71

Hansen, T. (1999).

72

Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000) Rural Transfer Network, Literature Review – Norway 73 Johannison, B. (1989). 74 Gandal, O. (1989). 75 Lothrington & Meistad (1999) cited in Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000).

35

In 1993 the government reformed agriculture policy by promoting the diversification of economic activities in rural areas. Funding programmes 76 under which schemes such as the ’pupil enterprise’ and ’tertiary courses in entrepreneurship schemes’, were established. The aim was to foster the right conditions for community economic development and the belief that it is possible to shape the future of one’s community. In 1998 the Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government initiated a strategy for developing peripheral regions, through which the County Councils developed their own Regional Development Plans 77 with partnerships, co-operation and the exchanging of experiences and information being central elements. A rural municipality programme was also established to stimulate all peripheral municipalities to utilise ’new and effective’ methods for development. The rural community development projects under this programme may be based around a theme community rather than a geographical community. 78 A project entitled ’Better services in small communities and rural areas’ 79 aims to focus on issues of collaboration between smaller communities and to promote exchange of knowledge and experience and is currently working in 11 smaller communities. Norway is not a member of the EU so the LEADER II and LEADER + programmes do not apply. Currently both ’top-down’ and ’bottom up’ approaches co-exist. The Norwegian member of CEBSD, Stiflesen Idebanken (the ’Ideas Bank’) has a strongly rural agenda. 80 Experience of Rural Community Development (RCD) The experience of RCD in Norway can be analysed in terms of these themes: politics, institutions, attitudes to change, community capacity, programme administration, programme strategy and research.

Politics Telecottages were found to facilitate geographical de-centralisation but only when combined with other forms of de-centralisation such as local or public enterprise situated in the area. 81 Although most municipalities engage in organised local development initiatives, the effects measured in employment rates locally are few. This has been attributed to discrepancies between programme aims and regional and national policy, which have also been found to cause dissillusionment, curtail opportunity for RCD and lessen focus on business development projects. 82,83,84,85 76

e.g entrepreneurial training, business support, support for innovative thinking and the development of local human resources/capacity. 77 The Nordland County Council Regional Development programme was developed solely by civil sevants. Its aim was to establish a robustness in peripheral communities with an emphasis on mobilisation. Project applications were invited from municipalities who either involved the entire municipality or, more often, chose particular communities to take part, most of which were already mobilised and looking for an opportunity to put their plans into action and all of which were close to a demographic limit of survival with few employment opportunities. Many of the projects achieved their aims. Some common features of the projects were a focus on business development, culture, skills/competence and infrastructure. 78 E.g. the six municipalities in Indre Namdalen region initiated nine projects involving rural community development based around themes/groups - young entrepreneurs, farming and agriculture, students, municipal services, business, the unemployed, cultural, ICT training and expertise and the knowledge market [see Gjertsen, A. (2000)]. 79 Contact [email protected] 80 Stiflesen Idebanken, www.idebanken.no 81 Qvortrup, L. (1989). 82 Although this latter is also affected by local levels of unemployment.

36

Institutions The most important pre-requisite for successful rural community development is interaction and co-operation between the local actors. If this does not exist, there must be a local catalyst for the creation of such conditions. The presence of a local leader, support from municipal budgets and the ability to creat and use networks of contacts are also important. 86 The early experience of development support services showed that this, together with the existence of strong community feeling, key local figure(s) and availability of finance in an area with scarcity of capital, was of great value in readily dynamising local interest and RCD. Many development projects took place resulting in the creation of new businesses and services and the securing of existing jobs. Rural development has also been based on ’interest/ theme’ communities within a region.

Attitude to entrepreneurship Role models are important. Studies show that 53% of entrepreneurs in rural areas have self-employed parents. Motives are realisation of self-potential, identifying good market prospects, freedom to set your own working hours and social connection to a rural community. To develop attractive places with the possibility of developing and flourishing is an important basis for economic development. More than 75% of entrepreneurs have their main market within the local community. 87

Community capacity It was found that those taking part in the ‘pupil enterprise’ and ‘tertiary courses in entrepreneurship’ schemes gained experience and self-esteem and established local and cross-municipal networks. Their communities’ inherent potential was enhanced and younger generations developed an entrepreneurial spirit. 88 In communities which were not already mobilised, development work has failed until competence training has been undertaken. An evaluation of the women-oriented regional programmes shows that they have had a tremendous effect on the quality of life of the women involved and the local communities that they live in.89

Programme Administration Tight control by programme administration has led to a decrease in the opportunities available to communities and a lack of motivation.

Research

83

Bukve (1994) cited in Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000). Gjertsen, A. & Kleivan (1999), cited in Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000). 85 E.g in Nordland, the communities sometimes felt that the opportunities for locally defining problems and solutions was limited due to the fact that the County acted as a controlling or supervisory authority [Gjertsen, A. (2000)]. 86 Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000). 87 Spilling (1998) cited in Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000). 84

88 89

Kjelsen, O. (1994). Pettersen et al. (1999) cited in Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000).

37

It is often difficult to quantify the indirect economic effect of RCD projects. Many of the Norwegian Research Institutes have had lengthy experience of research in deeply rural areas 90 and some literature exists on the impact of rural community development in Norway. For example, a range of local initiatives were supported particularly in the late 1980s which attempted to provide women, who were migrating out of rural areas at relatively high rates, with a stronger role in local community development through, for example, the development of credit facilities for entrepreneurship and the creation of networks to support women’s participation (see e.g. Meistad 2001). Currently NIBR is supporting and researching a communitybased campaign where local and collective action has fought the Norwegian government’s proposals for a mountainous area in Southern Norway and has now succeeded in creating a pilot project in local nature management 91 (Saglie et al. 2001). Key texts •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research (2000) Rural Transfer Network, Available at Literature Review – Norway, Aberdeen University, UK. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/npp/litnor.doc [online]. Accessed 13 April 2004. Frisvoll, S., Meistad, T. & Rye, J.F. (2004) Restructuring in Marginal Rural Areas,

National Report – Norway. Regional Identity and Rural Development: The Mountain Region, Norway. Available at XX. [online]. Accessed 13 April 2004. Gandal, O. (1989) ‘Local Development Structures in Norway’ In Hawker et al., Factors in the Design of Community Based Rural Development Initiatives in Europe. , Aberdeen: The Arkleton Trust (Research) Ltd. Gjertsen, A., (2000) Rural Transfer Network: Pilot-Projects In The 'Namdalen' Region. Available at Http://Www.Abdn.Ac.Uk/Arkleton/Npp/2ARILD1.DOC [online]. Accessed 13 April 2004. Gjertsen, A., (2000), Rural Transfer Network: Local Community Development In Available at Nordland County. Http://Www.Abdn.Ac.Uk/Arkleton/Npp/Arildpap.Doc. Accessed 13 April 2004. Hansen, T. (1999) Municipal self-government in the service of the welfare state, Available at http://www.odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/ system/032005990412/index-dok000-b-n-a.html [online]. Accessed on 13 April 2004 Johannison, B. (1989) ‘Local Development Initiatives – the Nordic Perspective’ In Hawker et al., Factors in the Design of Community Based Rural Development Initiatives in Europe , Aberdeen: The Arkleton Trust (Research) Ltd. Kjelsen, O (1994) A Focus on Youth Rural Development: Future Possibilities and Options. Paper presented at the Seventh Session of the FAO/ECA Working Party on Women and the Agricultural family in Rural Development, Athens, Greece, 1821 October 1994. Available on the Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations website http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/W6882e/w6882e01.htm [online]. Accessed on 13 April 2004 Qvortrup, O. (1989) ‘The Nordic Telecottages: Information and Community Service Centres for Rural Communities’ In Hawker et al., Factors in the Design of Community Based Rural Development Initiatives in Europe , Aberdeen: The Arkleton Trust (Research) Ltd.

90

See for example the work of the Nordland Research Insitute , website www.nordlandsforskning.no; or the Centre for Rural Research www.bygdeforskning.no; the Norwegian Institue for Urban and Regional Research www.nibr.no, and the Royal Norwegian Society for Development, www.norgesvel.no, all of which publish extensively in English. 91 Contact [email protected]

38

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX POLAND Demography Poland has a population density of 124/km2, which falls to 49/km2 in rural areas. Ninety four percent of rural municipalities have populations smaller than 1000 persons. Eighty three percent of Polish territory is rural in nature and 33 percent of the population lives in rural areas. A low level of education in rural areas has led to difficulties in adjusting to a market economy. More generally, Poland, like many East and Central European countries, has been trying to cope with the impacts of the replacement of a centralised system of economic management and welfare provision with a much more marketised system; this has created enormous difficulties for many of the poorest in the country. Unemployment is still currently at 20% and population groups, such as the elderly, which would have had a basic level of state support now find themselves with little effective help (see e.g. Millard 1993). Many rural inhabitants finished formal education after primary school and or vocational 92 mid-school. Unemployment is a critical problem. This, together with poor levels of education, living standards, service and communication infrastructure and lack of capital, both discourages investment and entrepreneurship and has led to outmigration. 93 Policy World The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is the responsible Ministry. The Department for Rural Development within the Ministry is responsible for activation of people living in rural areas in order to enhance rural development. Liberal policy from 1989-1992 led to a crisis in the agriculture sector and a significant decrease in the income of the rural population. As a result of the post-1989 crisis of the agricultural sector, many institutions and foundations in Poland were formed to deal with agricultural and rural development, although their primary focus was and is on agriculture. There is very weak co-operation among them. They tend to offer support in terms of training or consulting services. The rural development focus of the Ministry has also been on agriculture, particularly from 1993 94-1996. Agricultural policy has fluctuated between liberalism and interventionism. However in 1999, in fulfilment of the National Programme of Preparation for EU Membership, Poland adopted The Coherent Policy for Rural Development and Agriculture, which moved away from a focus on agricultural production and subsidies to a more holistic view of rural development. In 1990 a self-governmental system on the local level was restored. In 1996 there were 1613 rural gmina (local such units). However they remained relatively weak with the financial system still strongly centralised. Further administrative reform took place giving greater responsibility to local authorities and local society. However, a centralised, top-down approach to the development of rural areas still dominates the political scene. 92

Agricultural . Especially of the small number of persons with a tertiary level of education. 94 When the PSL, a farmer’s party, became part of the coalition government. 93

39

Since 1989, many agencies, institutions and NGOs with a focus on economic development have been established at central, regional and local levels. These include chambers of commerce (mainly in cities), centres for innovation and entrepreneurship (generally community-based), business schools and advice and information centres. Poland has a large number of Regional Development Agencies.95 These tend to be joint stock companies. They act as centres supporting small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) and tend to operate on a sub-regional rather than a regional scale. For institutions involved in rural development in Poland see Annex II of the undermentioned report. 96 Some examples of programmes operating in different aspects of rural development in Poland since 1990 are given below.

