1 / 6

Where does LEADER fit with Community Planning Partnerships and Single Outcome Agreements?

Where does LEADER fit with Community Planning Partnerships and Single Outcome Agreements?. Common approaches. Aligned Community Planning Partnerships – developing and setting out a joint vision for the area

red
Download Presentation

Where does LEADER fit with Community Planning Partnerships and Single Outcome Agreements?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Where does LEADER fit with Community Planning Partnerships and Single Outcome Agreements?

  2. Common approaches Aligned Community Planning Partnerships– developing and setting out a joint vision for the area sets out challenges/ guiding principles of sustainable development, community engagement and equalities LEADER– area based local development strategies sense of place / co-hesive area / local development as opposed to LEADER strategy CPP – Identifying actions to address key economic, social, physical and environmental issues L-integrated and multi-sectoral actions [integrated rural development] CPP- implementation by partners through theme partnerships somecan be public sector dominated L-Local public-private-community partnerships-LAG’s community/private/public mix, no single interest dominates CPP- Providing a mechanism through which organisations can meet and work together talking shop! L-networking and co operation leaning from each other at local, national and EU level Some alignment CPP- overseeing the implementation of the Community Engagement Strategy L-Bottom-up elaboration and implementation of strategies- strong identification of local needs and solutions/provide animation support and funding to deliver projects that address priorities/ win- win for communities and public administrations Limited alignment L- Innovation

  3. Single Outcome Agreements • Links local authority [and CPP] spend to Scottish Government National Outcomes and is based on the Community Plan –provides local context • Allocates resources against outcomes • Coordinates and connects service delivery • Monitors performance and progress –Partnership Implementation Plan • Need to ensure LEADER outcomes are incorporated into the reporting- opportunity to show LEADER impact on National Outcomes

  4. South Lanarkshire • Seven themes/partnerships involved in delivering CPP actions Community regeneration, community safety, youth, sustainability, enterprise, health and care and rural • Rural Partnership is also the LEADER Local Action Group Avoids duplication and ensures integration with CPP • LAG is strategic chaired by SLC Provost - meets 3 times a year- establishes local development strategy, holds annual community conferences to engage with wider rural community- 30 member organisations • Decision making Management Board 12 members drawn from LAG, all decisions on applications and LEADER operational issues, rotating chair [public- community] , meets bi monthly • Electronic application and appraisal system Enables effective decision making , smaller applications approved by four Board members on rolling basis

  5. Argyll and the Islands • The LAG operates across two CPP areas - Argyll & Bute and North Ayrshire • Some LAG member organisations also sit on the CPP • A report of LAG activities is sent to the Argyll & Bute CPP Economy thematic Group on a regular basis • Projects funded by the LAG may facilitate the delivery of action points in the CPP Action Plans • CPP delivery of Structural Funds - a ring fenced package approach was used in the Highlands and Islands. The overall package was approved by the Argyll & Bute CPP but there was no other direct involvement in delivery. In several instances, the initial development work had been funded by LEADER

  6. Factors to Consider • Not all CPP’s operate effectively across Scotland - some bad press / having an executive function [being a LAG] helps focus and enthuse membership!/similar aims to LAG but at different level/some LAG’s operate across several CPP’s • Better linkages to the National Strategic Objectives - Outcomes and Indicators and SOA’s /D&G example simple allocation of projects against SG strategic objectives /need to take this down a level to Outcomes as well/ need to show contribution LEADER investments make • Common community-led local development strategy approach across EU funds- challenges CPP’s to be more inclusive/CPP level and LEADER level strategies need to complement not duplicate/ hierarchy of CLLD’s. • More focus for LEADER on economic outcomes and addressing need/poverty bringing it more into line with Structural Funds

More Related