EU-wide networking: An instrumental valuable for European rural development policies in Romania?

Marquardt, Doris; Möllers, Judith; Buchenrieder, Gertrud Article — Published Version EU-wide networking: An instrumental valuable for European rural development policies in Romania? European Countryside Provided in Cooperation with: Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Halle (Saale) Suggested Citation: Marquardt, Doris; Möllers, Judith; Buchenrieder, Gertrud (2009) : EU-wide networking: An instrumental valuable for European rural development policies in Romania?, European Countryside, ISSN 1803-8417, Sciendo, Warsaw, Vol. 1, Iss. 4, pp. 210-226, https://doi.org/10.2478/v10091-009-0017-1 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/234575 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 210/240 Europ. Countrys. · 4· 2009 · p. 210-226 DOI: 10.2478/v10091-009-0017-1 European Countryside MUAF in Brno EU-WIDE NETWORKING: AN INSTRUMENTAL VALUABLE FOR EUROPEAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN ROMANIA1? Doris Marquardt2, Judith Möllers and Gertrud Buchenrieder Received 3 July 2009; Accepted 18 September 2009 Abstract: This paper examines the relevance of networking as an instrument for implementing European rural development policies. The LEADER programme of the European Union (EU) supports partnerships and networking within and between rural regions in the EU and aims at advancing rural, regional socio-economic development. LEADER and the establishment of the European and National Networks for Rural Development, respectively, are discussed using the example of the case of Romania, where these measures are currently implemented. The discussion is primarily based on results of 2008 surveys among various stakeholders involved in LEADER in Romania, Hungary and Germany. We conclude that networking is a key factor for successfully implementing rural development policies. This is due to benefits resulting from the exchange of experiences or partnerships, but also due to social control – a hidden effect of networking. Key words: Rural development policies, LEADER, European Network for Rural Development, networking, Romania Zusammenfassung: Dieser Beitrag befasst sich mit der Bedeutung von Netzwerken als Instrument zur Umsetzung der europäischen Politik zur Entwicklung des Ländlichen Raums. Durch das EU-Programm LEADER werden Partnerschaften und Netzwerkaktivitäten in und zwischen ländlichen Regionen unterstützt mit dem Ziel einer Förderung ihrer sozioökonomischen Entwicklung. LEADER sowie der Aufbau des Europäischen und des Nationalen Netzwerks für den Ländlichen Raum werden im Hinblick auf die Situation in Rumänien diskutiert, wo derzeit diese Maßnahmen eingeführt werden. Der Beitrag stützt sich vor allem auf Ergebnisse von im Jahr 2008 durchgeführten Umfragen unter am LEADER Programm beteiligten Personen in Rumänien, Ungarn und Deutschland. Es zeigt sich, dass Netzwerke ein Schlüsselfaktor für die Implementierung ländlicher Entwicklungspolitik sind. Es spielt dabei nicht nur der erwartete Nutzen durch Erfahrungsaustausch und Partnerschaften eine Rolle, sondern auch soziale Kontrolle, welche als verdeckter Effekt von Netzwerken zu sehen ist. Schlüsselwörter: Politik zur Entwicklung des Ländlichen Raums, LEADER, Europäisches Netzwerk für ländliche Entwicklung, Netzwerke, Rumänien 1 The authors like to thank the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for supporting the empirical fieldwork in Romania in 2008 2 Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), Theodor-Lieser Str. 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany (www.iamo.de). Corresponding author: Doris MARQUARDT; Email: [email protected] 211/240 1. Introduction Setting up the European Network for Rural Development, which includes 27 National Networks for Rural Development, is a profound objective of the European Commission (EC) for the period 2007-2013 (2005/1698/EC, Article 67 and 68). Networking in the form of exchanging experience, or establishing partnerships as an instrument for supporting the effectiveness of European policies is not a novel idea. Due to its positive effects – as generally emphasised by many authors (Loriz-Hoffmann, 2008; Lückenkötter, 2001; Moseley, 2003; DVS, 2008) – networking can be an important driver of rural development. European experience with networks started with LEADER (Liaison entre actions de développement de l´économie rurale) in 1991. The LEADER programme emphasises two types of networking: 1) networking among stakeholders in a specific region in the form of local action groups (LAGs) following the bottomup approach; and 2) networking among actors from different regions. Furthermore, organised networking through the establishment of the European and the National Rural Development Networks, respectively, has been mandatory for the member states since 2007. This paper investigates three policy-relevant research questions: (1) What key factors are relevant for implementing rural development policies, particularly LEADER and the National Network for Rural Development in Romania? (2) What role do networks play for implementing LEADER in Romania? (3) What relevance does the establishment of the European Network for Rural Development have for relations among Romanian stakeholders on the one hand, and for integration of Romanian actors into transnational and European-wide network activities on the other hand? Methodologically, the research questions are addressed by analysing results from 2008 surveys conducted among 39 potential Romanian LAGs, 38 German and 27 Hungarian LAGs, and among 33 Romanian Directorates for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARDs), and 13 experts, for instance from the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Development (MAFRD). The questionnaires were adapted to the respective stakeholder group, but all referred to the Romanian LEADER programme. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected via e-mail. Furthermore, a detailed empirical case study was conducted face-to-face dealing with the specific social relationships of actors from two potential Romanian LAGs in Harghita County and those of other actors identified as being involved in the two potential LAGs’ development by applying a snowball-sampling method (Scott 1991). In total 65 actors, of which 52 form the two potential LAGs, were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. The following section describes European experiences with partnerships, particularly in the framework of LEADER. After that, recent Romanian LEADER efforts are discussed and the establishment of the European and the National Networks for Rural Development is analysed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the relevance of European-wide networking for implementing rural development policies in Romania. 2. Experiences with partnerships, LEADER and EU-wide ‘networking’ Networking can be understood as the interplay and co-action of information and experience exchange, and as cooperation and collaboration. In short, networking describes social relations among actors.3 As such, it is a feature of many policy measures within the European Union (EU) including, for instance, education in the Lifelong Learning Programme, or Twinning Projects. The development of networking activities in EU rural development policy is rooted in the LEADER programme. 3 There is no generally applicable distinction between the terms ‘networking’ and ‘partnership’. If a distinction is sought, one or more of the following criteria are usually applied: formality of relations (e.g. Moseley 2003), reciprocity of relations (e.g. Segert & Zierke, 2004) and intensity of relations (e.g. 2000/C139/5). Accordingly, compared to networks, partnerships are more formal, more reciprocal and more intensive in terms of relations. This paper deals with institutionalised networks as well as informal partnerships. In this context, it seems enough to point out that in partnerships the members are aware of each other and directly linked while in networks the actors do not necessarily all know each other. 212/240 2.1 Main features of the LEADER programme The objective of LEADER is to advance the socio-economic development of rural regions. To this end, the LEADER instrument co-finances competitively selected regional development concepts of LAGs, which consist of public-private partnerships (PPPs). In addition, interregional and transnational collaborative projects between LAGs are supported. LEADER combines multiple notions, including a bottom-up approach that entails the participation of the local population, as well as integrated multi-sectoral regional and territorial development and innovation approaches. After its initial implementation in 1991, LEADER evolved into LEADER II and then into LEADER+ which, in 2007, was transformed into one of the four major thematic axes of the rural development pillar (Pillar 2) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It thus became ‘mainstreamed’: LEADER is now an obligatory part of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in the member states, and is funded under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). With its integrated approach, LEADER acts as the overarching fourth axis to the priorities of the other three thematic axes of the EAFRD: 1) Improvement of the agricultural and forestry sector’s competitiveness; 2) Improving the environment and countryside; and 3) Quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy. (2005/1698/EC). 2.2 Experiences with partnerships and networking in Europe When reviewing the different periods of LEADER from 1991 to 2007-2013, the significance of partnerships and networking becomes evident.4 During this time, network activities have increased and gained relevance as a policy instrument.5 On the one hand, networking has been stimulated by EC funding. From 2000-2006, 1,153 European LAGs were financially supported through LEADER funds and active in 383 transnational and 1,130 cross-border partnerships (Török, 2008).On the other hand, these activities have been embraced by rural people when they discovered the positive effects of partnerships and networking. Indeed, partnerships and networking have the potential to strengthen the social and human capital of LAGs. But establishing and