PHARE, Local Initiatives Programme, 1993-1996 This programme assisted certain areas to prepare local development plans. Each area created a citizens’ council to mobilize local communities around common goals.

The Polish – British Enterprise Project This is a joint initiative of the governments aimed at providing assistance for SMEs by supporting promotion of products/services, high quality advisory services, access to medium and long-term capital.

Rural Development Strategy financed by the World Bank loan, 2000This programme focuses on provision of micro-credit, development of human capital both among the population and in local/regional administrations and development of rural infrastructure. The programme is designed to have a bottom–up approach. SAPARD The activities of the SAPARD programme relate to improvement and adjustment of the agricultural sector, improvement of conditions for economic activities, diversification of economic activities and enhancement of human capital. It also aims to facilitate de-centralization and regional development. Several other programmes such as the US Aid programme, the Polish-Swiss Regional Programme and the STRUDER programme amongst others, have also supported activity linked to rural development and, like Hungary (q.v., although less so), some western charitable foundations have provided limited funding streams. Experience of Rural Community Development (RCD)

Politics

95

In 1996 there were 66 of them – Sieradzki, J. (1998). Karaczun, Z. (2000), Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Polish National Report, Research Report to the World-Wide Fund for Nature and the Statutory Countryside Agency of Great Britain.

96

40

•

• •

Lack of understanding of the issues of integration and sustainable development for rural areas by politicians is a barrier to rural development. To date this is an issue debated largely by academics in Poland, but not by government. It is very important to develop regional and local strategies for rural development. There is a need to seek out, communicate with and involve project beneficiaries in the identification and selection of programme projects.

Institutional capacity • • • •

• • • •

•

•

Major factors inhibiting development are poor access to advisory services and lack of marketing networks. There is a need to strengthen local institutions. Programme uptake by region depends heavily on human capacity and leadership/vision in local authorities. Local involvement in decision-making will require the enhancement of local expertise. Support in terms of information, project identification, preparation of business plans and funding applications is necessary. Institution building, especially in weaker economic localities, is the most efficient and durable means to overcome developmental barriers. 97 The administration/institutions are reluctant to create a framework for public participation, which can be a barrier to RCD. Support for rural development from local authorities is essential, both in terms of services and resources. Interest rates are high, meaning that there is no realistic access to credit from banks for those wishing to develop projects in marginal rural areas. Microlending/credit initiatives are very important in these circumstances. Sometimes rural community development initiatives have required ‘forcing through petrified structures with new proceedings and laying down the basement for new proper relationships between the bodies’. 98 The experience of the PHARE programme was that wide participation in forming and implementing a local development plan was not a necessary condition for successful RCD. Visionary leadership, however, was.

Attitude • • • •

There is a lack of tradition of creating associations co-operatively to develop local areas. There is a reluctance to form co-operatives due to the history being forced to do so for political reasons under the state socialist regime. There is a lack of tradition of collective governance and co-operation. A recent history, particularly amongst the older generation, of believing that the state will take care of one, inhibits RCD.

Community Capacity •

• 97 98

Investment in human capital and education services is a condition for rural development in this country, especially with the rapidly changing economic situation. There is a great need for investment in education services. Sieradzki, J. (1998). Kordela, Z. (1998).

41

•

Active and committed local leaders can lead to very successful implementation of local projects 99 on the basis of local participation.

Programme Strategy • • • •

Rural development in Poland will require long-term intervention and funding. A major factor inhibiting development is poor access to capital. Initial and continuing financial support is essential. Conditions change very quickly and a very flexible approach is needed as a result. Many programmes operating through foreign assistance remain uncoordinated at a regional level.

Research There is a lack of reliable data on the impact of programmes. Key texts •

•

•

•

•

Dec, E. (1998) Microlending: A Tool for Economic Development in Our Region, paper presented at the Donors’ and Practitioners’ Roundtable on Community Economic Development, Warsaw, 5-6 October. Karaczun, Z. (2000) Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Polish National Report, Research Report to the World-Wide Fund for Nature and the Statutory Countryside Agency of Great Britain. Kordela, Z. (1998) Mutual Guarantee Fund in Bieszczdy Region – Poland, paper presented at the Donors’ and Practitioners’ Roundtable on Community Economic Development, Warsaw, 5-6 October. Sieradzki, J. (1998) Country Report – Poland, paper presented at the Donors’ and practitioners’ Roundtable on Community Economic Development, Warsaw, 5-6 October. Wickenhagen, A., Pontieri, A. & Heilig, G.K. (2002) The initiative of a mother and

son in a small Polish village to start an agency for farm-tourism and an ecotechnology center, Innovative Rural Development Initiatives, Case Study 8: Sunflower Farm, available [online] at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/ net/pdf/CaseStudies/sunfl-7.pdf, accessed 19 April 2004.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ROMANIA: Demography Romania has a population density of 91/km2. It has a very large rural population (47.3%). The country’s economy is becoming more robust mainly due to strong demand in EU export markets. There has been strong domestic activity in, among other things, agriculture. However widespread poverty remains. The rural areas are low in productivity. Underdevelopment in rural areas is linked to the precariousness of rural infrastructure (Peia 2001). Rural populations have declined rapidly, 99

E.g. ECEAT-Poland, one of the leading eco-tourism companies in the country. See ref. for Wickenhagen et al. (2002) below.

42

unemployment levels are high and the rural population is ageing as younger people have migrated to the urban areas. Policy World In 1989 Romania began the transition from a Communist people’s republic and in 1991 adopted a constitution. Romania’s aim is to gain EU membership in 2007100. Government procedures are not at present transparent. Consultation procedures are rare and ineffective. It would appear that Romania has, on the face of it, a three-tier system of governance. A transfer of responsibilities to local authorities took place over the past few years. However, this process is not transparent or stable and legislation governing financial transfers to local government give a strong controlling function to county councils at the expense of local councils101. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development is responsible for rural community development.102 There are several significant organisations concerned with rural community development in Romania, although Nitu (2003) estimates that there are perhaps several hundred organisations overall in Romania that are doing community development. Amongst the key organisations are the following:


Center for Rural Assistance: this is concerned with social and economic development in rural localities and works to identify local partners, construct strategic programmes, offer training and support, including equipment, and monitor and evaluate ongoing rural community development work. To date, for example, a network of 30 Local Development Agencies has been created in Timis County and these have supported a number of project proposals concerned with A network of reducing unemployment and modernisation of services.103 TeleCenters has also been established. The Center has recently started publication of a journal ROAD. The Center, based in Timisoara, which was originally financed from the Open Society Foundation Romania, employs 10 staff and a range of associate consultants, experts and trainers.




RuralNet: this is a network of 23 organisations active in community development, mainly in rural areas104, and funded in part through the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.105 Its objectives are to promote good practice, ensure professional development, advocate and lobby for community development, and implement projects in partnership. It plans to do this through training, workshops, study visits, collaborative projects and various forms of information exchange and dissemination. It is at a very early stage at present. RuralNet plans to produce a RuralNet Guide to Community Development.




Civitas Foundation Romania: This organisation is concerned with promoting citizen participation in good governance through training, research, consultancy and development work both in Romania and in the broader South Eastern European region where it acknowledges that civil society as a whole is very weak and has been undermined by economic instability and conflict. The Foundation has a number of development and research projects underway including ‘youth in

100

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/romania/ http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2003/pdf/rr_ro_final.pdf 102 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ro.html#Govt 103 http://www.rural-center.org 104 www.ruralnet.ro 105 Project Proposal to Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, ‘Rural Net Development’, September 2003, mimeo. 101

43

motion’ (citizen participation in local governance in South Eastern Europe) and the Local Development Agent Programme, funded partly through PHARE.106


Romanian Association for Community Development: This is a country-wide association bringing together a range of community development interests, including those focused on rural areas. Its strategy has four major elements: a community development programme, training and consultancy, small grants programme and lobbying and advocacy for community development countrywide. It is also part of a regional network of organisations in East and Central Europe (covering Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary and Poland) aimed at promoting community development in the region, which engage in knowledge and experience exchange.107 This network was financially supported by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and Charity Know How.

SAPARD The SAPARD programme in Romania is attempting to address some of the underdevelopment and associated problems of rural areas pre-accession. Four main themes of intervention were identified in 2000: · improving the competitiveness of food processing · rural infrastructure · development and diversification of the rural economy · development of human resources Since August 2003 the SAPARD Agency approved 518 projects involving € 389.2 million of public support (of which the EU is contributing € 292 million).108 Experience of Rural Community Development (RCD)

Funding Many of the community development organisations which have come into being in the past ten years are dependent on very limited and short-term funding, for example from US philanthropic foundations, from the support of consultancy organisations such as ALLAVIDA (see Section 2) and Romania is not yet able to access EU pre-accession funding on a large scale.

Institutional Capacity • • • • •

A major problem has been limited administrative capacity to implement decentralised responsibilities. Corruption and red tape hinder development. Romania should clarify the role of the regional levels and strengthen interministerial co-operation and partnership. Administrative capacity needs to be significantly improved with regard to programming, including identification and preparation of projects The capacity to select, discuss and clarify development priorities at both national and regional levels needs to be improved as does project preparation.

106

http://www.civitas.ro/?lang=en http://www.ardc.ro 108 http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/romania/ 107

44

•

Considerable efforts are also needed to improve financial management and to remedy shortages of information-technology equipment and skills.

Key texts EU (2003) Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession, available [online] at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/romania/, accessed 26 April 2004. Romania Development Gateway Portal, available [online] at http://rogateway.ro/node/185929/, accessed 26 April 2004 Official website of the European Union available [online] at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/romania/, accessed 26 April 2004 Romanian website available [online] at http://www.dntis.ro/mr/op.html, accessed 3 May 2004

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SPAIN Demography Spain has a population density of 77.5/km2 .109 Around half of Spanish territory is classified as mountain or ‘less favoured’ and more than 80% of Spain as a whole is rural. The less-favoured areas have suffered from out-migration since the 1950s with only a slight stabilisation of local populations since the 1980s and agriculutral employment has declined to 9% of total employment. The return of the emigrants during the summer and at weekends has become more common due to improved infrastructure. Circumstances in rural areas vary greatly both across the country and within regions themselves. Policy World Spain does not have a national rural development strategy. Various policy sectors affect the development of rural areas with agricultural policy being the dominant one. Rural development programmes have thus tended to be EU ones. These are influencing the government to consider an approach that is more territorial than sectoral. There has been no tradition of promotion of rural community development. The EU programme LEADER was the first initiative of this kind to have an impact in Spain. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 110 then created a national LEADER-like programme named PRODER 111(1996-1999) to complement LEADER II by providing funding for local development groups not covered by LEADER. As the circumstances in rural areas varies so does the uptake of rural development. The seventeen regions in Spain have a high degree of autonomy. The Ministry of Agriculture was responsible for LEADER. However, following its success in mobilising the population, the regions asked for and were given responsibility for LEADER II and PRODER 2. PRODER has become a regional operational programme. However, overall, LEADER and PRODER have represented less than 1% of total public expenditure on rural development in Spain. The new LEADER+ programme has one national programme and 17 regional programmes; these have explicit foci on strategies relating to equal opportunities for women, and on young people in rural 109

http://www.andalusia.com/spain/ www.mapya.es 111 Programmea de Desarollo y Diversificacion de Zonas Rurales de Objectivo 1. 110

