To identify the challenges faced by the Romanian actors and the key factors that will contribute to the development of the network into an effective tool for the implementation of rural development policies, data from 62 members (and potential members) was collected electronically in the summer of 2010 (Research activity E, see Chapter 4).
The sample comprised a mixed group of stakeholders (Figure 8.1), relatively closely following the composition of the network. In terms of the distribution of respondents by type of activities, the largest share (28%) is attributed to activities related to regional/rural development, followed by culture and education (20%) and environment (12%). Noteworthy is the low number of responses regarding activities such as farming, forestry and agribusiness, which altogether account for 12% only.
Figure 8.1: Distribution of NRN stakeholders by major type of organisations
Note: n = 62
a “Professional associations” refers to any form of associations of producers or employers.
b “Regional/local authorities” refers to county and local councils, prefectures, and also to some territorial units of the Ministry of Agriculture.
Source: Own data 2010.
8.3.1 Does membership (still) matter?
Obviously, after the period of deadlock of more than two years (Table 4.2; Section 3.5) the Romanian NRN cannot count on all actors once registered as member anymore. The survey revealed that in many cases the receiver of the questionnaire was not aware of the existence of an NRN due to changing responsibilities within public institutions, or the intermediate
174 The term “rural web” has also been used by Ventura et al. (2010), who do not explicitly refer to governance structures in terms of formal and informal institutions, but to various kinds of flows including, e.g. production chains for visualising the multifaceted character of rural development.
breakup of organisations (e.g. potential LAGs or businesses). Moreover, the delay in the implementation of the network unit and the lack of activities had led to disappointment and a lack of belief in the network. Nonetheless, the sample of respondents indicates that stakeholders are still interested in the NRN. Despite of the general absence of a strong feeling of membership (given the status quo of the Romanian NRN), the participants expressed their motivation for joining the network mostly in the form of ‘needs’ and ‘desires’ (Table 8.2).
Table 8.2: Motivation for NRN membership
Need/Desire for No. of responses
Access to information (including funding)/contacts and collaborations/knowledge
exchange 26
Becoming actively involved in decision-making processes 22
Specific interest in rural/regional development 12
Receiving training and support for various (territorial) projects 6
Other reasons 7
Note: n = 73
Source: Own data 2010.
First and foremost, most participants perceive the network as instrumental for accessing information (particularly about funds), establishing contacts/collaboration, and knowledge exchange. Second, membership provides (or should provide) regional and local people with the opportunity “to make their voices heard” and to become actively involved in the decision-making process. Third, some organisations (e.g. potential LAGs and various NGOs) joined the network for enhancing their already active part in regional and rural development. Others joined the NRN hoping to receive training and benefit from technical assistance, or were invited to join by the Management Authority due to their specific skills and expertise.
Although some actors primarily see their personal benefit of the membership, others act beyond self-interest anticipating rather common objectives for the rural areas.
These findings closely follow network-theoretical principles, i.e. the main motivation for joining a network is the belief that membership allows achieving issues that could not be tackled by an individual actor or allows achieving them in a better, more efficient way (Jarillo 1988; Ray 2001a), or access to resources. Two of the motives, however, might break ranks in this regard: first, joining the NRN at the invitation of the Romanian Managing Authority, and second, the ‘expected’ participation of some members of the public administration within the network. In these cases, the principle of voluntarism is disputable (cp. Bingham et al. 2005).
8.3.2 Using the (theoretical) potential of networking?
The EU-wide 2010 survey among the NNUs revealed that none of the surveyed NRNs had formally set added value creation, which (social) networks theoretically offer, as objective.
Though, three decisive factors are to be considered when assessing the potential of the Romanian NRN for using the potential of networking effectively: the network’s objectives, its design, and the resources available for networking.
8.3.2.1 Communicated objective-setting - a crucial factor for successful networking
For running networks successfully, common objectives (Nooteboom 2003) and a common understanding (Mihalache 2009) are needed as the readiness to contribute to a network means more than just the desire to join (Weiligmann 1999). Hence, objectives can act as a motivating or discouraging factor for members to engage in the network. While amongst the Romanian network members there is a broad understanding of the overall objectives of the
Challenges of NRNs as Instrumental Intervention – The Romanian Case 177 NRN (as defined by Brussels), survey results reveal that there is confusion about how the network will work and how these objectives are to be achieved. This is not only due to the delay of the implementation of the network unit, but also to the ministry’s poor communication and information management towards NRN members. Communication, the sharing of information respectively, is essential for a common understanding of the network (Roger and Kincaid 1981). When asked whether there has been any information regarding the status of the network in the last two years, less than half of the respondents answered in the affirmative. Moreover, although an Action Plan had been drawn up in 2008 (MARD 2008b), this was hardly communicated to NRN members. Members were neither informed as to why the network was not running nor when it will become functional, and interaction between members was almost non-existent. This led some respondents to feel neglected and question whether the Managing Authority indeed had the interests of members at its heart. Clearly, in the view of respondents, any information is better than none.
