Community-Based Rural Development in Hungary – Program Level Impacts of Leader in the Mid-Term of the 2014-20 Planning Period

Nemes, Gusztáv – Magócs, Krisztina

Keywords: LEADER, CLLD, rural development, midterm evaluation, LEADER principles, Q01, Q18, R11

Our study is based on the official mid-term review of the 2014-20 Rural Development Program (VP). The aim of the evaluation is to present whether and to what extent, the implementation of LEADER/CLLD has resulted in added values which did not come into being in the execution of traditional, centrally launched tender calls. In order to answer this, the implementation of the LEADER specifications – the principles of innovation, partnership, networking, bottom-up initiatives, cross-sectoral developments and cooperation between local actors – has been investigated. The empirical background for this was based on the VP 2018 Extended Annual Implementation Report, the content analysis of the LAGs’ strategies and their local calls for proposals, a representative questionnaire taken among the LAGs and a qualitative, validation workshop carried out with them.
In conclusion, the implementation of the Rural Development Program until 31 December of 2018 resulted in the establishment of local partnerships covering the entire rural area of the country, the design of local development strategies and the publication of more than 600 local calls. No concrete developments were completed during the period under review. According to the LAGs, the added value of applying the LEADER method has so far decreased overall, compared to the previous programming period. This has attributed to the loss of trust due to protracted application management, reduced capacity for project generation, networking, animation, and a reduction in resources compared to the previous period, which has deprived LEADER of its importance both in local development policy and entrepreneurs.
For the post-2020 period, it is suggested to increase the resources to be managed by LEADER LAGs by allocating certain types of EAFRD intervention other than LEADER (e.g. development of basic services, start-up of non-agricultural activities of farmers and non-farmers). It is also recommended that other investment funds (ERDF, ESF, EMFF) be made available to LEADER LAGs. When defining the allocation of resources to be allocated to LEADER and the minimum funding per LAG, it is recommended that the operational cost allocated to it should allow to finance at least two to three full-time employment throughout the whole duration of the program. It is recommended to strengthen the human capacity involved in the implementation in order to increase LEADER specificities and added value.

Full article