45

areas. The priority themes include the use of new information technology, the quality of life in rural areas, adding value to local products and making best use of natural and cultural resources. There are now about 150 LAGs, most LEADER+ territories covering small areas of less than 30,000 population. 112 Some regions have recently developed rural development strategies. Provision of information from the EU to national government and from national to regional government is inadequate, slow and often conflicting. Co-ordinating national and regional objectives, in order to develop programmes, is a difficult and lengthy process and as a result the concept of horizontal and vertical policy integration, with one or two exceptions 113, has not yet taken root. Two networks of rural development groups have developed as a result of LEADER and PRODER: REDR 114 and REDER. 115 They inform and train local action groups (LAGs), act as a point of contact and play an important role in exchanging information and experience. There are at least twelve regional rural development networks 116 and seventeen CARREFOUR groups, some operating in the same region. Rural development organisations were consulted by the Ministry of Agriculture over LEADER + and the Rural Development Regulation. However, this was done informally and the views expressed have not been taken into account. Experience of rural community development Spain has a member organisation of CEBSD, the Catalan organisation Desenvolupament Comunitari, based in Barcelona. Its agenda is both rural and urban. 117

Politics • •

• •

There has been little done for non-Objective 1 depressed rural areas. Some LAGs have been controlled by regional administrations, by political parties or by incomers with money and ideas. Participation by the indigenous population at large is very limited. Some LAG members pursue their own, rather than the common interest The lack of a national integrated strategy is a weakness. There is a need for consensus on how to pull together existing rural development measures.

Institutional Capacity •

•

•

Strengthening and building capacity in local institutions is essential. Co-operation between regional departments and improvement of administrative systems is necessary, as is communication between LAGs and regional departments. Many local councils employ development agents but they are in need of support and training themselves. At all levels there is often a lack of will to co-ordinate Mayors have played an important role in promoting the programmes and in mobilising the population (but have also been criticised for seeking to control the LAGs). A high level of bureaucracy may inhibit rural development.

112

Implementing the new EU Rural Development, the Spanish Case, E1 Unit, European Commission, 2002. E.g. Galicia’s Rural Development Agency which operates horizontally in order to avoid a sectoral approach that concentrates on agriculture and is the point of contact for LAGs. 114 Red Espanola de Desarrollo Rural. 115 Red Estatal de Desarrollo Rural. 116 Details available [online] at http://redrural.mapya.es/web/temas/direcciones/direcciones_redes.asp 113

117

Desenvolupament Comunitari, email [email protected]

46

• •

An organisation providing training, information and technical support to communities is important. The fragmented and sectoral approach confuses and frustrates people. One point of contact for rural development programmes in a local area may combat this problem.

Community Capacity • •

•

•

Those with initiative and know-how tend to be those who have left rural areas; the skill base of rural areas has thus declined. Most funding goes to demanding dynamic areas and little to the most marginal areas. This is a weakness of the ‘bottom-up’ approach – it is dependant on initiative and demand existing in the first place. The rural population often lacks the knowledge necessary to manage projects, access funding and cope with administration. Lack of capacity is a fundamental obstacle to development. Training is required. A pro-active approach is necessary to overcome inertia and lack of participation. Local development agents with appropriate training should be supporting local communities.

Attitude • • •

•

The general attitude is conservative, impassive and state dependent. There is an individualistic rather then a co-operative, participative culture. This inhibits RCD. Most young people do not want to live in rural areas even with more opportunity and better infrastructure than before. Problems have been caused by the fact that regional/local administrations have perceived LAGs as (1) not being capable of rural development and (2) as political competition. There is limited participation of women in RCD, a fact that is likely to lead to unsustainable development.

Programme Strategy • • • • • • • • •

Lack of on-going funding is a problem. Funding programme procedures should be user-friendly and non-exclusive in order to promote equal access to funding. Regional government spent most of its time on administrative detail rather than on developing imaginative and integrated programmes. The programmes are top-down with little participation from communities due to lack of information and consultation. Delays in grants for LAGs caused projects to get into debt. LEADER and PRODER LAGs lack the funds to implement their own programmes. Lack of programme flexibility has restricted the type of projects eligible for funding and the potential for RCD. In non-mobilized/depressed areas, programmes require to focus on developing institutional and community capacity and initiating a development process. 118 Programmes do not normally take into account their impact on the environment

Research 118

???????

47

•

Finished projects are often not monitored. Studies on socio-economic and environmental change in areas where programmes are implemented are needed. The results would inform funding programmes when deciding on the direction of future strategy.

Key texts •

• • • •

Sumpti, J.M. (2000) Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Spanish National Report, Research report to the World-Wide Fund for Nature and the Statutory Countryside Agency of Great Britain. Red Espanola de Desarrollo Rural website, available [online] at http://www.redr.es/news/index.php?b=&c=20&n=596, accessed 23 April 2004 Contactos de Desarrollo Rural website, available [online] at http://redrural. mapya.es/web/temas/direcciones/direcciones_redes.asp, accessed 23 April 2004. EU (2000) Country Profile, Spain, available [online] at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/agriculture/rur/countries/es/index_en.htm, accessed 23 April 2004. E1 Unit (Rural Development Programs in Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and Finland), Agriculture Directorate-General, European Commission (2003), Implementing the New EU Rural Development: The Spanish Case, available [online] at http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/countries/es/case.pdf, accessed 23 April 2004.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SWEDEN Demography Sweden has an extremely sparsely distributed population. ????/km2.

Population density is

Policy World Sweden has a three-tier system of government – national, regional and municipal. There is debate about whether or not the high level of responsibility at municipal level means that the system of government is de-centralised. Prior to joining the EU in 1995, a system of social welfare redistribution operated among the regions and municipalities. However modification of this and downsizing of the provision of basic services and infrastructure was necessary after EU membership was secured. Regional policy moved towards promoting regional growth and making use of spatial differences. Rural Areas were particularly affected since they had been the primary beneficiaries of support and compensation transfers. 119 Although some counties had already had regional development plans, a greater part of the responsibilities for regional development were transferred to the regions. 120 There was also a trend towards de-regulation and the participation of the private

119 120

Persson, L.O. (1997) cited in Persson, L.O. & Ceccato, V.A. (2001): 41. Norberg (1999) cited in Larsson, L. (2000): 6

48

sector in regional projects for economic growth through Regional Growth Agreements. 121 Non-profit sector representation in these is extremely rare. 122 The Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications 123 has responsibility for regional development policy and the National Rural Development Agency. 124 The Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries 125 is responsible for the national Environmental and Rural Development Plan. 126 In the present Plan the focus is still on farmers and it is difficult for other groups to get access to funds. The Popular Movement’s Council for Rural Development was consulted during the development of the Plan. Rural Community Development Movement The Swedish member organisation of CEBSD, CESAM, is the national centre for community organising and has a strongly rural focus. 127 During the 1980s, the situation with regard to the survival of Sweden’s rural communities was critical. It was perceived that amalgamation of municipalities in 1974 had led to centralisation of services and power in urban and city centres. 128 An ‘All of Sweden shall Live!’ campaign arose out of this, later joining a 1987 Council of Europe campaign for the development of rural Europe. This resulted in a powerful local mobilisation process creating new vitality in the countryside. 129 By the late 1980s, 1000 community groups were actively involved in rural community development and in 1989 the Popular Movement’s Council for Rural Development 130 was formed. There are now almost 4000 associated groups. Every second year they hold a Rural Parliament to focus and guide their activity, which in general terms is to initiate and support rural community development. The primary activities of these groups in order of decreasing importance to them are festivities (78%), culture (68%), meeting place (49%), study circle (47%), roads (45%), tourism (39%), fairs and sales (37%), bathing place (35%), environmental issues (34%), and distribution of information/magazine (34%). 131 Study circles are the most commonly used way of meeting, discussing and learning, where small groups of around 10 people with a collective will to solve a problem meet in an informal setting to share experience. The circles are done through education associations, some of which are very active in rural development. 132 Folk high schools offer flexible studying opportunities with an opportunity to influence the aims and contents of courses according to current knowledge and needs. Bond (2001) argues that there are now about 4000 local action groups in Sweden, involving 100,000 people, as a result of ten years of popular mobilisation. Many of these are led by women and many people, as a result, now ‘take part in community work, they feel they have a say in decision-making and that their words count.’

121

In 1998 a government bill provided more power to the regions/ Proposition 1997/98:62 Hallin & Lindstrom 1998 cited in Larsson, L. (2000): 7. 123 Naringsdepartementet. 124 Glesbygdsverket. 125 Jordbruksdepartementet. 126 2000-2006. 122

127

CESAM, Centrum For Samhallsarbete och Mobilisiering, www.cesam.se

128

Herlitz (2001) cited in http://www.acoa.ca/e/media/press/press.shtml?1411. Bond (1998), Herlitz (1998) cited in Eckerberg, K. & Wide, J. (2000) 130 Folkrorelseradet. 131 Herlitz (1998) cited in Eckerberg, K & Wide, J. (2000). 132 The Worker’s Educational Association; the Study Promotion Association and the Vuxenskolan. 129

49

During the 1990s, two more projects took place to strengthen/develop links with municipalities in order to increase the influence and involvement of the local population in the development of their own community by means of e.g. a common working party. The Movement is in the process of collecting and testing new development methods relating to implementing plans. The National Federation of Rural Community Centres 133 was formed in the early part of the last century. In some places it plays a crucial role in maintaining services and preventing depopulation. The Swedish Local Heritage Federation 134 involves local rural communities in planning of the modern community with regard to local heritage because of their deep knowledge of local heritage.