reinforcing partnerships requires trust and resources - particularly time - and pro-active measures. Thus, entering into a partnership goes hand in hand with cost-benefit considerations. Box 1 provides more details on partnerships of the Hungarian and German LAGs studied. Detecting network structures and coordination patterns becomes increasingly important when many actors are involved. For this, even prior to the current funding period, formal and informal LEADER networks of various relational dimensions were established: most EU member states had a network unit at the national level. At the European level, the EU LEADER+ Contact Point was established. The aim of these institutions was to spread information among the LAGs and to facilitate the search for actors with similar interests and the exchange of experience among different LAGs, as well as assisting those LAGs wishing to cooperate with other actors. With the termination of the last LEADER period in May 2008, the Contact Point in Brussels and most of the national network units ceased operations (Courades, 2008a). Thereafter, network units were established or re-established and assigned new tasks in all member states according to the new EU-wide rules on the obligatory establishment and coordination of the networks for rural development in the period 2007-2013. 4 At first, only the establishment of partnerships within single regions was formally supported by EU funds. At the same time, many LAGs informally developed relations with other LAGs to exchange experiences or to conduct joint projects. In the next period, cross-border cooperation between LAGs became a facultative support objective. In the subsequent period, cross-border and transnational partnerships were financially supported. Furthermore, in some countries it is considered positive in the selection process if LAGs include the establishment of partnerships in their development strategies. 5 Currently, two kinds of partnerships can be financially supported within LEADER: a) formally founded intra-regional partnerships (LAGs) between public and private actors, and b) interregional partnerships in which two or more LAGs (or similar groups) formally cooperate. For becoming financially supported, such cooperation projects have to go beyond the exchange of information, which is understood as “networking” according to the LEADER terminology (cp. 2000/C 139/5). Alongside those partnerships funded within LEADER, there are several kinds of formal and informal intra-regional and extra-regional partnerships between LAGs and other actors. 213/240 In this study, the “partnership culture” of LAGs from both Germany and the new member state Hungary was analysed. The results show that, on average, LAGs from both countries have 2.2 partnerships, whereas the number of partner regions does not correlate with the period a LAG has existed. Though less experienced with LEADER, Hungarian LAGs are not less active in establishing partnerships and are already well integrated into the European LEADER network. Most often, the partners of the LAGs are from the same country (Germany 52%, Hungary 61%). There are more relations to LAGs in the EU-15 (Germany 34%, Hungary 22%) than to regions in the new member states (EU-10). Generally, Hungarian LAGs have more partnerships in the EU-10 (17%) than do German ones (14% of all partnerships). A good number of the consulted LAGs (52% Germany, 60% Hungary) have partnerships with other regions independent of LEADER funds. These partnerships are mostly informal. 74% of the Hungarian LAGs and 52% of the German LAGs are interested in additional partnerships. Less than half of the LAGs prefer a partner to be from a certain area. In such cases, mostly neighbouring countries were mentioned or, in the case of the Hungarian LAGs, old member states were preferred partners. Box 1. Partnerships and cooperation of Hungarian and German LAGs 3. The LEADER Programme in Romania Below, the implementation of the LEADER programme in Romania is described from its initial announcement in mid-2006 through to mid-2008. We are specifically interested in how networks evolve and are used during this process. Our database offers recent and detailed insights with regard to these issues. Looking at Romania allows investigation of the relevance of networks for potential LAGs in a post-socialist context, where LEADER-like policies are unknown and have to be established completely from scratch. 