Suchergebnisse

To address the challenges in rural areas the support for rural development with participatory approaches has a long tradition in EU funding programmes. One corresponding instrument is LEADER, which is a place-based, participatory approach to bring together public, private and civil society organisations. Within LEADER the different stakeholders come together in a Local Action Group (LAG) as a type of a public-private partnership. Those groups collaborate on the basis of an integrated local development strategy (LDS) and administer own budgets to support projects. Although there are usually broad participation opportunities, some observations in literature mention problems like that only the "usual suspects" (age over 40, higher education, male) get involved in such participations. It is a well established instrument to ask the participants of such processes about their view of the cooperation within their LEADER decision making body to examine their satisfaction with decision making procedures or their estimations about the output quality. But for some research questions an external view would be more appropriate. Thus, this contribution brings into focus the estimations of non-participants to examine their opinions about possibilities for participation or the legitimacy of decision-making within LEADER-processes. To collect this information an online-survey is used. Therefore, in eight LEADER-Regions about 50-100 non-participants (per region) got e-mail invitations for this survey in four different federal states in Germany. The "non-participants" were defined as persons who are neither members of the decision making body nor beneficiaries of the LEADER-projects. Respondents come from municipalities as well as from different associations of the civil society. This presentation contains preliminary results concerning the external views of the work of LEADER to gain insights about the possibilities of participation and possible obstacles to participate.

Biosphärenreservate bieten einen Rahmen für Prozesse zur nachhaltigen Regionalentwicklung. Durch das Beispiel des Biosphärenreservats Jeju Island sowie einen internationalen Vergleich werden Hinweise für eine erfolgversprechende Ausgestaltung aufgezeigt. Nach einem Überblick zum Vorgehen der Untersuchungen werden zunächst die spezifischen Rahmenbedingungen in Süd-Korea sowie das Biosphärenreservat Jeju Island vorgestellt. Daraufhin werden empirische Ergebnisse im Vergleich mit deutschen und britischen Biosphärenreservaten dargelegt und schließlich Empfehlungen abgeleitet. ; Biosphere reserves as a category for integrative protected areas can serve as a suitable framework for promoting sustainable regional development and supporting nature conservation. As the practical implementation of the theoretical approach is very different across the world, an international comparison is useful to create more knowledge about adequate solutions for typical problems like a lack of acceptance or organizing participation. The introduction to boundary conditions in South-Korea and their impact on environmental awareness is followed by the description of the biosphere reserve Jeju Island including an analysis of the project implementation eight years after the decision on a management plan. Then an international comparison is presented using empirical results from Jeju Island as well as from case studies in the UK and Germany. The development in Jeju Island shows common features with the European case studies. At the end of the report similarities and differences are discussed. Conclusions are given concerning the creation of a positive image of the biosphere reserves and how to set priorities in capacity building. In this context education for sustainable development and the organisation of participation should play a crucial role.

Vor dem Hintergrund insbesondere solcher Rahmenbedingungen wie Globalisierung, EU-Regionalpolitik, dem "Wandel des Staates" (vgl. FÜRST 1998) sowie der Rolle der Regionen beim wirtschaftlichen Strukturwandel ist eine Aufwertung der Region festzustellen (vgl. BENZ & FÜRST 2003, S. 18; BENZ ET AL. 1999). In diesem Zusammenhang ist der Governance-Begriff im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs in vielfältiger Verwendung in Mode gekommen (vgl. KOOIMAN 1993 und 1999; RHODES 1996). Im folgenden Beitrag werden mit Regional Governance netzwerkartige Politikkonventionen der Selbststeuerung, die staatliche, zivilgesellschaftliche und privatwirtschaftliche Akteure verbinden, bezeichnet.

Gegenstand der Studie ist die Überprüfung der Nachhaltigkeit des von 1993 bis 1995 vom damaligen Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (BMELF) umgesetzten Modellprojektes Einkommenssicherung durch Dorftourismus. Durchgeführt wurde das Modellprojekt in den fünf ostdeutschen Kommunen Glaisin (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), Schlieben (Brandenburg), Kläden (Sachsen-Anhalt), Brunnhartshausen (Thüringen) und Lawalde (Sachsen). Ziel des Modellprojektes war, am Beispiel des Dorftourismus nachhaltige Konzepte zur ländlichen Entwicklung zu fördern. Ein wichtiger Aspekt war dabei die Stärkung der Eigeninitiative der Bürger in den Kommunen.[...] (Quelle: Verlag)