LEADER II & LEADER + The LEADER II programme operated in 12 rural areas of Sweden from 1996-1999, and the LEADER+ programme has operated from 2000, as a single National Programme but in fewer areas, and with 12 LAGS, both programmes supporting rural development based on local conditions and initiatives. Through the creation of Local Action Groups (LAGs) the programme introduced formalised partnership practices at a local level, into regional policies. Local community groups have the opportunity to be represented on the LAGs through the obligation to have representation from the non-profit sector. The LAGs devise Local Development Plans which are approved by the National Rural Development Agency. By successfully applying for project funding, rural community development groups have an opportunity to influence and implement the development agenda. From 1996-1999 there were 1447 projects mainly developing, in order of prevalence, small firms, crafts and local services; rural tourism; Training and recruitment/ environmental and quality of life; exploitation and marketing; and technical support for rural development 135. The majority of successful applicants were from the non-profit sector and most of these were local community groups. For a full list of actors in sustainable rural development in Sweden see Appendix 3 of the under-noted 136 World Wildlife Fund report. Details of typical LEADER+ projects in Sweden can be accessed at www.buc.nu or at www.bygde.net

Experience of Rural Community Development (RCD) It is possible to analyse the experience of RCD in Sweden as follows:

Politics •

LEADER has influenced the reorientation of regional policy in Sweden. The development of partnerships has led to local and regional commitment to development partly replacing the re-distributive policies of earlier times. 137

133

Bygdegardarnas Riksforbund. Sveriges Hembygdsforbund. 135 Ledningskonsulterna (2000a. 2000b) cited in Larsson, L. (2000): 14. 136 http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/sweden.pdf 137 Larrson (2000) :20-21. 134

50

• •

•

•

Laws and regulations favour large-scale production systems rather than the small-scale and flexible production most often relevant in rural areas. There may be an element of hidden privatisation through the vague mandate given to non-profit and private organisations 138 in rural community development. Local rural community development can be seen as a necessary evil when the state withdraws provision of a service. The perceived problem of lack of co-ordination by government with regard to rural policy could be caused by a fundamental lack of vision for a sustainable society. Studies on Local Agenda 21 (i.e. on sustainable environmental policy) have identified lack of knowledge about sustainable development, attitudes and beliefs in large scale solutions and dependency on traditional policies, lack of interest and engagement from politicians and civil servants, and short-term political decision-making as difficulties when attempting to involve rural communities in development.

Institutions •

• • • •

•

•

•

•

Three models can describe the situation in Sweden today: o municipality and villages are equal with dialogue and exchange of knowledge; o ‘top-down’ perspective, albeit with some consultation. Municipality has an active role as initiator/organiser; o no strategy or purpose by the municipality. In those areas where previous work on rural development had taken place it was easier to get understanding and support from the public sector. Establishment and growth of local business is dependent on responsive support by the local political and administrative apparatus.139 Members are often recruited through personal networks, thus reducing the possibility for popular control. However, public access is good. LEADER has been and is considered an attractive opportunity for people in the countryside. The social and economic structures created by the projects may be a basis for a future viable rural economy. Some of the projects to strengthen/develop links with the municipalities were more successful than others. A pre-requisite for co—operation is an active person acting as catalyst (Bull 1998). There have been a large number of small projects directed at upgrading or preserving local commercial services, which has a major significance both for the quality of life and for the emerging tourist industry. 140 The ‘soft infrastructure’ e.g. a functioning network, support from local society, and attractive quality of life, support from public sector actors, local co-operative traditions and an active group of associations play a major role in creating a basis for mobilisation work 141, as do key individuals. Lundkist (1997) analysed infrastructures and other factors which affect the work of local rural groups and found that networks between groups, the municipality and other external support organisations were necessary to create a premise for local development.

138

Westholm (1999) cited in Persson, L.O. (2000). Westerdahl & Westlund (1997) cited in Persson, L.O. (2000). 140 Persson (1999). 141 Ronnby (1997) cited in Persson, L.O. (2000). 139

51

Project Management •

Participation is often achieved when action plans are developed but fades if plans are not acted upon.

Community capacity • •

•

• •

• •

• •

•

Perception of excessive administration and confusing rules vanished as groups gradually learned how to work their way through the administrative procedures. If one area receives more EU funds than another it is an indication that there is a better indigenous capacity of local actors to initiate projects and better will and resources (e.g. private co-funding of projects) with which to support local development. 142 Considerable input of voluntary work, capital, creativity have developed the local infrastructure (services, jobs and housing) but mostly has led to shaping of local identity and ‘renewing of local democracy.’ 143 The type of collective action undertaken at a community level affects the way group and social capital is built up ((Berglund 1998: 132ff). A well-performing area is likely to have more individuals who personally engage in community development and local well-being, formally and informally network, have a clear vision of the future, attachment to the area and who see the area as part of a bigger picture. In combination with other factors this has a synergic effect contributing to the area’s economic performance. More value should be given to their role. They are fundamental to keeping communities alive by organising themselves and fighting for schools, businesses and quality of life. Research on rural community economic development (RCED) suggests that a menu of support should be available to entrepreneurs. 144 Regional Growth Agreements tend to have a common focus on ‘soft’ infrastructure such as development of knowledge/education, as one of the ways of improving economic development. Labour force and supply of education are perceived as more important than infrastructure to development of the local economy. 145 Social capital has an effect on entrepreneurship; key elements include e.g attitude (individualistic yet co-operative), creativity, networking & drawing in investments, a positive identity and local capacity to respond to regional development policy. There is a need to support and build capacity, especially where this is lacking. Long-term business competitiveness depends on the ability to engage in a constant learning process. Enthusiasts and voluntary workers play an important role in all successful projects but there is a risk that a community become too dependent upon individuals (and this may restrict the potential for new ideas).

Programme Strategy/Administration •

Administrators of EU funding pay for verified expenses, meaning that projects have a slow and problematic start despite the opportunity to co-finance out-ofwork hours. Energy, enthusiasm and momentum are lost.

142

Persson & Ceccato (2001). Herlitz (1998) cited in Eckerberg, K. & Wide, J. (2000). 144 Nystrom (1996) cited in Persson, L.O. (2000). 145 NUTEK (1996:86), Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development. 143

52

• • •

Applications go through a two-tier system made up of the LAG and the county administrative board 146, which is time-consuming and frustrating. Incomplete, misleading and confusing initial information provided to applicants, concerning what kind of measures would be supported, led to loss of trust. Those not able to take part in LEADER + may lose tempo in the development process. Supportive mechanisms have to be enduring and long-lasting for the creation of a sustainable rural economy, offering competence through appropriate and adequate staffing over a longer time-span.

Research •

•

Institutions with a wide commitment to rural areas 147 have taken an active role in the development of rural research aiming to improve the situation of those living in rural areas, through the publication of reports and the dissemination of information. This research tends to have a local (town or village) focus. Structural analytical rural research on the other hand seeks to understand changes rather then shape them. It tends to have a regional focus and a longerterm perspective. Recent research has focused on differential development by looking at tangible and less tangible factors and how they interact with national, regional and local contexts to shape development. It can define different opportunities and constraints of local development.

Key texts • •

Atlantic Canada opportunities Agency website available on http://www.acoa.ca/e/ media/press/press.shtml?1411. [online] Accessed 12 April 2004. Eckerberg, K. & Wide, J. (2000) Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural

Development: The Swedish National Report to the World-Wide Fund for Nature and the Statutory Countryside Agencies of Great Britain, Department of Political

•

•

•

•

•

Science, Umea University, Sweden. Available at http://www.panda.org/ downloads/europe/sweden.pdf [online]. Accessed 10 April 2004. Larsson, L. (2000) Reorganising Rural Policy: The Swedish Leader II Experience, Dalarna Research Institute, Falun, Sweden. Available on: http://www.abdn. ac.uk/arkleton/npp/seminars/oct2000/larsson.doc [online]. Accessed 10 April 2004. Mattson, K.T. & Stenbacka (2004) Restructuring in Marginal Rural Areas, National Report – Sweden: The Role of Social Capital in Local Development, Uppsala University, Sweden. Available at: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/ publications/restrim/sweden.pdf [online]. Accessed 10 April 2004. Persson, L.O. (2000) Rural Development Research In Sweden: A literature review. Available on: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/npp/litswed.doc [online]. Accessed on 10 April 2004. Persson, L.O. & Ceccato, V.A. (2001) DORA – Dynamics of Rural Areas: National Report – Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden. Available on http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ arkleton/doradocs/nr_swed.pdf [online]. Accessed 10 April 2004. Popular Movements Council for Rural Development website available on: http://www.bygde.net/index.asp?lev=22&typ=1 [online]. Accessed 12 April 2004.

146

Beslutsgrupp. e.g. National Rural Development Agency; Popular Movements Council for Rural Development & the Institution for Rural development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

147

53

•

Swedish Leader groups website available on: http://www.leaderplus.se/eng/ redirect_frameset.asp?p=55&time=133023&strToMark=Some (restricted information available in English) [income]. Accessed 12 April 2004.

54

4: Country case studies: synthesis The country case studies, as noted, contain much that is on the margins of rural community development, tightly defined. For work which can be identified more clearly as rural community development, many of the practical issues raised in the case studies are familiar also from rural community development practice in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere. These include the following core issues for rural community development which are pertinent to the interests of the Carnegie Trust’s future involvement in this area of work: • • • • • • • •

It is marginal to mainstream funding programmes for both community development and rural policy There is only short-term funding for what have essentially to be long-term processes Tokenism best describes most attempts at community involvement generated from within government programmes There is a lack of attention to social inclusion and power relations Lines of accountability and legitimacy are often confused and there is characteristically a poor relationship to existing structures There is a lack of training for both volunteers, professionals and partners Support needs for programmes and staff are frequently unacknowledged LEADER is seen as the pre-eminent model influencing national policies although this itself often does not have a strongly rural community development focus

Dwyer et al. (2002: 109) have recently noted that ‘with the exception of LEADER+, EU rural development policy suffers from an overly prescriptive and top-down approach. This is particularly so with the Rural Development Regulation (RDR) and SAPARD that are constrained because funds and measures are still rooted in a 1960s sectoral and productivist CAP-culture.’ This is confirmed by a number of other authors (cf. Marsden 2003; Buller 2003; Shucksmith 2003). This review of the rural community development policies and practice of ten European countries (Section 3 above) suggests that this is also a feature of many national experiences, except where national policies have altered following the model of the LEADER programme (as in Finland’s mainstreaming of the LEADER approach in its POMO programme and in Hungary, for example) or where there has been a tradition of autonomous community development work, as in, for example, the Netherlands and Sweden. Where the LEADER community initiative has piloted an approach closer to rural community development principles, it has operated in the spaces between the more dominant pre-existing sectoral policies. Indeed, current sectoral policies relating to agriculture, including both EU Pillars 1 and 2, are generally acknowledged to be unable to deliver sustainable rural development (Dwyer et al. 2002; Marsden 2003). Attempts to reform the CAP have introduced some positive measures, but have failed to alter the basic sectoral nature of the policy nor to develop an integrated or coherent rural policy designed to address the environmental, social and economic needs of Europe's rural areas. The key elements of an integrated approach to local rural community development are well-understood and have been extensively documented (OECD 1993; Chanan 1999; Lowe et al. 1999; Moseley 2001; Community Development Forum 2001, etc.).

55

Moreover, they have enjoyed some recent support from the OECD and DG Regio, amongst others. The OECD (1998), for example, sees this approach as ‘a means of integrating different policies and programmes at a local level, thus releasing synergies and improving co-ordination, and as a means of improving local governance through involving local people and networks in the formulation and delivery of policy.’ A number of these key elements have been summarised in the recent report to DG Regio on the Spatial Impact of Community Policies and Costs of Non-Coordination (Robert et al. 2001), as follows: • • • • • •

it is related to a specific territory; it includes all sectors of the economy (agriculture, industry, services); it constitutes an integrated approach of governmental actions; it is necessarily based on the indigenous potentialities of rural areas; it is animated by a spirit of partnership and of dialogue between private and public organisations at regional and national levels; and it is conceived according to the specific requirements and needs of the region concerned.