3.1 Implementing LEADER in Romania In Romania, people’s mentality and policy perception are heavily influenced by four decades of socialism. During that era, regional policy measures, as well as local institutions, were virtually non-existent (Mandl et al. 2007). A process of decentralisation was first induced when EU membership was anticipated. In the pre-accession period 2000-2006, legally registered microregion associations were set up in many Romanian counties (NRDP 2008). Micro-region associations are inter-communal associations which jointly develop and co-finance projects. As such, one of their main purposes was and is to access national and EU funds. Additionally, a few informally established local initiative groups (LIGs) evolved consisting of private and public actors. The LIGs’ creation was often stimulated by (pilot) projects, which in turn had been initiated by supra-regional, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that support civil society, community and rural development (e.g. the Regional Centre for Sustainable Rural Development in Constantza or the Civitas foundation). Such organisations are instrumental facilitating access to national6 and EU funds by offering technical assistance to local actors. However, the projects undertaken rarely applied an integrated approach and many LIGs dissolved after their project came to an end. At the administrative level, initial experience in rural development policy was gained when implementing the EU’s pre-accession instrument, the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD). SAPARD started in 1999 (NRDP 2008). This implies that LEADER, with its bottom-up and networking approach, was completely new and unfamiliar, not only for the administration but for the potential beneficiaries too. The implementation of LEADER in Romania is barely documented. However, it is clear that LEADER is not evolving as planned. According to the programme guidelines, LEADER should have started in February 2009, when the original deadline for applications passed. However, up 6 One noteworthy national programme is the ‘Social Development Fund’, which started in 1999. It is a long-running programme with national coverage that has provided village infrastructure projects in the poorest communities. Other programmes with a similar approach exist, e.g. the ‘Rural Development Project’ with the World Bank as main donor. 214/240 until August 2009 at least, there has not even been a call for applications and the planned competitive selection of the first 40 LAGs has not taken place. Preparations for putting LEADER into action started with an EU Twinning Project (RO 2004 IB AG 05) involving French, German and Hungarian partners. In mid-2006 the programme was first announced in Romania. Half a year later, the pre-selection of 121 regions followed. Subsequently, representatives (LEADER-animators) from these regions participated in LEADER seminars. The decisive criteria for the pre-selection of LAGs were easy to identify: the region’s classification as a rural area, and a minimum size measured in terms of the number of inhabitants (for details see NRDP 2008). In addition to this, the potential LAGs of these regions “only” had to demonstrate that they possessed the potential to function as a group of different types of partners and that they had the necessary administrative, financial and human capacities. Compliance with the participatory approach of LEADER was not directly considered in the selection process. Of the 39 potential LAGs in our sample, 72% emerged from micro-region associations. Only a small share (18%) of the potential LAGs were not initiated by administrative actors such as mayors or public utilities, but started as bottom-up initiatives established, for instance, by commercial actors or NGOs. The remaining 10% were initiatives in a mixed constellation of private and public actors, or their makeup remained unclear. 3.2 Key players in the LEADER programme – What happened in Romania? This section looks at key players involved in implementing the LEADER programme between 2006 and 2009. These are the potential LAGs (i.e. the potential beneficiaries) and the programme agencies on the administrative side. For both of these, networking could be a very important factor for successful sharing of information and for preparing or supporting initiatives. Development of potential LAGs In early 2008, just one year after the pre-selection process, some of the pre-selected LAGs had already dissolved while some newcomers had emerged. Marked differences in ability to comply with eligibility criteria stipulated in the programme may have been one reason for this. It emerged, however, that elaborating regional development strategies was one of the main difficulties: only 28% of the surveyed potential LAGs had set out a regional development concept at the beginning of 2008. Problems occurred due to lack of experience and/or human resources. Some micro-region associations employ a regional manager to put things right. Also, networking turned out to be an advantage. Romanian and foreign organisations offer assistance, mostly by organising LEADER seminars, but sometimes also through direct support with elaborating regional development concepts. These include, for example, the Romanian Civitas Foundation, the German organisation InWent, and the Hungarian LEADER Centre and foreign LAGs. One general problem is that the LAG actors feel overextended by the demands of LEADER. More than half of the local actors would prefer pre-defined measures instead of having to elaborate a concept on their own. Being as pro-active as required clearly presents difficulties. Furthermore, potential LAGs have to deal with initiating formal PPPs, i.e. adopting a legal form. These PPPs should include financially strong partners who are able to co-finance project activities. Although in many LAGs the first initiatives in the