In order to provide incentives and motivate actors to participate in the NRN, the network unit has to consider their needs and interests. These expectations should be reflected in the network’s objectives. Results show that the expectations of the Romanian NRN (Table 8.3) are not completely covered by the general goals for NRNs as defined at the European level.
Table 8.3: Expectations of the Romanian National Rural Network
Expectations No. of responses
Effective functioning and dynamic network (with a realistic action plan) &
commitment and responsibility from its members
20
Cohesion among all actors involved in rural development 12
Increased transparency (e.g. in the allocation of funds) & exclusion of any political influence
12
Improvement of national RDP implementation 12
Discussion on/review of rural development regulations 7
Advice/Support/Assistance (in applying for funds) 28
Better access to information
of which focussed on exchange of experiences & good practices
34 15
Improved communication 12
Public debates & public consultations 11
Increasing and facilitating partnerships (not only between LAGs) 9
Others (e.g. establishing regional network structures; increased absorption of funds) 21
Note: n = 78 RDP = Rural Development Programme
Source: Own data 2010.
This applies for instance to the desire of having a voice within the policy-formation process, which does not explicitly come under the common goals. This is also true for the necessity not only to focus on EAFRD-related issues. - One main objective of many members of the Romanian NRN is the development of Romania’s rural areas and not to gain EAFRD funding per se. Experiences from other Member States (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom) show that it is important for network members to go beyond the focus of the EAFRD and also to discuss, for instance, alternative funding opportunities. Thus, for satisfying members’ interests and making the network (more) relevant to its (potential) members, the Romanian NRN has to go beyond the obligatory objectives defined externally and supplement its agenda by endogenously grown objectives internally agreed on. In doing so, also actors who are needed for making the network instrumental can be attracted. Sustaining a network by assuring that it remains relevant for its members requires a network to be adaptable (Ethering 2005), for instance, in its focus.
8.3.2.2 The Design of the NRN
The design of a network influences its functionality (Weiligmann 1999) as certain network properties are likely to bring about certain effects (Table 8.1). The scope of any NRN is to bring together various stakeholders who have influence on, or are interested in, the development of rural areas, whereupon diversity is likely to increase the added value in terms of complementing ideas and the creativity resulting from it. So far, the composition of the Romanian NRN shows diversity. However, due to the lack of interactions between members, the network does not benefit from the complementarity effect. Moreover, experiences from other Member States show that, despite a mixed composition, the organisation of interdisciplinary actions, respectively interlinking different interest groups horizontally, proves to be also challenging in established NRNs.
Another issue potentially limiting the instrumental effects of the Romanian NRN becomes obvious when examining members’ thoughts on the composition of the network. The opinions of the survey participants were diverse. While some thought that the composition of the network is representative for Romania’s rural areas, others were sceptical and felt that “the network has only apparently a balanced representation” and that it “is without the pulse of the rural reality”, or that “the network has a representative composition [but only] on paper”. The scepticism expressed by some members may have its roots in the initial formation of the network when selected stakeholders were invited to become members by the ministry (Section 3.5). This top-down selection procedure of raising awareness and inviting stakeholders to join the network, although initially necessary, might have been exclusive. It is likely that not all stakeholders who really have an interest in participating in the network were reached. Nonetheless, the large increase (by 35%) in the number of members that took place between November 2007 and September 2008 does not only reveal the effect of the initial selection attempting to achieve a representative stakeholder composition, but also a degree of openness of the network. After the opportunity to join the NRN had become widely known, various NGOs, potential LAGs and commercial farmers joined the network. While the share of NGOs in the total membership remained constant by around 30%, for potential LAGs and commercial farms the membership increased not only in absolute numbers, but also in relative ones from 1.4% to 7.2% and from 0% to 18%, respectively. The increasing number of commercial farmers, which are in fact a minority among Romanian farmers, shows that the network’s composition is hardly to steer, and that the Romanian NRN has developed as any typical network, following its own momentum (Horelli 2009).