Similarly, the OECD (1998) identifies several key characteristics of the local development approach: •

• •

•

•

there is an emphasis on the notion of ‘development’ (broad, structural and qualitative) and its capacity to generate new activities (in contrast to purely quantitative growth). it is based on the idea of highly differentiated processes and paths in different local areas due to the diversity of economic and historical conditions. the local territory provides the focus for the development process, for its decisions and actions, and constitutes a pool of potential resources to be tapped. Initiatives have a clearly local content, responding to local problems and objectives, to be initiated and carried out by local people. it involves a plurality of local actors who design, develop and implement these schemes or strategies, people and institutions which have often been ignored by past policies. the local approach attempts to build up the processes of development over the long term by emphasising the economic and social dynamics and the behaviour of actors and improving local capacity to take the initiative in response to events.

The OECD continued its analysis, providing an interesting ‘official’ counterpoint to the position enunciated by the Budapest Declaration (see Appendix 4): ‘Part of the logic of local development policies is that by using these approaches, local actors can add value to economic development and social policies designed and implemented by national governments. Firstly, the mobilisation of local actors through local development initiatives helps to generate additional proposals for action and resources and competencies to help achieve them. Local development policies enable local actors to act as catalysts for development and draw on the ideas, energy and commitment of local people. Secondly, local awareness of needs and opportunities and local involvement in strategy development helps to tailor policy solutions towards the distinct requirements of each area and provides feedback on the effectiveness of the actions that are undertaken. Thus local development policies adapt responses to local need. Thirdly, local development structures provide a forum for an integrated approach to policy delivery in which various instruments and

56

funding streams are combined for maximum effectiveness. This can lead to better co-ordination of policy, which is important given the multiple causes of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion for example’ (OECD 1998). Robert et al. (2001), in their report for DG Regio, go on to review the experience of integrated rural development in Objective 2 and LEADER areas and conclude that the adoption of a truly integrated rural development policy is far from being obtained. ‘The persistence of problems as regards coordination and cooperation shows that considerable efforts are still necessary at all levels (Community, national, regional, local) and between these administrative levels’ (p.142). In this context, the report suggests the following: •

•

•

•

Institutional readjustments at Community, national and regional levels to allow the establishment of a correct balance between the various administrative levels associated with the sectoral and territorial policies affecting rural areas; Greater flexibility of operational programmes and Community initiatives, and even certain aspects of the CAP, to take account of the differentiated countryside, notably in the most fragile rural areas; Input into strategic objectives and visioning from local communities which ‘are the actors of any development strategy, the recipients of policies or of programmes.’ Partnership arrangements, at the operational level, which provide the mechanisms to guarantee an institutional framework for integration, both vertically and horizontally, ‘centred more on territorial than sectoral aspects.’

Because of these issues it is clear that agents operating at national or regional level have an important role to play in setting a coherent framework within which local development initiatives can best add value to ‘top-down’ approaches. According to the OECD (1998), ‘they should: •

•

•

•

•

•

Provide technical support structures to assist local agencies to learn about good practices, for example in strategy development, financial management and monitoring and evaluation. Secure co-ordination at the highest levels where mainstream policies and strategies are formulated, so that top-down policies can effectively be integrated at local level by local development agencies and so that vertical integration can be achieved between local, regional and national policies. Provide a mechanism for effective co-ordination of local development programmes at the local level to avoid duplication and harmful competition between areas (for example in attracting inward investment) and to maximise synergies (for example through shared use of infrastructure). Permit some flexibility in the local application of nationally-designed and funded policies and give local agencies an incentive to innovate and develop programmes tailored to their own needs. Encourage local areas to develop the type of strategies recommended in this study (for example based on endogenous and sustainable development), through the dissemination of good practice guidance and the development of appropriate national and regional instruments that can be applied at the local level. Encourage local areas to develop the type of structures recommended in this study (for example based on capacity-building, partnership and local

57

•

empowerment) through the dissemination of good practice guidance and the design of appropriate national and regional initiatives. Ensure that adequate funding is available for programmes in areas with the greatest problems.

It is also important that national and regional governments raise their own understanding of the benefits of local development and of the practicalities involved so that they may create an appropriate framework and exploit the opportunities available.’ (OECD 1998). We have quoted from these reports to DG Regio and from OECD partly because their findings capture and synthesise in many respects the experience of European and other countries in rural development, drawing attention to how far there is to go; but partly also to show that there is considerable agreement amongst organisations, community development activists, and researchers about what is required to promote more successful and sustainable rural development. Importantly for the Carnegie Commission, this consensus can be seen to encompass substantial elements of a rural community development approach (capacity-building, empowerment, training and support) alongside more effective structures for vertical and horizontal integration of policies and practice. At the present time, despite this emerging consensus amongst those concerned with rural development, policies and funding priorities tend to reflect instead the strong vested interests of particular sectors of industry (farming, most notably) and of government (operating still through ‘policy silos’). Nevertheless, there are useful insights to be gained from practice in several of the case study areas, including countries such as Romania which have started from a very low base in recent years, and from models such as that of the Carpathian Foundation in Hungary and neighbouring states, POMO in Finland, and the Rural Parliaments in Hungary, Sweden and Finland which may be worth further investigation (see also Hallhead 2003).

58

5: Conclusions: issues and challenges for the Carnegie UK Trust This review of rural community development in Europe cannot claim to be complete. There are countries missing and, in the time allowed for the review, the authors have had to be highly derivative, relying on networks of contacts, websites and some central literature. Nevertheless, it is hoped that there is adequate information here to provide the Carnegie Commission with some clear pointers about the way in which it might strategically approach the question of how to make use of the insights to be derived from rural community development work in Europe, in informing its own increasing engagement with this work. Some structural points first. Whilst this review has provided a huge range of examples of what is described as rural community development, as we have noted earlier, the reality is that very little of it appears to involve grassroots community development work. Much of the work described here, including most of the LEADER programme work – the largest sustained EU intervention of the past decade – involves existing agencies and organisations and very little involves capacity-building at small community level. Of course, this varies considerably from one country to another, and even within countries (Shortall and Shucksmith 1998), since considerable freedom was given to member states and to local agencies in the implementation of this pilot programme. Whilst many LEADER programmes can not be regarded as endogenous development, there are nevertheless other instances in which considerable emphasis has been placed on a community development approach148, in so far as this has been possible within the constraints of this initiative. There is clearly, then, scope for more work at the most local level and of a very basic kind in terms of community development, while at the same time there is some experience on which to draw. One clear message emerging from this review also is that any work which is supported by Carnegie has to be seen in a long-term context. Many of the projects, again including the LEADER programmes, have worked within very short timescales and there are serious questions about their sustainability. Working in rural areas, with scattered populations often facing the consequence of many years of social and economic decline, takes a long time, and funding for project or developmental work should not, we would suggest, be entered into unless this was clearly in mind. This is even more important if such interventions are to be socially inclusive. Another important issue is that of the support and training available to people in rural areas seeking to build capacity through a community development approach. A number of the case studies highlighted the requirement for trained community development professionals to work with volunteers in rural communities, and the difficulties which arose where such support and expertise was not available. There may be a case for consideration to be given in Britain to the professionalisation of rural development employment, in the interests of more effective practice in this field. This raises issues not only of training but also of resourcing, of course. The case studies also reveal a need for training of volunteers themselves: local enthusiasts are frequently very effective as catalysts to community action but are often not adequately trained or supported to cope with the complexity of the entire development process

148

See the special issue of Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 2 (2000), devoted to LEADER.

59

over a long period. Some of the case studies suggest possible models through which such training and support could be organised, if adapted to the UK context. There are some clear gaps emerging from the review. Most of the country reports identify a serious lack of research into the impact of rural community development (as opposed to research on rural development); we rarely know what works and why and this gap needs to be addressed, perhaps by some focused and representative case study-based research studies. A second gap is that, despite some good examples, the sharing of experience across the whole of the New Europe, is fragmented and uneven. A network for transnational sharing of experience was developed through LEADER 1 and 2 149, but this has not been continued through LEADER+ (despite a budget existing for this), and moreover the need for such sharing goes well beyond the LEADER programme. The range of projects developed within the LEADER programme have often been shaped strongly by national governments and there are other projects outside the LEADER circle which have emerged more from ‘bottom-up’ initiatives and which need to be drawn into the networking process and share both their experience and the benefits which could be derived from this. There is a case to be made for a more systematic sharing of good practice, drawing on practice and research, and perhaps organised through some kind of series of seminars or workshops, with published material and a website to follow. The latest thinking in DG Agriculture also calls for “more support for networking and exchange of good practice” (Ahner 2004, 13). Strategically, the Trust has some difficult choices to make. Clearly, it cannot address the entirety of the wide range of issues identified in this review. It therefore has to make strategic choices about the ways in which the value of rural community development work in the UK and Ireland could be demonstrated by some wellfunded, sustainable, high profile but highly selective initiatives, over and above the ideas outlined earlier. To do so, require the identification of criteria by which these strategic choices might be made. It also requires the Trust to think carefully about the way it might build on what exists already by selective funding strategies rather than by attempting to create new structures, mechanisms or agencies. Any intervention would have to complement the structures and initiatives already in existence, in line with the traditions of community development itself. Notwithstanding this, the EU’s LEADER community initiative (described memorably as “a very post-modern programme, in that it is one with virtually no money”) shows that even a small intervention can achieve a lot, if it can be bent and adapted to varying local contexts. Moreover, the experience of LEADER has also demonstrated, and built acceptance of, the need for community development in rural areas of Europe. Thus, the evaluation of LEADER2 judged it “to be efficient because it was adaptable to every rural socio-economic context, brought key actors together, mobilised voluntary effort and was responsive to small scale activities and projects. It was judged effective because it closed the gap between a top down programme and the local people, conveyed responsibility to local actors, and linked public authorities with the local economy and civil society. It contributed to sustainability by opening up new ways of creating added value and through capacity building.” (Ahner 2004, 15). LEADER may not have often pursued a community development approach, but it has helped to promote acceptance of the virtues of such an approach. 149

See the AEIDL EU Rural Observatory website.