field of regional development had begun prior to 2006 (Fig 1), three-quarters of the potential LAGs had no legal form until 2008. Moreover, the micro-region associations face challenges in terms of integrating commercial and/or societal partners into the contracted network of communes. One reason for this is that accepting a participatory approach, i.e., sharing decision-making with local associations or other private actors, seems difficult for many mayors.7 LAGs that were established in a bottom-up manner are often more diverse in their composition. However, they too have problems as 7 Mayors prefer to collaborate with public utilities, which are subject to a certain degree of social control and have educated staff and administrative capacities (Marquardt et al., 2009b). However, the extent to which public partners can participate in a LAG is limited by programme guidelines. Thus, on the one hand, the mayors have to accept a participatory approach at least on paper. On the other hand, the realisation of a participatory approach is not a matter of course, because often people brought up under socialism find it difficult to act democratically within such an approach (Heller 1999; World Bank 2008). 215/240 regards entering into a contract and adopting a legal form. Both antipathy to collective actions and mistrust vis-à-vis formal institutions are (still) strong in Romania and explain the problems in building formal partnerships. Indeed, a general problem, for example, perceived by 83% of the surveyed DARDs concerns collaboration between public and private actors. According to these, the rural environment in Romania is characterised by a low level of trust in formal affairs and institutions (see also Mandl et al. 2007). 1110123 21 3 00 1001 3 11 1 4 9 4 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 before 1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 first quarter 2008 No. of initiatives/ partnerships (distributed to 39 potential LAGs) First initiatives in the region Establishment of external partnerships Note: Of the 39 potential LAGs, 19 have extra-regional partnerships. These 19 LAGs have an average of 2.6 partnerships. For 16 of the partnerships mentioned, the time of establishment could not be specified. Fig 1. First regional development initiatives and extra-regional partnerships by potential Romanian LAGs since 1999. Source: own survey 2008). Our case study findings highlight that external actors, particularly well-known supra-regional organisations, can function as mediators between the different parties involved. Often even their sheer presence can be conducive to ‘guaranteeing’ that the participatory LEADER approach is satisfied. However, in the longer term, the building up of trust among the partners and the subject of the contract can only be indirectly supported by external actors: they can set examples of good practice in LEADER partnerships and they can stimulate networking in the regions. Surprisingly, half of the potential LAGs had already formed partnerships, albeit informal ones, with external actors before being formally established and before partnerships were financially supported through LEADER funds. Contact was made mostly through seminars or a targetoriented search. Partnerships usually started shortly after the first initiatives in regional development emerged in the respective regions. Fig 1 shows that a first wave of intra-regional relationships peaked in 2006. This was followed by a second wave of external partnerships with a lag of one year. The potential LAGs apparently deem external partnerships as very promising for their development. Fig 2 illustrates that about half of the partners are of Romanian origin. Many partners of the 39 potential LAGs researched are from the EU-15, mainly from Germany. Hungary contributes 12% of the partners8; other new member states play a minor role in the partnership activities of the potential Romanian LAGs. Most of their partners are represented by organisations (Fig 2). Partnerships with organisations are often one-sided in the sense that the Romanian counterparts are supported, while they are unable to bring in something of equal value. While such one-sided partnerships would hardly be accepted by other LAGs or trade 8 The high share of Hungarian partners is due to a) Hungary being a neighbouring country, which compared to Bulgaria, for example, is experienced in LEADER; b) strong cultural relationships with some Romanian regions with Hungarian minorities (see Box 2); and 3) Hungarian actors, supported by the Hungarian LEADER Centre, are generally very active in establishing partnerships. 