The Projects that Might Have Been. Exploring the Reasons Behind the Failure of LEADER Projects. Reflections from the Local Action Groups in Andalusia (Spain)

The LEADER approach can be considered the most successful rural development programme ever implemented by the European Union. However, there are various obstacles that have limited its successful application. These include, among others, programme bureaucracy, a low level of finance, delays in the payment of the grant, limited programming periods, top-down controls, and a lack of training and experience amongst promoters. However, the most worrying issue is the regression in many of the essential principles of the LEADER approach, which is causing local people to disengage from it and lose interest. Within this context, it is important to understand the difficulties faced by promoters and Local Action Groups (LAGs) when trying to obtain support for their projects from public funds. This chapter deals with the “lost projects”, the ones that never got off the ground, and the fundamental underlying reasons for the failure of these projects, according to the LAGs. Insufficient attention has been paid to the causes of project failure in the planning of subsequent rural development policies or even in academic research. Promoters have to skillfully manoeuvre through a long and complicated obstacle course. Projects can be rejected or abandoned at different times in the application process. The methodology followed in this chapter is based on qualitative research through semi-structured interviews held during 2021, in which interviewees were asked the following main questions: obstacles when applying for LEADER grants; causes of failure; if these projects were finally implemented without LEADER or similar support; and finally, specific emblematic cases. To this end, we interviewed technical staff from twelve LAGs in Andalusia, Spain. Failure was attributed to a highly diverse, complex set of causes, of which the most important were: insufficient initial finance; the complexity of the bureaucratic requirements, the slowness of the process; and poorly prepared projects. Our results suggest that the causes of failed projects would be relatively easy to correct, so transforming hostile “giants” into “windmills”. This would make it easier for promoters to complete the process successfully, so encouraging them to reengage in neo-endogenous rural development practices. In some cases, it is also necessary to convert “quixotes” into “sanchos”, to bring naïve businesspeople with overly ambitious, poorly prepared proposals down to earth.