Available policy tools: take-up rates, opportunities and hindrances

Take-up rates: projects awarded grants in the case study area 2017-2020

The first half of this chapter introduces in detail the take-up rates by applicants in the case study area for support from two funding resources: the Territorial OP and local LEADER Programme.

By March 2020, 34 projects from the Territorial OP had been granted in the Szentes district with a total value of 19,436,436 Euro (Annex Table 2.1), the average project size was 561,829 Euro/project and 489 Euro/citizen. One small village, Eperjes, failed to win a grant, but the scale of funding ranged considerably among the winners too, from Nagytőke (another small village with 117 Euro/citizen) to Árpádhalom, the third small village with a population under 500 where five projects were awarded to a total value of 975,266 Euro from the Territorial OP, resulting in a 1966 Euro per capita support rate. (The respective figures for the town of Szentes were 9 projects granted of 11,406,369 Euro, 410 Euro per Capita.) The distribution of awarded projects and awarded resources by project measures are indicated by the two figures below (Figure 16, Figure 17).

Figure 16: Distribution of granted projects in the CS area by measures of the Territorial OP

Source: https://www.palyazat.gov.hu/tamogatott_projektkereso

Figure 17: Distribution of the awarded grants in the CS area by measures of the Territorial OP

Source: https://www.palyazat.gov.hu/tamogatott_projektkereso

Both figures convincingly show the importance of projects aimed at the better provision of child care and education, health and social care on the one hand, and projects related to infrastructural development, on the other (road, energy efficiency, waste water, the latter two are environmentally relevant as well). The first group of projects which were awarded grants (41% of projects, 24% of funding resources) in particular might have positive impacts on

retaining population since they target an enhanced quality of life in the villages and women’s better chances of opting for employment rather than child rearing at home. Twelve projects submitted by municipalities and local NGO-s aim to enhance people’s attachment to localities and strengthen community cohesion; the goal of retaining population is manifest in these projects, too.

It has to be added that quite a number of projects awarded by the Human Resource Operational Programme might impact population shrinkage, such as an anti-segregation action to refurbish 24 rental apartments in the town of Szentes, or the four projects that aim to provide better quality food for children at schools. Another programme addresses retired sportsmen. An outlier project is supported by the Human Resource Development OP but financed from ERDF, since it covers the costs of renewing the roof of the gymnasium in Szentes. (See Annex Table 2.4) Even the Cohesion Fund has supported projects that might be relevant for the liveability of the area, such as the two “soft projects” from Szegvár aiming at enhancing environmental awareness and setting up a climate strategy and a “hard project”

aiming the provision of clear and healthy drinking water. (See Annex Table 2.3)

Figure 18: Distribution of granted LEADER projects by applicants

Source: https://www.palyazat.gov.hu/tamogatott_projektkereso

If we consider LEADER funds, there are three villages (Fábiánsebestyén, Eperjes, Nagytőke) which submitted no application for LEADER support or withdrew their application (Figure 18).

Municipalities seem to rely most on LEADER funding: 42% of applications came from this sector. Only half of the scarce resource available had been spent by October 2019, reflecting low levels of interest, which is rather concerning; uncertainties and mistrust can impede necessary corrections, such as rechannelling funding between measures or increasing the

minimum and maximum thresholds of available grants (although the latter was obviously done by LAG managers, see Annex Table 2.2)

There are a number of important discrepancies between the two programmes, in addition to differences in the project funding available (on the basis of projects funded in Szentes, the average project size figures for Territorial OP and LEADER projects differed by a factor of more than 50!):

− The intensity rate of aid is 100% in case of the Territorial OP and ranges from 50% to 85% in case of LEADER; in other words, own contribution is not needed at all in case of the first, and can reach half of the expected expenditure of a project in the latter; if we add that tenders of the Hungarian Village Programme also have no own contribution element, LEADER is the less attractive funding resource; (Of course this applies to municipalities only because neither business entities nor natural persons can apply for the other two Programmes)

− Whilst the national-level management of LEADER is very problematic, despite being solely funded by EAFRD, it operates smoothly in case of the Territorial OP, where one of the priorities is funded by ESF (the four others by ERDF).

Some pieces of evidence from the interviews

Facts and opinions seem to suggest equally that available development funds are only capable of slowing down rural population shrinkage through closing the gap, to some extent, between urban and rural quality of life. Without offers of recent funding opportunities, the situation would be even worse.

In the previous section the comparison between LEADER and the Territorial OP was based on quantitative sources of evidence. Hereby, the below interview quotations are meant to illustrate opportunities and hindrances of development actions have been taken from interviews:

• There is still a missing link between regional development and rural development (CAP Pillar II) policy. They work as they were separated by walls, limiting the chance to arise significant synergies.

• ‘Much hassle about nothing’ – the LEADER programme and the CLLD could be a well-tailored, relevant policy approach, but minuscule funding erodes possible gaining notwithstanding huge delays in the LEADER Programme. LAG in both cases can be considered as a framework/platform among LAG members aimed at planning and discussing issues, but the value-added of the joint work has been still missing/invisible.

• Public policies addressing rural shrinkage are still dominated by a “brick and mortal”

approach. Exceptions are represented by some community building projects granted

from the Territorial Development OP and the Hungarian Village Programme. They are so risk-avoiding by nature, so the members of the high-risk vulnerable groups and localities (minority groups, unemployed, segregated neighbourhoods) are often not reached at all. The selective outmigration in the long run may lead to a definite socio-spatial segregation in rural areas; it is not so evident in the CS area but present in the fragmented landscapes of North-East and South-West Hungary. A shortage of professionals (GPs, teachers, caretakers) is increasingly hindering the ability of rural settlements to provide services like education, health care or provision these services in appropriate quality. Numerous job vacancies at healthcare in rural areas are related to low profitability of the position of a general practitioner due to low population density of the catchment area. Low salaries of teachers are directly or indirectly determined by the Government, therefore could at least partially treated by national-level decisions. It is not only income of doctors or teachers that matters: the job is often more difficult in rural areas than in cities. In case of primary education, principals are nominated by head of the district office since 2013 without any co-ordination with local representatives. The mess around re-nationalisation of schools, the curricula, the strengthening state control over teaching, restricted autonomy of principals, scarcity of resources are all factors triggering high fluctuation and declining quality of education.

• Programming and implementing regional and rural development programmes need active engagement of subnational and local actors. Currently, the relevant agencies, county councils (NUTS 3 level) and LEADER LAGs are capable, but vulnerable to political decisions of the Government and centrally managed agencies (managing authorities of EU funds). Technical details: tendered projects of the Operational Programmes are often too large for the rural municipalities. To be eligible at tenders, large consortiums would have to be organised which is not a viable alternative.

Without sub-measures tailored to the needs of rural areas and dedicated allocations of funding, urban and metropolitan settlements will always win the race over scarce resources.

3.3.3. Local visions concerning future pathways and available policy support