60

On the basis of this brief study, we would suggest that the Carnegie Commission: 1. Funds, together with partner stakeholders where possible, research into what works in rural community development in a number of cases identified from these initial scoping studies. These case studies could explore a variety of forms of rural community development agencies, structures and mechanisms – for example the use of national and transnational networks, long-term developmental work, advocacy, coalition building, sustainable funding approaches etc – where there are recognisable models of potentially good practice ; 2. Seeks to build consensus in the UK and Ireland that such an approach should be the basis for policy and practice in relation to sustainable rural communities; 3. Helps build a superstructure – for example, through funding the development of pan-European networks, conferences, seminars and dissemination of good practice – where there is a basic level of activity but little such superstructure in place which might help provide local added value within a particular territory, and where appropriate at regional and national levels. 4. Supports the development of training and skills competencies for those working in rural areas, enabling both the emergence of a rural community development profession and more effective training, support and mentoring for volunteers and citizens. 5. Seeks to influence, in the light of the weaknesses of rural community development policy and practice throughout the EU identified in Section 4 above, the policy and practice of the EU and other pan-European institutions and agencies in favour of the promotion of sustainable rural community development. Specifically, this is likely to involve: a. lobbying for the mainstreaming of the LEADER approach as a substantial part (30%) of the EU’s rural development budget, along with an EU rural observatory; and b. seeking to ensure that member states in their rural development plans pursue a well-founded, rural community development approach, with appropriate training, skills competencies, support and mentoring. A further possibility would be to identify as the target for funding programmes particular situations or contexts in which to work – such as areas with rapidly declining populations or industrial bases, or more remote areas; or specific population groups to work with – such as young people, women, or minority groups in rural areas, such as travellers.

61

Appendix 1: Bibliography Key Literature Ahner, D. (2004) ‘Rural Development and the new financial perspectives,’ paper to EU conference on Improving Living Conditions and Quality of Life in Rural Europe, Westport, Ireland, 1 June 2004. Almas, R. (1988) ‘Evaluation of a participatory development project in three Norwegian rural communities’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1: 26-32. Local mobilisation in the Swedish countryside, from Bond, S. (2001) http://www.bygde.net/index.asp?lev=22&typ=1 Carrino, Luciano (1984) ‘Community action in Giuliagno’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2: 88-95. Chamberlayne, P. (1993) ‘The elderly and community action in East Germany’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2: 149-155. Chapman, P., Phimister, E., Shucksmith, M., Upward, R. and Vera-Toscano, E. (1998) Poverty and exclusion in rural Britain, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Chanan, G. (1999) Local Community Involvement: a handbook for good practice, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin. Cloke, P. and Edwards, G. (1986) ‘Rurality in England and Wales 1981: a replication of the 19721 Index, Regional Studies, Vol,. 20, No. 4: 289-306. Cornish, S. et al. (2002) Under the stones: hidden need in rural Cumbria, Penrith: Northern Fells Rural Group. Craig, G. (2001) Poverty and social exclusion in East and Central Europe, Report to Grantmakers East Group Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania, October. Craig, G. and Manthorpe, J. (2000) Fresh Fields: rural social care, research, polucy and practice agendas, York: York Publishing Services/Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Dax, T. and Herbertshuber, M. (2002) ‘Regional and Rural Development in Austria and its influence on Leadership and Local Power’, pp.203-229 in Halfacree, K., Kovach, I. and Woodward, R. (eds) Leadership and Local Power in Rural Development, Aldershot: Ashgate. Djorgov, V. (2003) ‘Working with Romanies and others in Bulgaria’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1: 63-64. Dunn, J. Hodge, I., Monk, S. and Kiddle, C. (1998) Developing indicators of rural disadvantage, Salisbury: Rural Development Commission. Dwyer, J., Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Bennett, H., Lowe, P. and Ward, N. (2002). Europe’s

Rural Futures – the Nature of Rural Development: rural development in an enlarging Europe, Land Use Policy Group of Great Britain and WWF Europe with the Institute for European Environmental Policy. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2004) Quality of Life in Rural Europe. Dublin. Geissendorfer, M. and Seibert, O. (2000) ‘Bottleneck analysis: a method for evaluating and assessing qualitative characteristics in the rural development process’, Triesdorf: Forschungsgruppe Agrar- and Regionalenwicklung. Gorman, M., Wilson, S., Mannion, J., Kinsella, J. and O’Connor, D. (2004) ‘At home with the Cork declaration: rural development practice and policy in Ireland’ in M. Gorman, M. et al. (2002) ,The role of EU policy in the evolution of rural development in selected EU states. Hyyrylainen, T. (1999) ‘Changing structures of Finnish Village Action’, New Rural Policy, 2/99: 98-105. Isosuo, T. (1999) ‘LEADER leads to POMO’, New Rural Policy, 2/99: 119-123. Jindrova, P. (2003) ‘Community development in the Czech Republic’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1: 59-62. Kearney, B., Boyle. G. and Walsh, J. (1995). Evaluation of impacts of compensatory allowances in Less Favoured Areas of Ireland, Dublin. Report to Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Majewski, E. et al. (2003) The future of rural areas in the CEE new member states, Halle: IAMO.

62

Marsden, T. (2003) The Condition of Rural Sustainability, den Haag: Van Gorcum. Meistad, T. (2001) Women orientated initiatives for rural community development in Norway, Trondheim: Rural Transfer Network. Millard, F. (1993) ‘The plight of the elderly in Poland’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2: 108-119. Moseley, M. (2003) Local partnerships and rural development –the European Experience, CABI Publishing. Muhlinghaus, S. and Walty, S. (2001) ‘Endogenous development in Swiss mountain communities’, Mountain Research and Development, Vol.21, No. 3, August: 236-242. Nitu, F. (2003) ‘The picture in Romania’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 38, No.1: 6568. OECD (1998) Best Practices in Local Development, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD (2003) Agricultural and rural development: Policies in the Baltic countries, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. PACE (2003) Combating social exclusion in rural areas: analyses and approaches, Paris: Prevenir et Agir contre l’Exclusion. Peia, L. (2001) ‘The formula for success?: Romania and SAPARD’, Sofia: American University of Bulgaria, mimeo. Ploeg, J.D. van der (2003) ‘Rural development and the mobilisation of local actors’, European Conference on Rural Development, Salzburg, mimeo. PREPARE (1999) Creating partnerships for Pre-accession, Luxembourg: European Parliament. Ray C. (1998) Culture, Intellectual Property and Territorial Rural Development, Sociologia Ruralis, 38, 1, 3-20. Ray C. (1999a) Endogenous Development in an Era of Reflexive Modernity, Journal of Rural Studies, 15, 3, 257-267. Ray C. (1999b) Towards a Meta-Framework of Endogenous Development : Repertoires, Paths, Democracy and Rights, Sociologia Ruralis, 39, 4, 521-537. Ray C. (1999c) Introduction to special issue, Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 2. Robert, J. et al. (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and Costs of Non-Coordination, report to DG Regio. Saglie, I., Falleth, E. et al. (2001) Spatial planning as strategy for sustainable development: the role of social capital in resource management, Oslo: NIBR. Seibert, O. and Geissendorfer, M. (2004) European Ex post evaluation of LEADER II – Triesdorf: Forschungsgruppe Agrarund Geographical report, Germany, Regionalentwicklung. Shucksmith, M. (2000) Exclusive countryside?, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Shortall, S. and Shucksmith, M. (1998) Integrated Rural Development : Issues Arising from the Scottish Experience, European Planning Studies, 6, 1,73-88. Shucksmith, M. (2000) ‘Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion’, Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 2: 208-218. Tausz, K. (1990) ‘Why community development has still to find a role in Hungary’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4: 299-305. Uusitalo, E. (2003) ‘Trust in the local people’, European Conference on Rural Development, Salzburg, mimeo. Uusitalo, E. (2003) Local action groups in Finland, mimeo. Varga, T.A. and Versceg, I. (1991) ‘An experiment in community development in the Bakony, Hungary’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1 :50-59. Wolf, J. (1992) ‘Assumptions, motivations and neutrality in rural development’, Community Development Journal, Vol. 27, No.1: 21-29. Westholm, E., Moseley, M. and Stenlas, N. (eds.) Local partnerships and rural development in Europe: a literature review of Practice and Theory, Falun, Sweden: Dalarna Research Institute. There are also several major international journals which focus on community development in general and rural community development in particular. Noteworthy amongst these are, for example, the Community Development Journal, published by Oxford University Press; the

63

journal New Rural Policy, the Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy (which had a special supplement in English in 1999). Other journals, both general, such as Sociologia Ruralis and more specific, such as Mountain Research and Development, contain more occasional articles about rural community development.

64

Appendix 2: organisations

Sources

for

other

relevant

institutions

and

Details of the LEADER programme are obtainable from national authorities responsible for rural development (DEFRA in the case of the UK) or, at EU level from: European Commisssion, Directorate General for Agriculture – Directorate F, Unit F3, Rue de la Loi 200, Office L 130 6/197, B1049 Brussels email [email protected] Details of the UK LEADER network are available at www.ukLEADER.org.uk and of LEADER+: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/LEADERplus/index_en.htm There are Leader websites in most national territories e.g. www.leaderplus.de for Germany. Details

of

the

PREPARE

programme

are

available

from

http://www.

preparenetwork.org/index

Details of ECOVAST can be obtained from http://www.ecovast.org/latest or, from national contacts such as, in the UK, from [email protected] or in Hungary from [email protected]

Details of SOS network are available from www.sos-project.org Details of COGEN can be obtained from www.cogen.org Details of LYDIA are available at http://freespace.virgin.net/mike.wight/lydia/index.htm Details of ALLAVIDA from www.allavida.org Details of the Development School can be got from [email protected] GESIS is a social science institute in Germany which focuses on the transfer of social science information and data between Eastern and Wsstern Europe, as well as fostering East-West co-operation and support for comparative research. GESIS is based in Bonn and Berlin: website http://www.gesis.org/IZ//Index.htm It publishes a bimonthly digest of information and research and has a database published by the Berlin Institute of Sociology covering a range of social science institutions and journals from Eastern Europe. It can be searched for relevant material by using the terms ‘agri’ or ‘rural’ in the field: search. A similar website can be found at http://www.gesis.org/Information/FORIS/Rcherche/index.htm, searching with the terms ‘EU’ and ‘agr.’ The Federal Institute for Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas, based in Vienna, is affiliated to the Austrian Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry but undertakes research studies both on a national and a transnational basis, with research partners in other countries, covering – with relevance to community development in rural areas – issues such as integration of youth, programmes for rural women and inmigrants, rural poverty and policy development. Website http://www.babf.bmlfuw.gv.at The European Foundation Centre, based in Brussels, brings together philanthropic organisations active across Europe. It has a Grantmakers East Group which focuses on grant-makers in East and Central Europe. Both organisations convene regular meetings of foundations, usually based on particular themes such as poverty and social exclusion http://www.efc.be It has recently retrenched somewhat as several major organisations have downsized their commitment to East and Central Europe.

65

Euracademy is the Academy for Sustainable Rural Development, a network of practitioners and academics, which works through summer academies (for example in Hungary in 2003) and distance learning projects. It has links to a number of research institutes and consultancies. http://www.euracademy.org/slu.asp Its most recent conference focused on the issue of capacity-building for sustainable rural development, arguing that this took time in rural areas and that sustained periods of funding were therefore required.

