Improving coherence and coordination between

policies and funds for rural areas

Janet Dwyer, CCRI, University of Gloucestershire, and Francesco

Mantino, INEA.

Coherence and co-ordination

COHERENCE – fitting together in a logical way (pursuing shared overarching strategies and

objectives), working well with each other, avoiding conflict, overlap, confusion or

duplication

CO-ORDINATION – the processes that should ensure coherence in

policy design, targeting,

implementation, control, monitoring and evaluation

CoherenceCommunication – who we are, what we do

Consultation – we do this: what is your opinion?

Co-ordination – if you do this, we’ll do that

Collaboration – let’s do these things together

Integration – let’s merge

From this……………………..…

… to these?

Types of coherence & co-ordination

Vertical – between different layers in the policy hierarchy: EU, Member State, Region, sub-regional bodies

Horizontal – between different institutions / actors / funding sources at the same level within the policy hierarchy: e.g. EAFRD with ERDF and ESF, and national funds for RD

Coherence in design & targeting

Dialogue – aiming for common understanding of complementary goals and roles

NOT just an exercise in demarcation

e.g. Joint planning processesIntegrated visions / strategiesMutually-agreed areas of competenceTargets and eligibility criteria explained in consistent language, guided by clear

rationales

Coherence in design: examples

Horizontal -• Joint strategies and framework for EU and national funds,

Italy• Regional Implementation Plans, England• Joint task groups and committees, Germany

Vertical –• Contractual agreements between layers: CPER in France,

RGC in Sweden• Co-owned monitoring and reporting - Wales• Delegated agency models – expertise and more local

presence (many countries)

Coherence in delivery & monitoringJust as critical as design………..

• Complementary instruments and eligibility criteria

• Co-ordinated ways of working – consistent timelines, dovetailed targeting and promotion

• Formal structures – e.g. monitoring committees, officials, good practice groups or networks

• Informal joint working – e.g. common extension agents, common sub-regional partners, joint consultation arrangements with stakeholders

• Joint consideration of impacts and potential modifications (common evaluations?)

Coherence in delivery: examples

‘Local Action’ former LAGs, Ireland: single institutions deliver several funds (EAFRD axis 4, national social schemes) within an overarching National Plan

Regional Development Agencies, England: combine funds from different EU and national ‘pots’, work with a range of sub-regional partners (LAGs, Local authorities, enterprise groups)

Coherence in delivery: examples (2)

Local Partnerships, several countries: single institutions combine several schemes and funds (e.g. Leader, Interreg, single measures of mainstream programmes, national schemes) within a territorial plan

Some thorny issues – local level

• Black holes – the nature of the beneficiary and ‘type of aid’ issues: standard cultures/ ways of working may differ, leaving gaps

• Confusing procedures, and over-strict delineations: Who acts as first point of call? Who decides which fund is more appropriate? Are criteria designed to achieve better targeting, or easier fund management? How transparent are these processes?

• Poor relationships: with stakeholders -refusals fostering misinformation; with other funders -institutional competition, with the centre – exhaustion of capacity (too many planning processes, not enough action)……

Thorny issues – EU level

Rural needs and opportunities are

multi-sectoral, multi-objective, often jointly deliverable or inter-related

= the ‘golden triangle’ of sustainable development:

Economic

integrated

Environmental Social

Integrated routes to SRDLocal products, historic sites and traditional skills interwoven:

Parc Naturel Regional de Vercors

‘Social farming’, Columbini, Italy

Thorny issues – EU level

Economic

integrated

Environmental Social

Sectoral DGs – agri, regio (economy), environment, employment

• Who carries the social competence (social capital, QoL)?• Who ‘owns’ the funds?

One programme, one fund – provides top-down clarity but gives a major challenge of coherence to lower levels:especially in new MS / poorest regions/ decentralised systems

New emphasis upon controls, monitoring and evaluation

May give counter-incentives to those at the bottom of the implementation hierarchy

How to improve?Some possibilities* Acceptance of collaborative or integrated structures and processes at

local level, by higher levels

‘Streamlining’ planned jointly by different funders

Joint Strategic planning (e.g. one National Strategic Framework for all Funds, with common visions and objectives);

Common definition of rural areas for planning;

Possibly more common implementing rules and procedures;

Common monitoring and evaluation processes and methods;

Considering new organisational models / concepts from commerce and the NGO sector (systems thinking, operational ‘cells’, web-based communication networks, ‘making it fun’ ….)

Commitment to ongoing learning and adaptation, within and between levels

Whatever the outcome of EU institutional discussions, coherence will remain central, beyond 2013

- there is much to be done, at all levels!

*Track our more detailed analyses on www.rudi-europe.net

So......