LAGs and Structures Some Lessons from Local Knowledge Local experience - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 28
About This Presentation
Title:

LAGs and Structures Some Lessons from Local Knowledge Local experience

Description:

6 different models in the SW. All are fit ... A large group might stifle individual participation. More costly to support. Continuity ... might stifle debate ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:38
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: seed4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: LAGs and Structures Some Lessons from Local Knowledge Local experience


1
LAGs and StructuresSome Lessons from Local
Knowledge Local experience
  • Phil Aubrey
  • Programme Manager

2
Caution !!!
  • 6 different models in the SW
  • All are fit for purpose
  • None are perfect all of the time and in every
    circumstance
  • LEADER Approach is not LEADER

3
Four factors that tend to drive how the LAGs
develop structure
  • History
  • Previous LEADER programme experience
  • Regeneration organisations in place
  • Geography / identifiable area
  • Natural partnership e.g. AONB Partnership
  • Politics
  • Demonstrate independence
  • Design
  • Planned and organic
  • Accident

4
e.g. in the South West
5
4 LAGs have County Councils as Accountable Bodies
  • Advantages
  • Integration / back up
  • Stakeholder involvement
  • Structures / systems in place
  • Employee benefits
  • Cash flow
  • Potential disadvantages
  • Political interference
  • Conflict between LAG and accountable body
  • May not project itself as independent Who runs
    LEADER?
  • Data tracking

6
2 LAGs operate through companies.
  • Advantages
  • Cross boundaries more easily?
  • Independence
  • Identity / Brand
  • Flexibility
  • Own systems
  • Less (or more) hierarchy
  • Disadvantages
  • Employ people
  • Requires Directors / company functions policies
  • Over-heads
  • Cash flow the operation
  • Post programme responsibilities

May also apply to charities etc
7
Forming LAG Membership
  • A foundation may be an existing partnership as
    the basis e.g. Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership
  • Inherit
  • Invite organisations from across the area
  • Hold open meetings via road shows
  • Newspaper advertisements
  • Invite grantees e.g. Dorset Chalk and Cheese /
    Somerset Levels
  • LAG sizes in SW range 15 145

8
Big versus Small
  • Widest community interest / inclusive
  • Aids Transparency
  • Aids Promotion
  • Useful in a large geographic area
  • Dynamic membership
  • ------------------
  • A large group might stifle individual
    participation
  • More costly to support
  • Continuity
  • Effective partnership working
  • Easier to meet capacity building needs
  • ------------------
  • Reliant on a few
  • Harder to replace lagging members

9
Crossing Boundaries ?
  • Advantages
  • Potential more steakholders
  • Create a cohesive area
  • A catalyst to increased partnership working
  • Challenges
  • Take time to develop trust / working arrangements
  • More reporting
  • Some parishes in / some out
  • Different authorities have different priorities

Not to mention cross regional boundaries
10
Basic Structure?
11
Decision TakingTwo simple models?
12
Blackdown Hills
  • Sector co-ordinators-develop projects
  • Integrates with AONB structure
  • 4 stage decision process
  • 13 Local independent appraisers

13
Blackdown Hills
  • Integration with AONB ensure collaboration / non
    duplication
  • Sector co-ordinators-an effective way of
    developing projects in a remote are with limited
    capacity
  • ensures involvement of a wide range of
    organisations
  • Sector co-ordinators are an expensive resource in
    a LAG with a smallish budget
  • 13 independent appraisers -recruited through
    adverts
  • widens community involvement
  • widens awareness

14
North West Devon
  • Embedded in Reg Co.
  • Previously had LEADER II
  • LEADER is one of a number of complementary
    programmes
  • Three tier structure for decision
  • Extensive use of sub groups experts on small
    grant schemes.