216/240 partners, for instance, which strive for a win-win partnership, many organizations named “partner“, mostly civil or environmental ones, are involved due to their stated mandates to support regional development. Regions Romania Organisations Hungary Scientific institutions Germany Trade partners Old EU MS* Other New EU MS** 0 10 20 30 40 50 Origin of the partners Kind of partners No. of partnerships (distributed to 39 potential LAGs) Note: MS = Member states; * without Germany; ** without Hungary. For 2 of the surveyed 49 partnerships, the type of partner could not be specified, this results in n=47. Fig 2. Nature and origin of partners of the Romanian potential LAGs. Source: own survey (2008). The role of the programme agencies Understanding the implementation of LEADER in Romania is not possible without considering the programme agencies themselves. They are represented by the General Directorate for Rural Development at national level and the DARDs at county level. Employees of the programme agencies at county level were trained in LEADER parallel to the pre-selected LAGs. We find, however, that one-third of the trained employees still regard the programme as difficult to comprehend and cannot imagine how LEADER will work in practice. In 2007 and 2008 one of the main tasks of the DARDs was to disseminate information about rural development measures, including LEADER. The most effective means of spreading information were targeted information events, their main advantage being that people could ask questions or discuss issues that confused them. However, because the main interest of the audience – mostly farmers – is usually in direct payments and measures of Axis 1 and Axis 3 of Pillar 2, LEADER is often inadequately addressed or not at all. This also explains why mayors (despite being in contact with the programme agencies) often heard about LEADER through the traditionally influential County Councils. Additionally, foreign actors are important sources of information about LEADER for local actors, as well as for the personnel of the programme agencies. Nevertheless, it appears that, overall, people in rural areas (i.e., the potential beneficiaries) are not sufficiently informed about the possibilities of how to take advantage of LEADER, because the agricultural administration does not effectively disseminate information. As mentioned above, most programme agencies lack qualified staff, which is a general problem in the Romanian agricultural administration (Labar et al., 2009; Marquardt et al., 2009a). From 2007-2008, no further LEADER-specific activities were carried out by the programme agencies. That means that there was also no regular or concerted contact with the pre-selected LAGs.9 Instead, the potential beneficiaries were faced with several changes to the programme 9 This circumstance calls into question the following statement in the Romanian RDP (NRDP 2008): ‘The potential LAGs selected for training maintain permanent contact with the Ministry and the Agricultural Directorates for Rural 217/240 guidelines: among other things, the criteria relevant for the demarcation of the LEADER regions were redefined. In addition, the first measure of the LEADER axis (Measure 431.1), intended to provide financial support for building up capacities and elaborating strategies to all potential beneficiaries (even those who were not selected for training in 2006), was delayed until August 2009. These circumstances may explain why some potential LAGs lost interest in participating in LEADER. There are suggestions that some of them stopped believing in the capability of the programme agencies and even in the realisation of the programme in Romania. Strengthening the capacity of the programme agencies is therefore important for four reasons. First, there is a need for further target-group-oriented information spreading, which is a core task of the programme agencies. Second, relationships of trust have to be established. Third, potential LAGs that are inexperienced and cannot afford a regional manager must be given professional advice to enable them to comply with the criteria for participation in LEADER. Fourth, the position of the programme agencies in the implementation procedure must be strengthened to ensure that the influence of political institutions such as the County Councils is lessened. As mentioned above, the County Councils, because of their close relationship with the mayors, are powerful and sometimes act in competition with the programme agencies. Not only can they spread information about LEADER in any manner they like (which may have positive or negative effects), but they can also steer the competition of the potential LAGs by distributing financial resources to favoured communes. This political influence was reported to discourage businessmen from entering into PPPs.10 The mayors themselves usually play a supportive role, especially when they have established a relationship of trust with their local people. We find that their behaviour can clearly facilitate acceptance of the bottom-up notion: if mayors want and accept the participatory approach, they can be important players for promoting LEADER and motivating farmers (and others) to become active in rural development. Furthermore, by amplifying the contact between agricultural administration and the farmers, they can support the absorption of funds and the effectiveness of other rural development measures. 