Tag Archives: Rural Development

Effect of mainstreaming LEADER in Denmark

Posted on by

At the IFUL institute there is a lot of research and development experience with the European LEADER approach for rural development. During the previous LEADER+ programme from 2000 to 2006, Annette Aagaard Thuesen worked in the Danish National Network Unit for LEADER+ which was hosted by the institute. She is currently finishing a report for the Danish Food Industry Agency and the National Network Unit on the composition of the Danish LAG boards within the Rural Development (RD) and Fisheries programme 2007-2013 of which an English summary will soon be available.

For the Nordic countries, one of the results of mainstreaming the LEADER approach into the current RD Programme’s (2007 – 2013) of the Common Agricultural Policy is an increase in the number of Local Action Groups (LAGs) and an increased geographical coverage of areas working with the LEADER approach. Denmark raised the number of LAG’s from 12 to 55, Sweden from 12 to 65 and Finland kept its high number of 58. In the Netherlands, this expansion took place during the previous LEADER+ period and the current programme added 3 new LAG’s to the 28 of last period.

In Denmark, interestingly, the expansion of the LEADER approach led to a change in the institutional arrangements of LAG’s to secure the input legitimacy of the Danish LAG’s. Before, LAG members were, as in the Netherlands, appointed, without clear standards of entry. In this period LAG members are chosen by election and LAG’s have to be organized as associations with open and free membership, much like the Irish model. All people over 15 years living in the LAG area can be registered a member of the association and they can participate in elections. Board members are elected for two years and are to represent four groups:
– local citizens
– local enterprises and trade organizations
– local nature- environment- culture- citizen- and leisure associations
– public authorities
Like in the Netherlands, Danish LAG’s are mainly focused on the diversification of the rural economy, the so called ‘axis 3’ objective in the Rural Development Programme.

Visiting IFUL in Esbjerg, Denmark

Posted on by

images6From 16 to 27 of Februari I am staying at the The Danish Institute of Rural Research and Development (IFUL) as a visiting researcher. IFUL is located in Esbjerg, at the western coast of Jutland. IFUL is an institute within the social sciences of the Southern Denmark University aimed at the development of sustainable rural areas specially focusing on business development and the population’s life condition. Whereas our group has its roots in agriculture and has broadened to rural and regional studies, this institute always had a territorial focus on rural development (working papers).

On Monday 23 of Februari a seminar will take place  entitled “the rural paradigm, hardly settled!- ready to move?”  The seminar is open to people from within and from outside the university with various contributors.

Rural Development in Brazil: interfaces between public policy and social actors

Posted on by

From the 10th till the 28th of February Prof. Sergio Schneider of the Federal University of Rio Grande de Sul (UFRGS) in Brazil is visiting Wageningen under the agreement CAPES-Wageningen University. Sergio is Professor of Rural Sociology and Coordinator of the Post-Graduate Programme in Rural Development (PGDR). In his contribution to the Rural Sociology Weblog he briefly introduces his research domain. He will also present this at a research seminar of the Rural Sociology Group on Thursday 19 February at 16.00 hrs in room C70 of the Leeuwenborch building.

Sergio SchneiderBy Sergio Schneider – Since the 1990’s discussions on rural development in Brazil are no longer associated with policies to combat poverty. From these times onwards discussions on rural development have been related to themes like environmental sustainability, land reform, policies to support small family farming and more recently, the issue of food security. The discussion on rural development in Brazil has gained strong momentum … Continue reading →

Collective approach to farmer marketing – recommendations

Posted on by

Dutch Initiative Van Eigen ErfRecently our rural sociology group finished an European research project on collective farmers marketing initiatives. The COFAMI project identified a broad set of enabling and limiting factors to explain the emergence of and dynamics within farmers’ driven collective action and developed a methodology to assess their impacts on different types of territorial capital assets. Empirial material from Italy, Germany, Latvia, Austria, Czech Republic, Switzerland and The Netherlands covers collective farmers initiatives in fields as high quality food production, provision of new rural goods and services and region branding. A summary of recommendations, reports and other project material can be downloaded from www.cofami.org.

Fordhall Community Land Initiative – Shropshire (UK)

Posted on by

By Sophie Hopkins – Fordhall Community Land Initiative in the rural county of Shropshire, England, is a pioneering venture in land acquisition and rural development (an example of Community Land Trust). 

Community Supported Agriculture
The project is an Industrial and Provident Society (‘run by the community, for the community’)  which was established to save 140 acres of land that had been organically farmed since WWII. Fordhall Farm (the family business) is today famous  for its meats, but was also the first place to produce yoghurt in UK. It uses the traditional method of foggage  farming, leaving grass-fed cattle outdoors all year. The family had been farming the land for generations but only as tenants, so when faced with eviction and development threats in 2004 the brother and  sister team (aged 19 and 21 respectively), and many others, decided to fight to secure the land. Working with local to global supporters and with the concept of Community Supported Agriculture, they devised a method to involve people in the food production chain, whilst still maintaining ownership of the farming practices. Continue reading →