LEADER in the Czech Republic and farming sector

Abstract

555This text develops the ideas and thoughts, which were already published in the paper named "Agriculture and the farming related activities: their actors and position in the LEADEr approach" (Lošťák, hudečková 2008).The reasons of addressing the LEADEr approach were related, as the mentioned paper also documents, to several circumstances. First, LEADEr was since its beginning in 1991 (starting as the communality Abstract: The paper addresses the LEADEr approach in the czech republic. Using documentary research and content analysis of the appropriate documents and the Local Action groups information sheets, the paper firstly outlines the evolution of the LEADEr approach in the czech republic (the paper points out the difference in understanding LEADEr in the EU /focusing on capacity building and the use of intangible forms of capital/ and in the czech republic EU /focusing on investments/). The paper also analyses the participation of farmers and the farming related actors in the LEADEr approach (approx. 30% of local action groups are composed by those actors, however, they mostly do not aim /similarly like non-farming actors/ at developing partnership but want to achieve the investments into production; that is why the czech local action groups are rather quasi-partnerships; it is also reflected in a very low number of strategies aiming at the "adding value to local products" which is the closest to farmers /but it is the less opted theme: only 6% of projects/). The paper ends with the analysis of projects implemented under the LEADEr scheme where the farmers participate. it shows that more than the integrated strategies, the czech local action groups prefer the strategies of the multi-sector type. The paper also points out that the publicly available information about the activities of the local action groups is not sufficient, although the groups are funded from the public budgets. This fact makes the analysis more difficult as for the scientific merit but also contradicts the principles of democratic governance. Key words:LEADEr approach in the EU and in the czech republic, farmers in the LEADEr approach, local action groups, governance Abstrakt: Článek je zaměřen na analýzu přístupu LEADEr v Čr. na základě studia dokumentů a obsahové analýzy příslušných dokumentů a informačních karet místních akčních skupin (1) ukazuje vývoj přístupu LEADEr v Čr (zde je patrný rozdíl v chápání přístupu LEADEr v EU /zaměření na utváření kapacit a využití nehmatatelných forem kapitálu/ a v Čr /zaměření na investice/), (2) přibližuje participaci zemědělců a navazujících aktérů v přístupu LEADEr (cca 30 % místních akčních skupin má tyto aktéry, kteří však ve většině případů neusilují /podobně jako ostatní nezemědělští aktéři/ o naplňování principu partnerství, ale o investice do výroby, proto mohou být takové místní akční skupiny považovány za kvazi-partnerství, což se následně odráží i ve velmi nízkém počtu strategií utvořených v tématu "zhodnocení místní produkce", jež je nejblíže k zemědělcům /ale jedná se o nejméně volené ...

Area-based partnerships in rural Poland: The post-accession experience

“…Rural governance in the new Member States is the subject of a growing research agenda (e.g. : Ková ch, 2000;de Rynck, 2004;B1ąd and Kamiń ski, 2005;Wasielewski, 2005;Kovacs Katona et al, 2006;Furmankiewicz and Slee, 2007;Giguè re, 2007;Hudečková and Lošťá k, 2008). In this paper we contribute to this growing agenda by analysing the experience of partnerships in Poland.…”

Current social structure of agricultural workersin the Czech Republic

“…The CSO has elaborated a publication to the topic named "Variants of the Rural Areas Delimitation and Their Reflection in the Statistical Indicators in the Years 2000-2006", which was presented in 2008 8 . A similar topic was also studied by Hudečková and Lošťák (2008).…”

LEADER+ TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE IN POLAND: SUCCESSES AND FAILURES AS A RATIONAL CHOICE EFFECT

“…First, there were the central government national programmes supporting rural partnership creation in the two above‐mentioned countries before they joined the European Union, between 1998 and 2004 (Kovacs Katona et al . 2006; Hudečková & Lošťák 2008), so earlier than in Poland. Secondly, in some of these programmes there was a possibility to organise small grant competitions in chosen LAGs (Hudečková & Lošťák 2008; Varga 2009; Lošťák & Hudečková 2010).…”

“…2006; Hudečková & Lošťák 2008), so earlier than in Poland. Secondly, in some of these programmes there was a possibility to organise small grant competitions in chosen LAGs (Hudečková & Lošťák 2008; Varga 2009; Lošťák & Hudečková 2010). The main explanation of these differences could be the elitist character of the programme rules formation.…”