3.3 Will networkers benefit more from LEADER in Romania? Establishing a formal partnership and preparing an application takes time. Obviously, those who are able to organise themselves (and others), and through their networks are quickest in familiarising themselves with the funding possibilities of LEADER may benefit most. Those who can rely on external support or have already taken part in other EU programmes can draw on these experiences and networks and will therefore be more competitive. Organisational structures and administrative capacities are especially important for being capable of complying with the formal criteria of the LEADER guidelines. Micro-region associations, due to their communal origin, have an advantage here. However, their existing structures may become a handicap when it comes to implementing the mandatory participatory and bottom-up approach of LEADER. Social networks that have evolved endogenously are more competitive in terms of these LEADER principles and have a higher chance of working together in the longer term. Such potential LAGs may also be more resilient when delays in programme implementation or other problems occur. However, despite their LEADER-like structure, many of these potential LAGs may in the end prove uncompetitive because they cannot comply with other selection criteria, e.g. proving their administrative capacities or elaborating regional development strategies in accordance with the programme guidelines. Although LEADER is a rural development programme, farmers are a minority among the actors involved. Hence, although they make up the major population group in Romanian rural areas, farmers will only profit from LEADER if the LAG in their region follows an integrated approach that includes agricultural concerns. Perhaps farmers – more than other population groups – still Development’. This statement was also quoted and seemingly accepted by Jean-Michel Courades of the European Commission in the Member States Reports (Courades, 2008b). 10 For instance, the success of projects in the tourism sector is influenced by many factors that can potentially be influenced by policy-makers, e.g. infrastructure. Moreover, as a LEADER project is intended to last longer than one electoral term, businessmen are afraid that under a new power coalition, they could lose the support of the County Council. 224/240 partnerships (not only with actors involved in LEADER). Nonetheless, we conclude that more assistance for the (potential) beneficiaries and agencies is needed. One particularly important effect of networking is an increase in social control. Tight relationships in a network, but also loose connections that are established for example through information sharing, increased publicity and transparency, facilitate the creation of relationships of trust. This is true for LEADER, where external actors often function as mediators by building up trust and partnerships among the various stakeholders involved in integrated rural community development. But it is also one of the reasons why establishing the European Network for Rural Development is important. The network provides a certain degree of social control, which could help overcome issues such as political influence and mutual distrust. Furthermore, the National Network for Rural Development in Romania could become a key element for a rural development policy that is based to the greatest possible extent on continuous debate on local needs and good practice. For the effective implementation of rural development policies in Romania, strengthening relations between the agricultural administration and the (potential) beneficiaries is necessary. This is not only about increasing the capacity of the programme agencies, but also increasing trust. Finally, functioning networks among the Romanian stakeholders involved in rural development policies can lead to smooth management of existing administrative burdens. In conclusion, the case of Romania shows that formal and informal networking, with their various direct and indirect effects, can be effective instruments for realising rural development policies. But networking depends on a willingness to make the necessary effort and to accept social control – it is an instrument that cannot merely be imposed by EU regulations. The integration of Romanian actors in EU-wide rural networks depends mostly on their own activities, especially those of the responsible persons and organisations at the Romanian national level. References [1] Ciutacu, C. (2008). Social partners in agriculture sector unite to get better deal for producers. Eurofound, EIROnline 06/2008, available at http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2008/06/articles/ro0806029i.htm. DOI:RO0806029I. [2] Courades, J.M. (2007, January 31). Rural Development Networking 2007-2013. Presentation at the Joint meeting: LEADER+ Steering Committee, Brussels. [3] Courades, J.M. (2008a, March 12). Synthesis of Member States Reports. Presentation at the LEADER+ Steering Committee Meeting, Brussels. [4] Courades, J.M. (2008b, March 12). Member States Reports. Presentation at the LEADER+ Steering Committee Meeting, Brussels. [5] Dower, M. (2007, October 12-13). Romania Rural Development Network – Proposed structure. Paper presented at the international conference “LEADER – achievements and challenges”, Przemyśl. [6] Duguet, D. (2008, March 12). Cooperation in LEADER+. The actual benefits for local areas. Presentation at the LEADER+ Steering Committee Meeting, Brussels. [7] Deutsche Vernetzungsstelle Ländliche Räume (Ed.) (2008). 