66

Appendix 3: Other country experience: brief notes This section incorporates brief notes on countries which were not chosen as case studies but may provide further useful information, experience and contacts. Albania: A few major International NGOs such as Oxfam, in cooperation with local NGOs and the Albanian government, have been working on the launch of a rural development strategy. This is one component of the National Development Strategy (aka Poverty Reduction Strategy) developed in conjunction with the World Bank and IMF. Contacts: [email protected]; [email protected] Belgium: Only 1.4% of the civilian working population of Belgium in working in agriculture. Three rural development programmes have been approved for Belgium covering the Flemish region, the Walloon region and a federal RDP covering the whole Belgian territory, but these focus largely on agricultural issues with a small focus on rural tourism and the integration of vulnerable rural populations and services. Leader+ has two programmes covering the Flemish and Walloon regions. Belgium has a member organisation of CEBSD, VIBOSO, which works in the Flemish region. 150 Bulgaria: Bulgaria is a very rural country with 81% of its territory rural in nature (defined in terms of the Bulgarian government’s threshold of less than 150 inhabitants per km2. In these areas, unemployment levels are substantially (often by more than 50%) higher than in urban areas, and employment is dominated by agriculture (with as few as 13% of rural dwellers having cash income outside the agricultural sector). In terms of most social, economic, educational and health indicators, Bulgaria is least ‘well-developed’ compared with its East and Central European neighbours. 151 Funding has been made available for rural development programmes through SAPARD (2000-2007), the UNDP and the Swiss Agency for Cooperation and Development. Community development is still emerging as a recognisable practice and the key agency here is CEGA (Creating Effective Grassroots Alternatives152), established in 1995, although its main focus is not on rural community development. CEGA is supported by a range of foundations and aid programmes from the US, Netherlands, Germany and the UK and has been acknowledged by the EU as a key organisation concerned with democracy and civil society. It is an action-oriented organisation working in three main areas: providing resources and technical support, disseminating working practices, and advocacy, coalition building and public campaigns for change. CEGA has, for example, a programme for income generation in several villages, it works with ROMA (which are largely rurally-based: see Djorgov 2003) and has several free-standing programmes aimed at specific population groups such as young people. It publishes a quarterly newsletter Why Not? and has a range of specific project publications. Djorgov estimated in 2003 that there were 7000 organisations in the field of community development – broadly defined – but that only about 2000 of these were working effectively. The American University on Sofia, with funding through the USAID programme is also engaged in community development and the promotion of participation through 150

VIBOSO, www.viboso.be Human Development Report, (2004), United Nations Development Programme, Sofia. 152 http://www.cega.bg 151

67

the Chitalishta (traditional arts and education cultural centres) network. 153 This has estbalished three-internet-related projects which are designed to increase public access to information on social and economic topics, promote networking and provide access to IT education for rural communities, through the creation of portals and remote rural telecenters. Czech Republic: Two organisations are of interest in the Czech Republic. One is the Active Policy programme, 154 established in 1998, is an initiative of public agencies and NGOs which is seeking to deal with local problems – such as high unemployment levels - in the town and surrounding local rural district of Usti nad Labem. The Programme involves 50 local partners. The programme is thus effectively an interagency community organising tool which focuses on three key spheres of work: social, economic development, and infrastructure and environmental development. The scope for active engagement by small community groups seems limited. The other organisation is the Centre for Community Organising (cpkp) 155, based in Prague, and the CEBSD national affiliate. This is a relatively small organisation in European terms but large by Czech standards. It emerged, as did much of the community development work in the Czech Republic, in the mid-1990s, supported by philapnthropic foundations and foreign aid, supporting local campaigns around regeneration, the position of minorities, building community organisations and – in rural areas – environmental issues and the regeneration of rural customs. An early commentary on community development in the Czech Republic (Jindrova 2003) suggests that the focus on sectoral issues remains a problem, with litle cross-cutting work, and the failure of the state and municipalities to fund community development in a serious way. The Czech Republic as a whole positioned itself effectively for EU accession but appears not to have developed much experience in a bottom-up context, being reliant on extensive outside funding streams. These funding streams are now beginning to dry up. Denmark: Denmark has 78% of its land mass (a significant proportion of it as islands) in agricultural or forested areas. Agriculture is fairly advanced technologically which means that environmental pollution has become a fairly serious problem and that agriculture has employed fewer and fewer people. Alternative employment opportunities are necessary including for the 57% of all farm holdings which are now part-time. There is one Leader+ programme for the whole of Denmark. 156 The Danish Centre for Rural Research and Development has traditionally focused on farming, the landscape and regional economics but is now repositioning itself to consider social aspects of rural life and to make stronger links between research and its users. 157 Amongst its current projects are ones concerned with the capacity of local associations and networks, women in rural areas as entrepreneurs, and evaluations of local village projects. The Roerbaek Centre for Social and Cultural Development 158 is a private institute offering a range of services in the field of social development. One current project concerns the development of local rural district policies for each municipality, involving development workshops, local conferences and vision seminars.

153

seee ‘Special and Cross-Cutting Initiatives’, USAID, Bulgaria. http://www.usti-nl.cz/pap 155 Centre for Community Organising,www.cpkp.cz 156 http://www.leaderplus.dk: see also www.leadersja.dk for details of a particular sustainable rural development project in South Jutland. 157 http://www.cful.dk/menu/gbformal.htm 158 http://www.robak.dk 154

68

The Danish CEBSD affiliate is an urban-based organisation, KSS.

159

Estonia: Some development work has been undertaken in Estonia through the intervention of Swedish partners but community development is at a very early stage. For example, Siksali Development Centre is a non-profit organisation in SouthEastern Estonia, established only in 2002, to help local people find new ideas for alternative economic activities in an area which was economically depressed and where rural depopulation was accelerating. It has organised youth exchange projects, training work, the development of local democratic forms, and is exploring the promotion of rural opportunities and cultural traditions. 160 France: France has the largest area of rural land within the EU as a whole with almost 90% of its landmass designated agricultural or afforested. The rural population declined steeply for the last 25 years but has now stabilised at about 13Million. There is a national Rural Development Plan, rural development strands in 20 more rural French regions, further rural development strands for French overseas territories and a Leader+ programme covering a total of 140 Local Action Groups. Leader+ is concerned with innovation in terms of sustainability, local economic development and environmental protection; criteria for supporting LAGs include use of new knowledge, improving the quality of life, exploiting local products, and optimising natural and cultural resources. Some LAGS also focus on population groups at risk such as women or young people. The French organisation MSA (Mutualite Sociale Agricole 161) took a leading role in the short-term PACE programme (see section 2 above) which sought to identify factors which could combat poverty and social exclusion in rural areas. France has a national centre in affiliation with CEBSD, based in Paris.

162

Italy: Italy’s rural areas are characterised by some of the smallest average land holdings per farm within the EU (only Greece has smaller averages). Agriculture in the north is more profitable and rural depopulation is more prominent a trend in the south of the country but in both parts of the country family owenrship and management is still typical. Seven Italian regions have Objective One status and there are 22 Leader+ programmes. These programmes were slow in being chosen and approved and Local Action Groups are at a relatively early stage; this means that many of these programmes may formally expire before adequate sustainable work programmes have been put in place. Italy has, however, seen some innovative community-based projects over the past twenty years (e.g. Carrino 1984) Latvia: The Latvian government has a separate department responsible for rural development. Website http://www.zm.gov.lv/country Lithuania: A UNDP programme has been established to promote the mobilisation and increased participation of local or community-based groups through the involvement of joint school and local community teams in local decision-making, strengthening their autonomy and capacity-building. The project is also intended to contribute to an improvement of the conditions for sustainable human development in rural areas. Contacts: [email protected]; website www.undp.lt 159

KSS, Kristeligt Studenter-Settlement, www.settlementet.dk http://www.siksali.ee 161 www.msa.fr 160

162

MDSL, Le Mouvement pour un Developpement Social, email [email protected]

69

Luxembourg: Rural areas account of 95% of the total area of Luxembourg and over 90% of the Grand Duchy is regarded as a less favoured area in EU terms. A single Leader+ programme covers the whole of Luxembourg with four Local Action Groups; this absorbs about 2.5% of total rural development expenditure. Website: http://www.gouvernement.lu/gouv/fr/gouv/minist/avdr.html

Malta: the small island of Gozo, the most rural part of Malta, has a draft development plan which was written for the period 1998-2000 but not implemented as a result of a change in government. The relevant government Ministry is contactable as follows: Claudia Cassar, St Francis Square, Victoria, Gozo, Malta. Netherlands: The Netherlands is a very densely populated country and whilst there is a relatively high proportion of land used for agriculture, its overall level of urbanisation is also very high. Land is under immense pressure and for many years the nation has been engaged in the reclamation of land from the sea (notably in the ZuiderZee) to extend its productive capacity. Rural development work focuses on sustainable agriculture, water management, economic diversification and promoting tourism and recreation, inter alia. There are four Leader+ programmes in the north, east, south and Randstad province which absorb a relatively very high (16% compared with less than 5% in some countries) share of overall EU rural development funding streams. 163 The Netherlands has had a long tradition of community development in both urban and rural areas, although official support for it has diminished in recent years as part of a retenchment of general government financial support for welfare provision, and it has also long had a national institute for the promotion of community development (Matschappelijkopbouwwerk, based in ‘s Hertogenbosch and now with a wider remit and a new title, Verwey-Jonker Institut164). The national community development agency affiliated to CEBSD is LCO, based in den Haag. 165 There are many forms of rural community development project in the Netherlands including village appraisals, a network of local action groups supported by a national lobby group LVKK 166 Portugal: Portugal’s agricultural population, though declining, is still 11% of the total population of mainland Portugal and is ageing and said to be resistant o innovation. It accounts for about 15% of employment on the mainland, slightly less in Madeira (where tourism is rapidly growing) and considerably more in the Azores. Portugal’s less favoured areas constitute more than 80% of its land mass which makes it both more rural and more vulnerable than most of its EU partners. RDPs have a strong focus on agri-environment and the Leader+ programme, which is relatively better-financed and available to the whole of Portugal, has a focus on new ideas to improve the quality of life in rural areas. These aim to mobilise, reinforce and improve local initiatives and local skills; promote co-operation between rural areas; increase the attractiveness of rural spaces, transforming them into areas of economic potential; guarantee new integrated and sustainable approaches to local development; and ensure dissemination of knowledge and transfer of experiences. Wolf (1992) has reviewed the values which should underpin rural development in 163

for a good portrait of a Leader project in northern Netherlands, contact Lauwersland Leader coordination at [email protected] 164 http://www.verwey-jonker.nl 165 LCO, Landelijk Centrum Opbouwwerk, www.opbouwwerk,nl 166 contact [email protected]