Support for balanced regional development with participatory approaches has a long tradition in EU funding programmes for rural development. LEADER started 25 years ago and now has 2600 Local Action Groups (LAGs). These LAGs collaborate as a kind of a public-private partnership on the basis of an integrated local development strategy and administer own budgets to support projects. To examine the contributions of LEADER to local governance, we can present results from the ex-post-evaluation of Rural Development Programs (2007-2013) in six federal states in Germany. A mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used. In addition first evaluation results are shown for the 2014-2020 funding period, especially from a survey of 115 LAGs in four German federal states. To examine governance matters on the input-side we look at the type and structure of participa-tion while on the output-side we focus on contributions to rural development. On the input-side the involvement of civil society and economy actors was successful, but inade-quate funding conditions for private actors set limitations for their involvement in project imple-mentation. In addition, the LAG-compositions show a lack of underprivileged groups and note-worthy shortfalls in gender representation. Looking at the output-side and the factors favoring the success of governance arrangements like LEADER, the estimations of LAG-managers show that the most important factors are: commit-ment, financial/material resources, involvement of key-personalities as driving forces, level of acceptance/cooperation and support from local/regional political actors. Remarkably, the quality of the local development strategies was rated less important but still relevant.

In the last funding periods there was steady increase in the number of LEADER-regions in Europe, and, at least in Germany, it is already evident that this gain will continue: for the 2014-2020 funding period there around 300 LAGs expected in comparison to 244 LAGs in the last period. For the new funding period new regulations envisages a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) to provide all EU Funds with a set of basic rules in line with the general principles - partnership, multi-level governance, equality and sustainability. Now there are common options for a so-called "Community-Led Local Development" (CLLD). Although LEADER is commonly called a bottom-up approach, it has to be pointed out that there is a high influence through a superordinated framework of funding regulations. So more precisely LEADER is neither "top-down" nor "bottom-up", but can classified as a "down up"-approach. This clarifies the basic understanding for the terms used in the context of multi-level governance. Second there is a look on the state of the art of LEADER-related research in the view of LEADER as a "down up" approach. Anyhow the experiences with LEADER in the last 25 years can give valuable insights. Altogether, the literature review already supports the need to have a multi-level-view on CLLD.

Die Herausforderungen in den ländlichen Räumen Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns werfen die Frage nach passenden Politikmaßnahmen für die spezifische Situation der Transformationsländer Mittel- und Osteuropas auf. Ein Ansatz der ländlichen Entwicklung ist LEADER. LEADER ist bottom-up orientiert und verfügt über ein eigenes regionales Budget zur Projektförderung. Es gibt eine lange Geschichte von LEADER, wobei Defizite hinsichtlich einer wirklichen bottom-up Beteiligung und Innovation insbesondere in der aktuellen Förderperiode beschrieben werden. Um die Frage nach passenden Politikmaßnahmen zu diskutieren, werden Erfahrungen aus Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und ein Vergleich mit den LEADER-Erfahrungen westlicher Bundesländer einbezogen. Hierfür werden die Ergebnisse der Evaluierung Ländlicher Entwicklungsprogramme genutzt. Insgesamt wird deutlich, dass der LEADER-Ansatz auch in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern funktioniert. Historisch bedingte Prägungen zeigen sich zum Beispiel als Unterschiede in der Partizipation (weniger Arbeitsgruppen, aber ein höherer Frauenanteil als in westdeutschen Ländern). Einschränkungen, innovative Projekte fördern zu können, sind eindeutig nicht nur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ein Problem. Um die ursprünglichen und beabsichtigten Stärken des LEADER-Ansatzes zu nutzen, wären insbesondere flexiblere Fördermöglichkeiten von Projekten für die Lokalen Aktionsgruppen erforderlich (mit einer Orientierung an den eigenen Zielen der LEADER-Regionen). ; The challenges in rural areas in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern raise the question of how to find appropriate policy interventions specifically in transition countries. One approach to move rural development forward is LEADER. LEADER is a bottom-up participatory approach that uses regional budgets to fund projects. There is a long history of LEADER-implementation. Especially in the current funding period a limited bottom- up participation and a lack of innovation are prevalent. To discuss the question of appropriate policy interventions, experiences in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and a comparison with LEADER-experiences in western Germany will be examined. Therefore, the findings of the evaluation of Rural Development Programs (RDPs) in seven federal states in Germany are used. Overall, the results show that the LEADER approach is working in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Historical patterns are visible in some areas: for example, in differences in participation structures (fewer working groups, but a higher proportion of female LAG-members than in western Germany). However, the problems for funding innovative projects were common, and the shortcomings are clearly not only a problem in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. To use the original and intended strengths of the LEADER approach, a more flexible funding structure, which is oriented on the region's own goals, is recommended.