1+1 ist mehr als 2. Handbuch zur gebietsübergreifenden und transnationalen Kooperation. Bonn: German Federal Institute for Agriculture and Food. [8] European Communities (2006). Der LEADER-Ansatz. Ein grundlegender Leitfaden. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [9] Heller, W. (1999). Innenansichten aus dem postsozialistischen Rumänien. Sozioökonomische Transformation, Migration und Entwicklungsperspektiven im ländlichen Raum. Berlin: Berlin Verlag. 225/240 [10] Jacobs, L. (2008, March 12). LEADER networking tools 2007-2013. Presentation at the LEADER+ Steering Committee Meeting, Brussels. [11] Johnson, B. (1995). Towards a New Approach to National Systems of Innovation. In B.A. Lundvall (Ed.), National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (23-44). London/New York: Pinter Publishers. [12] Labar, K., Wegener, S., Petrick, M., Marquardt, D., Theesfeld, I. & Buchenrieder, G. (2009). Review of Public Service Delivery in Agriculture for Romania and Bulgaria. World Bank. (unpublished report KP-P111199-KMPD-BB). [13] Law, M., European Network for Rural Development Contact Point (2009 March 30-31). Overview of set up of national and regional networks and first identification of challenges. Presentation on the 1st ENRD Seminar, Brussels. [14] Loriz-Hoffmann, J. (2008). Das Erbe von LEADER+. LEADER+ Magazine 2008 (9), Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. [15] Lückenkötter, J. (2001). Ein Plädoyer für Partnerschaften – Argumente und Anregungen für die ländliche Regionalentwicklung. LEADER forum 2001 (1), 18-29. [16] Mandl, I., Oberholzner, T. & Dörflinger, C. (2007). Social capital and job creation in Rural Europe. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. [17] Marquardt, D., Dirimanova, V. & Antal, C. (2009a). Review of Public Service Delivery in Agriculture for Bulgaria and Romania. Results of surveys among farmers about the Public Service Delivery in Agriculture in Romania and Bulgaria. Mimeo, Halle: Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO). [18] Marquardt, D., Möllers, J. & Buchenrieder, G. (2009b, March 11-14). The relevance of social networks for implementing the LEADER programme in Romania. Paper presented at the 67th International Atlantic Economic Conference, Rome. [19] Moseley, M.J. (2003). Local Partnerships for Rural Development. The European Experience. London: CABI Publishing. [20] Nelson, J. & Farrington J. (1994). Information exchange networking for agricultural development. A review of concepts and practices. Ede: CTA. [21] Redmann, M. (2008). Assessing the Impact of Rural Development Policies (RuDI). Work Package 2: Rural Development Policy Design, Romania. Tartu: Centre for Ecological Engineering. [22] Rusu, M. (2008). The Perspectives of the National Rural Development Networks in a European Context. Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 5(1-2), 25-30. [23] Scott, J. (1991). Social Network Analysis. A Handbook. London: SAGA Publications. [24] Segert, A. & Zierke, I. (2004). Ländliche Netzwerke. Institutionalisierungsprozesse und Milieuformationen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. [25] Sousa Uva, J.M. (2008, October 16-17). Presentation of the European Network for Rural Development and its Contact Point. Presentation at the Conference ‘Europe’s rural areas in action: facing the challenges of tomorrow’, Cyprus. [26] Stahl, T. & Schreiber, R. (2003). Regionale Netzwerke als Innovationsquelle. Das Konzept der >>Lernenden Region<< in Europa. Campus Forschung, Vol. 868, Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag. [27] Stewart, M. (1998). We should build a statue to Ceaucescu here. The trauma of decollectivisation in two Romanian villages. In S. Bridger & F. Pine (Eds.), Surviving post-socialism. Local strategies and regional responses in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (pp. 66-80), London: Routledge. 226/240 [28] Török, J. (2008, March 12). Facts and figures on cooperation under the LEADER+ initiative. Presentation at the LEADER+ Steering Committee Meeting, Brussels. [29] World Bank (Ed.) (2008). Implementation completion and Results report (IBRD-46540), on a loan in the amount of US$40 million to Romania for a Rural development project. World Bank, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Unit, South Central Europe Country Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region. (Report No: ICR0000611). Legislation Commission Decision of 20 February 2008 setting up the organisational structure for the European Network for Rural Development (2008/168/EC). Commission Notice to the Member States of 14 April 2000 laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+) (2000/C 139/05). Council Regulation of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (2005/1698/EC). Council Decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (2006/144/EC). [NRDP] Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2008). National Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. Version of 20 February 2008, Bucharest.