A related factor important for the development of networks is the role of its members and the balance between institutionalisation and flexibility. The period of abeyance reveals that so far nobody has assumed responsibility for making the Romanian network operational. Thus, not primarily a lack of institutionalisation led to inefficiency – as typical for networks – but an inappropriate institutional design (a kind of governance failure) led to incapacitation and ineffectiveness. There is a need for clarification of the roles and rights of those involved in the Romanian NRN. Overall, there is the feeling that members themselves cannot assume any responsibility yet as they are still waiting for the network unit to be established. Certainly, members will not necessarily have to fulfil any duties formally laid down, yet most respondents have a clear view as to how they can contribute to network activities, hence indicating the potential of network dynamics. Furthermore, as shown in the previous section, NRNs need to be flexible in order to be adaptable to members’ interests. Similarly, experience from other national networks shows that the degree of institutionalisation should be carefully considered as flexible network structures are needed when network activities are to be delivered creatively.175
175 To the cleavage between clearly defined objectives as driver for running an NRN – no matter whether formally or informally institutionalised - and flexibility in terms of the focus of the network point de Bruijn and
Challenges of NRNs as Instrumental Intervention – The Romanian Case 179 In order to use its potential for dynamics, the Romanian NRN needs to initiate interaction and circulate sufficient and comprehensive information among its members. As “multiple accepted views, values and visions are needed to actively create positive interactions between the different dimensions of rural development“ (Vihinen and Kull 2010, p. 194), it becomes obvious that for making the Romanian NRN an effective tool, more than just bringing stakeholders together is required. However, managing a fruitful communication amongst a diversity of stakeholders is not an easy task. It requires adapting the content of messages as well as the topics of activities to the target groups, and choosing the most efficient communication media. Two kinds of communication are preferred by survey participants: 1) personal communication and 2) communication via internet. While the internet offers the possibility to reach actors with little effort, personal communication has the advantage that messages may be adapted to the receiver and that the response to the message is recognised.
Furthermore, personal communication is needed for establishing trustworthy relations (Giddens 1991).
Going one step beyond and stimulating network dynamics in form of interactions, which result in added value, turned out to be difficult in other Member States. Network units face problems, for instance, in initiating a multiplier effects, stimulating and maintaining cooperation between stakeholders. Tackling such challenges is currently no priority for the Romanian actors.
In the context of network design the strong demand of Romanian actors for regional network structures (Table 8.3) calls for one’s attention. This demand is primarily based on three deliberations: 1) needs, which should be picked up by the NRN, differ regionally; 2) at the regional level it is much easier to bring actors regularly together; and 3) the establishment of decentralised organisational structures might entail increased decision-making power at the lower level. While the first two issues are primarily technical matters, whose realisation could still be contemplated in the Romanian NRN belatedly, the latter issue follows the idea of decentralisation and has not found any consideration in the regulations on the NRN in Romania. Yet, whether the Romanian NRN could benefit from the effects expected from decentralised structures, namely the opportunity to make decisions where they matter most and facilitated democracy, depends on the willingness of stakeholders at the national level to accept decreased control and to share power. Furthermore, experiences across the EU where one finds different types of NRNs in terms of decentralisation (Section 3.3) show that regionalisation (with or without decision-making power) is besides the size, diversity and existing administrative structures of a Member State mainly a question of experiences in organising networks and of available resources. Networks with sufficient resources have the manpower to staff regional offices.
8.3.2.3 Resources for networking
For the overall network management financial resources are essential. Romania directed 0.3%
of its total EAFRD budget for 2007-2013 to the implementation of its NRN, which make up Euro 30 million without national co-financing. In comparison with the budget of other NRNs, this allocation does not stand out (cp. Figure 3.2; Marquardt et al. 2011). Despite that the amount foreseen for the Romanian NRN is not insignificant it will be, however, challenging to answer the demands of different interest groups equally across themes and regions. Some participants specifically remarked that many rural actors are first and foremost interested in the absorption of funds, and that generally local actors do not have “an integrated view of Ten Heuvelhof (1995, p. 171) saying, “Institutionalized opinions and value systems have a function within networks. They facilitate contact and communication between actors, which is often not easy owing to the complex structures of the network. On the other hand, this institutionalization can also be obstructive: certain reality and problem definitions are systematically excluded from the network. As a result of this, the effectiveness of policy instruments may be radically reduced”.