15
North West Devon
  • LEADER is one of a number of complementary
    programmes embedded in the regen company.
  • Integration / non duplication / collaboration
  • shared systems
  • entrepreneurial feel
  • L maintained its identity within the
    organisation
  • Small grant schemes that reached more than 200
    businesses / community organisations
  • Large area may be difficult to coordinate LAG
  • Remote difficult to get LAG involved in UK
    network

16
Dorset Chalk Cheese
  • LAG (145) open to all residents, organisations
    and projects
  • suits this large geography
  • good for awareness raising
  • LAG has strategic overview of programme and
    interviews / scores all projects
    (pre-application)
  • LAG scores defines progression to full
    application
  • Executive (15 stakeholders) determines full
    applications.

17
Dorset Chalk Cheese
  • Large LAG is
  • inclusive
  • suits this large geographic area
  • good for awareness raising / spreading the word
  • costs more to administer
  • might stifle debate
  • The whole LAG scores and predetermines outline
    applications and meet the projects
  • Presenting to a large group might be daunting
  • Might not see the same members from meeting to
    meeting - less continuity
  • Project visits to other projects are encouraged

18
Somerset Levels and Moors
  • The LAG (of 55) focuses on the Business Plan and
    Monitoring i.e. the end game
  • LAG area has a strong cohesive identity
  • The PMG (6) is elected annually from the LAG
  • The PMG undertakes main assessment and approval
    (occasion referal to LAG)
  • Two themed groups drawn from LAG and experts to
    support projects

19
Somerset Levels and Moors
  • The LAG had a well defined set of outcomes and
    focuses on these.
  • The LAG are not bogged down in the minutiae of
    project detail
  • Conversely unless there are major issues it is
    the LAGs elected reps that take the detailed
    decisions

20
Sustain the Plain
  • The PMG (18) set the overall strategy
  • Co-ordination group (5 partners) support /
    oversee the Manager.
  • External project appraisal by a county wide
    multi-fund appraisal group (which brings
    continuity / integration with other funds)
  • Decisions by Funding panel (by e-mail) or to
    whole PMG

21
Sustain the Plain
  • A county wide appraisal for several funds
    provides continuity and integration with other
    funds.
  • The system appears to work pretty well but looks
    complicated
  • A lot of the responsibility for decision taking
    seems to rest upon lead partner organisations.
  • Difficult to know who runs L

22
Teignbridge Rural Regeneration
  • Programme Manager undertakes the assessments and
    scoring (but no recommendation)
  • LAG (19) interviews and selects projects.
  • LAG oversees monitoring (visits projects) and the
    business plan
  • Board of Directors (7) oversees company /
    finance, acts as think tank and recommends
    policy to LAG

23
Teignbridge Rural Regeneration
  • Geographically not strong cohesive area
  • Single local authority gives simplicity
  • The decision making is truly bottom up - no inner
    appraisal group that has the final say
  • Clear terms of reference re roles of LAG / Board
    and conflict of interest
  • The group (19) has integrated well together - not
    too big (but perhaps could be a bit bigger)
  • LAG became active in the formal monitoring of
    projects

24
Teignbridge Rural Regeneration
  • Become reliant on a core of key members
  • LAG can offer limited development work because
    manager is the assessor (instead funded a
    development worker project that partly fills
    role)
  • As a company solely to deliver L, it had to
    establish policies for employment etc etc. Our
    MA tightly set and so cannot do anything else!

25
Some practical thoughts...
  • Keep the process simple
  • Induct the new LAG. Consider two needs
  • Capacity building
  • Technical knowledge
  • Aim for continuity
  • Aim to keep the LAG dynamic / think tank
  • Usefulness of small grants (if allowed)
  • Think how you will support project development
  • Identify rules for conflicts of interest
  • Consider the advantage of projects presenting to
    LAGs
  • If appropriate consider how a younger generation
    might be actively involved

26
And finally..
  • Participation in L LAG very rewarding
  • Opened the mind to new ideas
  • Made a difference
  • Tested fresh ideas
  • Relatively quick and flexible
  • See fledgling organisations grow in stature and
    competence
  • Regenerate community spirit

27
  • http//www.teignbridgeleader.org.uk/links.htm

28
(No Transcript)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com