Finland’s Leader programme promotes successful, genuine partnerships between civil society and the authorities on rural development issues to an exceptional extent. “Genuine partnerships in this context mean that those involved in managing projects do not have to beg, and the State cannot dictate,” explains Eero Uusitalo, a professor of rural studies. “Decisions are taken together, and both parties are on the same wavelength.”
Such cooperation has not come about by chance, but as the result of determined efforts. Finland’s Leader activities have been enhanced by making further improvements to the European Commission’s regulations. “The EU deserves thanks for establishing the system, but for Finland the Commission’s regulations are not the maximum but the minimum requirements,” says Uusitalo, who also serves as Secretary-General of Finland’s Rural Policy Committee.
Kauno Perkiömäki, former Chairman of the Board of the Joutsenten reitti (‘Swan Route’) action group, has closely followed the work of his local action group. He praises the Finnish system, but also stresses the importance of the work done at local level. “As people have got to know our LAG, appreciation of the work it does has grown. At the same time, the number of projects has increased, and there is intense competition for funding, which raises the project’s profile,” says Perkiömäki.
Finland’s LAG work differs from the work done in other countries particularly due to the tripartite structure of the action groups, which contain the elected representatives of local organisations and local residents, as well as the local authorities. “We adhere to a tripartite structure as it prevents projects from being hijacked to meet the needs of just one group,” explains Uusitalo.
But this improved management model is not the only reason for Leader’s success in Finland. Leader has also beneficially raised awareness among many previously inactive organisations of the need for rural development work and effective project leadership.
The widespread organisation of ‘village’ action in the 1990s served as a good basis, but project leaders had to learn the right way to do things. Finland now has ten years of valuable experience of project work to draw on.
Perkiömäki and Uusitalo both believe that Leader could be expanded even further in Finland. Uusitalo reckons Leader could become the main tool for rural development in the future. “The results have been so good that I would like to see more consistent policy-making and resources coming from the Government,” he says. “The country in second position in the Leader stakes is Ireland, and there the government has trebled Leader funding. Finland could do the same!”
Perkiömäki believes it is especially important to for rural development work to proceed comprehensively, and not be separately run for different sectors as before.
Both of the experts call for a lightening of the administrative burdens associated with projects. “The projects would benefit from greater flexibility. The funding decisions only come when a project is already under way. Big decisions have to be taken before the funding has been confirmed,” points out Perkiömäki.