The challenges for the quality of life in rural areas in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, connected with structural economic and demographic changes, raise the question of how to find appropriate policy interventions in the specific situation of transitions countries. One approach to bring forward rural development is LEADER, a locally managed, place-based form of policy intervention. LEADER is bottom-up oriented and participatory with own regional budgets to fund projects. There are 13 LEADER-regions in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. To discuss the question of appropriate policy interventions, experiences in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern will be considered and a comparison with the LEADER-experiences in western Germany will be made. Therefore, the findings of the evaluation of Rural Development Programs (RDPs) in six federal states in Germany will be used to examine the performance of the LEADER-approach. In general a survey of LAG-members shows positive results regarding the performance of LEADER with no major discrepancies between Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and western Germany, but there are differences in participation structures (less working groups, but a higher share of female LAG-members in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern than in western Germany) and the role of the state sector. Problems for funding innovative projects were common, especially at the beginning of the funding period. To use the original and intended strengths of the LEADER approach, greater freedom for the Local Actions Groups (LAG) would be required (also in the European policy framework). ; Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit LEADER als partizipativem Entwicklungsansatz für Ländliche Räume. Dazu werden die spezifischen Bedingungen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern im Vergleich mit westdeutschen Bundesländern untersucht und die Eignung dieses Entwicklungsansatzes zur Verbessertung der Lebensqualität betrachtet.

Das Forschungsvorhaben befasst sich mit der Frage, ob es möglich ist, über die sozioemotionale Bindung an einen Raum (place) und damit verbundene Prozesse des Place-making neue Formen regionaler Selbststeuerung (Regional Governance) auszulösen, die das Management natürlicher Ressourcen unterstützen. Vor allem die amerikanische Literatur zu Naturschutz und Forstmanagement bestärkt Vermutungen über solche Zusammenhänge. Jedoch könnten dabei sozio-kulturelle Besonderheiten eine Rolle spielen (starke zivilgesellschaftliche Kultur), die auf deutsche Verhältnisse schwierig zu übertragen sind. Untersucht wurden Biosphärenreservate (BR), weil vermutet werden kann, dass hier die Bedingungen für die Entstehung solcher Beziehungen durch den integrierten Ansatz der Biosphärenreservate besonders günstig sind. Sollten diese Beziehungen hier nicht zu finden sein, wird es schwer sein, sie in Deutschland generell als relevant zu betrachten. Zu den untersuchten Biosphärenreservaten gehören die Rhön (bayerischer und hessischer Teil), Süd-Ost-Rügen sowie der Schaalsee. Ergänzt wurde die Untersuchung durch zwei Beispiele aus Großbritannien (Braunton Burrows (England) und Dyfi (Wales)) – der Vergleich sollte vor allem Hinweise für den Einfluss unterschiedlicher politisch-administrativer Rahmenbedingungen geben. Leitende Untersuchungsfragen waren, welche externen Einflussfaktoren die Entstehung von Governance-Arrangements begünstigen, wie die Governance-Arrangements funktionieren und welche Rolle dabei place und Place-making spielen. Methodisch basiert die Untersuchung neben der Auswertung der Literatur auf Dokumentenanalysen, Expertenbefragungen (110 Interviews), einem Workshop zur Kontrolle unserer schlussfolgernden Wertungen (mit 25 Experten), sowie einer Tagung (zusammen mit dem Leibniz-Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturforschung (IRS), Erkner). Die empirische Untersuchung fand in Deutschland in der Zeit vom Oktober 2004 bis Mai 2005, in Großbritannien in der Zeit vom April 2005 bis Oktober 2005 statt. Hinsichtlich der Frage nach Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung von Regional Governance lässt sich keine einfache "Gebrauchsanweisung" geben. Es lassen sich aber Erfolgspotenziale identifizieren, bei deren optimaler Ausgestaltung ein hoher Erfolg wahrscheinlich ist. Zudem ist zu beachten, dass bei der Gestaltung von Governance-Arrangements zum einen strategische Entscheidungen relevant sind, die als aktive Weichenstellungen gelten können ('decision points'). Zum anderen sind bestimmte Kipp- und Wendepunkte in den Prozessen (beispielsweise zum Vertrauensaufbau oder der Akzeptanz des Biosphärenreservates) zu beachten ('tipping points'), die mit darüber entscheiden, ob sich solche Prozesse in positiver (oder negativer) Weise stabilisieren. ; This report is about local/ regional governance and placemaking in bioshere reserves in Germany and Great Britain. Main research questions are related to external factors for the genesis of governance-arrangemens, the functionality of governance arrangements and how this is connected to place.