70

Portugal, arguing from his experience of working in the Centro de Educacao in rural Portugal, that the role of activists – particularly in the wake of a rigid ‘top-down’ political regime - must be to help local people think through clear programmes and analyses alongside a general value orientation, but that community developers must also help people to step outside frameworks of rule to be able to approach problems flexibly. Slovak Republic: The most significant organisation in Slovakia is VOKA (vidiecka Organizacia pre komunitne aktivity – Rural Organisation for Rural Activities). 167 VOKA is concerned with community and NGO development, with small business development and with networking, and most of all with helping Slovak villagers mobilise in order to improve the quality of their lives. Roughly 43% of Slovakia’s population lives in rural villages. VOKA is a membership organisation (more than 60 members are currently associated with it) and its programmes include community development, advice and consultancy, small business assistance, rural women’s leadership programmes, networking and a micro-credit programme. It has an active publishing and dissemination programme. It has largely been supported by a range of US philanthropic foundations including Charles Stewart Mott and Rockefeller Brothers. As in many East and Central European countries, one major difficulty is to rebuild an active civil society at all levels. Switzerland: Rural development in Switzerland is currently ‘undergoing transformation due to accelerated structural change in the economy, … European integration, stagnation in the Swiss tourist industry, and the reorganisation of Swiss agircultural and regional policies’ (Muhlinghaus and Walty 2001). Researchers have argued that one response to this should be what they call endogenous development, that is ‘self-determined participatory development based on regional needs’. They pose this as a counterweight to traditional regional policy which has involved the market integration of rural communities and which they argue has largely failed. Endogenous development refers to local needs, involves a participatory paradigm and is able to incorporate social, economic and ecological issues. There has been a long tradition of local initiatives but they have not received structural support from the canton governments. Two case studies used by Muhlinghausen and Walty describe ways in which such development has been stimulated in very rural areas and led to, for example, a culture club, a village café and groups for the promotion of tourism and economic development. They argue that the necessary conditions for promoting such development include strong internal community resources, external inputs including funding, and good information exchange and collaboration.

167

http://www.voka.sk: see also ‘Helping rural people build better lives’, Banska Bystrica: VOKA, Mimeo.

71

Appendix 4: Budapest Declaration Building European civil society through community development Preamble One hundred and thirty community workers, researchers, donors and policy-makers, and representatives from government, civil society organisations and community groups, from 33 countries across the European Union and beyond, met March 25-28 2004 at an international conference, to prepare for the accession of ten new countries to the EU. The conference focused on building civil society in Europe through community development - was sponsored by the International Association for Community Development, the Combined European Bureau for Social Development, and the Hungarian Association for Community Development under the patronage of the President of Hungary. Community development is a way of strengthening civil society by prioritising the actions of communities, and their perspectives in the development of social, economic and environmental policy. It seeks the empowerment of local communities, taken to mean both geographical communities, communities of interest or identity and communities organising around specific themes or policy initiatives. It strengthens the capacity of people as active citizens through their community groups, organisations and networks; and the capacity of institutions and agencies (public, private and non-governmental) to work in dialogue with citizens to shape and determine change in their communities. It plays a crucial role in supporting active democratic life by promoting the autonomous voice of disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. It has a set of core values/social principles covering human rights, social inclusion, equality and respect for diversity; and a specific skills and knowledge base. Delegates attending the March 2004 Budapest conference, representing civil society organisations, governments, donor agencies and community groups, acknowledge the priority now being given by the European Union to strengthen civil society and emphasise the important role which community development can play in supporting that process and protecting the human rights of all. They request the EU, national, regional and local governments - as appropriate - to commit themselves actively to build a socially and economically inclusive, diverse, environmentally sustainable and socially just society, and to ensure the structures, policies and mechanisms are in place to support dialogue between the EU and members states on the one hand and civil society on the other. This will require both moral and practical support for community participation, and appropriate legal, institutional and material conditions, but with specific support for community development itself. Delegates wish to stress the importance of community development in building mechanisms to promote the inclusion of all residents of Europe – whether permanent, seeking permanency or migrant. They reject both the increasingly explicit manifestations of racism and xenophobia and the implicit racism manifested in those current immigration policies, which lend credence to the notion of ‘Fortress Europe’. They also acknowledge the strengthening of social, cultural and economic life, which will be consequent on the enlargement of the EU. Delegates wish to emphasise the importance of developing mechanisms which could facilitate the sharing of best practice both within the EU but also between the EU and those many countries and institutions outside the EU (including other European countries) where community development has played a significant role in addressing poverty and social exclusion, including in situations of conflict and peace-building. Finally, they also wish to stress the need to understand the differing ways in which poverty, social exclusion and marginalisation may impact upon cultural and national minorities, on migrants and on those living in rural as well as urban areas. Delegates emphasise that the practice of community development strives to endorse and give voice to minority perspectives on policy and practice development; the distinct experience of Black and Minority Ethnic communities should be an integral part of the development of policy and practice.

72

A key conference objective was to agree a common statement on community development in Europe, to be directed to the EU, national governments and other key stakeholders. The following is the text of this agreed statement. The conference commends the Declaration to you and urges support for the proposals below. 

Community development policy and legislation at European, national and local levels of government

1. The EU Director General for Employment and Social Affairs should take the lead in publishing a cross-EU policy statement in 2005 highlighting the necessity of community development in facilitating citizen participation and in building social capital. The role of community development should explicitly be recognised in this process, and coherent and sustainable funding streams be made available through the 2007 EU Structural Funds for local, regional and European networks and through better coordination with and between independent trusts, foundations and NGOs. 2. All national governments should consider the appointment of a Minister with specific responsibility for creating and implementing community development policy, by 2006. That Minister should have a cross-departmental remit. We also ask that national governments should consider introducing a statutory responsibility for community development. 3. Regional and local authorities should publish from 2007 and implement annual action plans which outline the relevant special measures including investments, monitoring and evaluation of community development in facilitating effective citizen participation. These plans should be formulated on the basis of extensive community consultation. 

Community development training

4. For community development to make the most effective contribution to building civil society, the EU needs to facilitate a common framework for training and learning for community development based on core community development values, knowledge and skills, with training materials based on best practices. The development of training is at present quite uneven but good experience should be used to suit local conditions. 5. This common framework for learning and training needs to be resourced and adapted for use in each member state, based on dialogue with all stakeholders, and developed from the ‘bottom up’. The common overarching framework should not be used to export any one particular political or economic perspective. 6. Learning and training for community development and for active citizenship must be part of a continuum for lifelong learning and critical reflection – from citizenship education for children and young people through to community activists and volunteers, professionals working with communities and decision-makers at different levels. There should be pathways for progression through and across different levels of learning and training. 

Community development theory and research

7. EU and national governments to the process of research as a vehicle for participation and the development of research skills within communities should give more attention; research should be as much a tool for communities as for policy-makers. 8. To promote ownership and mutual commitment, an active dialogue should be fostered between research and practice involving all stakeholders; this will require a greater degree of reflectiveness on the part of researchers as to how their skills can be made available to local communities 9. Research policy at EU, national and local level should be responsive to these needs and principles and direct funding to support them.

73

10. The EU and national governments should build on research, which has demonstrated the effectiveness of community development; and create more effective mechanisms for sharing and exchanging the findings of research relevant to the needs of local communities. 

Community development and rural issues

11. Rural community development should be a specific and explicit priority within national and EU community development, social and economic programmes. 12. National governments and the EU will need further to activate and sustain voluntary and community action in rural areas. This should be based on a well-developed rural infrastructure; access to services for all based on need; and effective and appropriate training and support for rural community development. 13. At the EU level, it is necessary to establish a framework for rural community worker competence standards. 14. Recognising the specific challenges facing rural communities, EU and national policies should provide incentives to rural communities to mobilise their members and their resources to address local problems, strengthening their capacities to do so. As part of this process, the EU should encourage working partnerships between communities and local authorities, and between communities themselves, and ensure that appropriate government and EU mechanisms are created to respond to local initiatives. 

Community development and urban regeneration

15. Whilst aiming for the common goal of an inclusive and socially just civil society, to achieve effective urban regeneration through community development, it is necessary for governments and the EU to be aware of and acknowledge differing national contexts (political, cultural, historical etc) and to respond appropriately. 16. All people in areas subject to regeneration should have the right to participation at every stage in its regeneration and future, with a special focus on socially excluded groups and those who traditionally have not had a voice in these processes. 17. Sustainable and inclusive urban regeneration requires that all involved players are open to change and accept it as a learning process; this requires that community development must play a key role in the process of regeneration. 

Community development, sustainable development and the environment

18. Starting from a recognition that an environmentally sustainable society cannot be built without healthy and active communities (and vice versa), the EU should support the production of a handbook, which identifies and disseminates good practice for sustainable, ecological development and community development efforts both within Europe and outside it. 19. The EU should provide support for the establishment of a European community development network, which can disseminate better knowledge of sustainable projects, for example through a European Ideas-bank. The Bank should map experiences and support information exchange in ways, which will enable it to reach a broad public. 20. The EU or member states, as appropriate, should extend financial support in particular to local projects, which seek to integrate sustainable ecological, social, economic and community development. 

Community development, lifelong learning and cultural development

74

21. Adult education should extend beyond vocational training and should be seen as a right and provided on a non-commercial, not-for-profit basis. 22. Lifelong learning should be defined in policies as including community-based and citizenship education. By a community-based model, we mean building on local skills, resources, strengths and needs, and recognising issues of gender, cultural diversity, sustainable development and inclusion; in short, offering ‘access to diversity and diversity of access’. 23. There is a continued need for experimentation, within a secure and sustainable funding framework at local, national and EU levels. This implies a commitment to medium and long-term funding and provision. Programmes such as Grundtvig should be further developed with increased budgets and should prioritise trans-national mobility for community activists and local groups alongside community development professionals. 

Community development, local economic development and the social economy

24. Every national action plan – including plans to combat poverty and social exclusion should be required to include a section, which addresses the role of the social economy and local community economic development. 25. The EU should seek to disseminate existing experiences and practice both from within the EU and from outside it; networking of this social economy experience should be stimulated and supported within the EU with a specific focus on the acceding countries and those seeking accession in the near future. 26. Local communities should be recognised as active and legitimate partners in the development of plans, structures and policies for local economic development. 

Community development, minorities, migration, racism and discrimination

Whilst all of the issues listed above need to focus on the needs of differing minorities, there are also additional specific issues related to their needs. 27. The EU should ensure free movement of all EU citizens accompanied by social protection, promote cohesion and solidarity for host communities, migrants and communities of origin, and combat racism and discrimination in all its forms. 28. In support of these goals, the EU and member states should create and support structures and agencies, which pursue the aims of racial equality and cross-cultural understanding and awareness. The EU and member states should at the same time emphasise the positive aspects of a wider and more diverse Europe. 29. The EU and member states should acknowledge, through policy and funding development, that community development has a critical role to play in engaging people in increasingly diverse communities through inclusive methods. This may be done by building bridges between majority and minority communities, including in situations of conflict. 30. The EU, national governments, donors and community development organisations and agencies need to work collaboratively to promote cross-border and national co-operation in relation to the position of minorities and the particular challenges they face within specific local context.

75