Multisectoral Partnership – Tool in Rural Development International Conference Kosice, Slovakia 5.10.2009

1. Multisectoral Partnership – Tool in Rural Development International ConferenceKosice, Slovakia 5.10.2009 THE ROLE OF LEADER IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT – FINLAND EXPERIENCE Eero UusitaloProfessor, Counsellor for Rural DevelopmentSecretary General of the Rural Policy CommitteeChairman of the Village Action Association of Finland

2. Rural Policy Network and its working methods RURAL NETWORK OF THE PARLIAMENT GOVERNMENT MINISTERIAL GROUP ON RURAL POLICY • RURAL POLICY COMMITTEE (YTR) • Members of YTR (31 members from 27 organisations incl. 7 ministries, other government organisations and rural associations) • Secretariat, steered by the Secretary-General, prepares the matters. About 60 secretaries from various organisations. • WORKING METHODS OF YTR Rural Policy Programme • Action programme of YTR 20092013 Preparation of Government’s rural policy outlines • Reports, special programmes, resolutions • Theme and work groups (a total of 14 to 17 groups) • Themes include rural living, food, tourism, Leader, well-being, enterprise, culture, civic activity National rural research and development projects (50 to 70 projects financed each year) Communication • About 10 publications/year • Ruralpolicy.fi website • Newsletters, press releases and internet communication of theme and work groups • Internet newsletter Liiteri Negotiations and seminars Rural proofing (”rural impact assessment”) Implementation reports • OTHER PROGRAMMES TO • PROMOTE RURAL AND • REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT • EU Programmes - Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland, regional rural development plans of T&E Centres and local plans of LAGs - Structural Fund Programmes (ERDF and ESF) • National regional development programmes - Regional Cohesion and Competiti- veness Programme (KOKO) - Centre of Expertise Programme (OSKE) - Island Development Programme and Resolution on Island Policy - Resolution on Urban Policy • Programmes of the Regions • PARTNERS OF • YTR • Island Committee (SANK) • Village Action Association of Finland (SYTY) • MUA Association (rural research and development) and Network of Rural Professors INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION EU, OECD, Nordic Council of Ministers, development cooperation, bilateral cooperation (esp. Sweden and Estonia), several international organisations Figure 1

3. Where we are in Finnish Rural Policy • The instruments and tools for rural policy have been developed for 22 years, still insufficient. • Activities will be planned long into the future and risks have to be taken to achieve results. • Political support to the Rural Policy Committee is still insufficient. The old and new paradigms are fighting. • One major strength in Finland is the short distance, practically a direct contact, between the central government, regional administration and local actors. In Leader case was it possible to take first one step from top to down and then hundred steps from bottom to up. • A horizontal policy needs horizontal actors at all levels. We have these, but some of them are still too weak. Figure 2

4. Main Finnish experience The core of the Finnish experience is this: the regional broadening and deepening of LAG work was supported by national rural policy. LEADER action is not only a temporary tool for the European Union in rural development - not at all. It is a part of the national and EU rural policy. Figure 3

5. The phases of mainstreaming • TimeFormsArea • 1996 22 Leader II groups ⅓ of rural areas • 26 Pomo groups ⅓ of rural areas • 2001 25 Leader+ groups almost 40 % of rural areas • 2001-2002 26 Alma or Objective 1 almost 50 % of rural areas groups • 2001 7 Pomo+ groups about 10 % of rural areas • 2002-2006 58 LAGs almost all rural areas, only 6 rural municipalities outside • 2007-2013 55 + 1 LAGs All rural areas include to LAGs 6.6.2014 Figure 4

6. Preconditions for Powerfull LAGs • a LAG is a mixed group • a LAG has real power with own global grant money • LAG's own Plan and Programme • Wide range of projects • In the Board of the LAG own quotas for different partners • Goodwill of regional and national authorities • Good results on the basis of living civil society 6.6.2014 Figure 5

7. Risks1/2 • European Union no longer applies the Leader methodology in the programming period which starts in 2014 • Political understanding and approval of the LAG work do not increase • The administration and LAGs no longer develop the methodology • Bureaucracy curbs the activity Figure 6

8. Risks 2/2 5. Lack of people with sufficient responsibility and competence 6. Leader is seen as a rival to the old working methods. 7. Like other rural policy instruments, Leader suffers from the priority given to the financing needs relating to agriculture Figure 7

9. Grounds for reinforcing Leader activity 1/2 1. In the future Leader can be the main tool of the rural policy of the European Union 2. Rural development is and will be necessary and justified in all parts of Europe • More democratic influence to the citizens • Citizens’ inputs and private funding are needed for local and regional development work Figure 8

10. Grounds for reinforcing Leader activity2/2 5. Strengthening the role of villages is indispensable 6. Leader is an essential element in the strengthening of local development work in the globalising Europe 7. More international activities Figure 9