Fostering innovation-driven regional development has become a major priority for public policy. Thus innovation is a crucial issue in Rural Development Programmes (RDP) to overcome challenges like economic development and demographic change. One part of RDP funded by the European Union, which explicitly addresses innovation, is LEADER: a bottom-up-oriented, participatory approach which relies on cooperation between local actors in the sense of a Community-led local development (CLLD). Stakeholders of different institutions and origins come together in a Local Action Group (LAG) to decide on the projects to be financed. Previous research provides evidence that rural communities are innovative when they have the necessary space and power to act. There is, however, little knowledge about the factors, which are crucial for the power to act, and about the policy framework that provides the necessary space in CLLD-context. The aim of the paper is hence to identify factors, which influence the implementation of innovative projects. Our analysis builds on surveys among LAG-managers, LAG-members and beneficiaries in 115 LEADER areas in four federal states in Germany (Hesse, Lower-Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein). Since the explanatory is a dummy variable we used logit models for the analysis. Overall, 56% of the beneficiaries classified their own project as innovative. There are, however, large differences between the different federal states. Our econometric results suggest that origin of the project idea and the type of beneficiary significantly influence the likelihood of innovation. The expectation that heterogeneity fosters innovative ideas is not supported by our analyses.Fostering innovation-driven regional development has become a major priority for public policy. Thus innovation is a crucial issue in Rural Development Programmes (RDP) to overcome challenges like economic development and demographic change. One part of RDP funded by the European Union, which explicitly addresses innovation, is LEADER: a bottom-up-oriented, participatory approach which relies on cooperation between local actors in the sense of a Community-led local development (CLLD). Stakeholders of different institutions and origins come together in a Local Action Group (LAG) to decide on the projects to be financed. Previous research provides evidence that rural communities are innovative when they have the necessary space and power to act. There is, however, little knowledge about the factors, which are crucial for the power to act, and about the policy framework that provides the necessary space in CLLD-context. The aim of the paper is hence to identify factors, which influence the implementation of innovative projects. Our analysis builds on surveys among LAG-managers, LAG-members and beneficiaries in 115 LEADER areas in four federal states in Germany (Hesse, Lower-Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Schleswig-Holstein). Since the explanatory is a dummy variable we used logit models for the analysis. Overall, 56% of the beneficiaries classified their own project as innovative. There are, however, large differences between the different federal states. Our econometric results suggest that origin of the project idea and the type of beneficiary significantly influence the likelihood of innovation. The expectation that heterogeneity fosters innovative ideas is not supported by our analyses.

This report is the final deliverable of TRUSTEE task 3.3. It present the research protocol, the methodology used and most of results. LEADER is qualified as down-up approach combining EU policy framework and local strategy. The implementation is quite heterogeneous dependend on institutional factors and political choices at national level, structural characteristics and socio-political local factors. Our findings highlight the diversity of LEADER implementations in the three countries under study (France, Germany, Italy) and the influence of institutional factors. The design of the programs influence, for example, via the setting of funding conditions or demands on institutional settings at the local level, the extent to which local actors from different spheres get involved in local development via LEADER.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.

New governance structures, meant to empower local decision makers, are supported by some policies introduced by the European Commission. LEADER, from rural development policy, is among these approaches. Nevertheless, these new policies are implemented in very different multi-level governance contexts in the European nation states. We question in how far the institutional differences on the different levels affect the implementation of LEADER on the local level. We thereby hope to contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of differences in the impacts and effectiveness of the LEADER approach as has been documented thus far by research analyses. In our TRUSTEE research project we concentrate on ten cases in France, Germany and Italy. We describe the three different administration systems and the different types of RDP-implementation. Based on analyses of documents and interviews with stakeholders, we then analyze the possible relation of these institutional differences to the LEADER implementation at a local level.