Evaluation of operation of

LAGs implementing LDS

under RDP 2007-2013 in
Poland
 When? What?

 Carried out in summer 2012 by external contractor

 Period analysed: May 2009- December 2011
The goals:
1. Assessment of LAGs implementing LDS
• Quality and effectiveness of LAGs
• Impact of the projects executed within the Leader axis on the
fullfilment of LDS objectives
2. Recommendations to improve LAG performance in current
programming period and in 2014-2020
 Research tools and methods

Analysis of documents (regulations, RDP, monitoring data,

LDS)
Research in field (CAWI, CATI, IDI, case studies)
Analysis and synthesis of the research results
(SWOT, multi criteria analysis -animation of local society,
efficiency of LAGs, implementation of partnership principle,
expert pannel)
 Research conducting

1.Questionnaires were sent to all LAGs (exluding those who were

subject of case study)
• 309 answers received
2. CAWI
 For LAGs (244 replies)
 For board members (645 persons from 249 LAGs answered)
 For decision making body members (1071 persons from 273
LAGs answered)
 For LAG members (2379 persons from 270 LAGs answered)
3. Individual in-depth interviews with MA, PA, regional networks,
regions and NGO – 10 in total
4. CATI- 600 out of 4294 project promoters
 16 Case studies – criteria for selection

 Regional –one in each of 16 regions

 LAG size (population, territory, number of members)
 Economic sector in decision making body
 Past experience in LEADER +
Evaluation logic
 Assessment of 7 LEADER
features implementation 1/3
Bottom up approach
LAGs consult their decisions with partners
(meetings, questionnaires),
LAGs carry out evaluations (basis to
change local criteria)
Final approval at intermediate body level
Difficulties in areas with less developed
social capital (especially small LAGs with
strong public sector, lack of natural leaders)
Predefined scope of LDS in RDP
 Assessment of 7 LEADER features
implementation 2/3
Territorial approach
 Coherence more important than the size (artificial
exclusion of small cities which are cultural centres
of the area)
 Area coverage less important than population
(critical mass)
Partnership
 80% of LAGs contact at least 50% of members
every week
 Ongoing enlargement of LAGs (mostly social
sector)
 Economic sector – the least active and present in
LAG – only in 9% of decision making body a
chairman is from economic sector)
 Assessment of 7 LEADER features
implementation 3/3
Integrated approach
 LAG is the only local forum connecting three sectors
 Involvement of social sector
 Often domination of public sector (financial
dependance of LAG, institutional capacities)
Networking
 90% of LAGs are members of regional networks
 LAGs cooperate not compete
Innovation
 Lack of clear definition (only in LDS)
 Too strict and bureaucratic procedures hindering
innovation
 Scope of support predefined
 Advisory service by LAG

Mostly at the initial stage – project

development, less visible at
implemenation stage
Not enough trainings for potential
beneficiaries
Often not sufficient competences of
LAG
Not enough promotion and
dissemination of information
 Results of LDS implementation
 Long-term learning process, LEADER as an instrument for
real, social change not an extra source of funds
 Most of project promotors would not implement project
without LDS support (between 80% -60%)
 Reactivation of rural women associations
 New NGOs
 More than 90% of respondents confirm the significant role
of LAG (information, advisory, cooperation)
 Intangible effects
• Changes in mentality
• Ability to work out a common position
• Sense of ownership
 Barriers in LAG operation in
2007-2013
Expanded bureaucracy
Delays in applications and payment claims
assessment at the regional level
The same rules applying to axis 3 and 4
(including small scale projects)
Reimbursement procedures (not sufficient
prefinancing instruments)
Necessity to present self-contribution to the
project
Parallel implementation of projects under axis
3 and 4
Recommendations – general
dilema

Bottom-up approach (more competences

for LAGs, flexibility) versus not balanced
implementation, risk of errors (more
controls?)
 Recommendations – LAG
competences
Current programming period
 No changes in rules
 Recommendation to LAGs to conduct formal checks before
submitting selected projects to regions (initial)
Next programming period
 More competences for LAGs depending on their
administrative potential and insitutional capacity (at least
formal checks and completion procedure)
 „global grant” projects with full responsibity of LAGs
 No overlapping between projects under axis 3 and 4 which
creates some competition between axes- flexible RDP
 Keeping small scale project with simpler implementing rules
 Recommendations – LAG (size
and budget)
 Bigger LAGs (at least 50 000 inhabitants)
should be preferable
 Inclusion of small towns to keep the
coherence of LDS area
 Limitation of the public sector influence
(more than two communes should be covered
with LDS)
 Basic budget for the smallest LAG which
secure its operational capacity and sufficient
animation
 Higher budget depending on number of
inhabitants
 Recommendations –
implementation system
 Wide access to advances and prefinancing
 Negative list of cost instead of list of
eligible costs
 More careful verification of bottom-up
drafting of the strategy (limited role of
external experts)
Thank you for your attention