Regional Action Plans (RAPs)

Regional Action Plans: the D3.1 method in three phases

main tellingdepth: standard2 min markdown

A Regional Action Plan (RAP) is the plan each PoliRural+ pilot co-creates with its stakeholders. D3.1 describes the method as driven by local communities and adapted to local needs, and it sets the goal: a RAP should end in financed measures being carried out, not in a report. WP3 writes the methodology and WP5 applies it in the nine pilots. The thinking behind it is the foresight framework.

Phase I: Preparation

This phase is done before any group work. The team:

• picks a theme, often through needs gathering and issues analysis. The theme must contribute to the LTVRA and the New European Bauhaus and must address an issue that needs urban-rural policy cooperation (D3.1 lists climate, food, energy, waste, transport, housing, education, tourism);
• identifies the local-government institutions to work with, the policies to align with, and possible sources of finance;
• runs a Policy Gap Analysis, an inventory of existing policies, strategies and plans, so that measures build on what exists and avoid overlaps. It also runs a Review of Institutional Arrangements and a Stakeholder Analysis.

Phase II: Foresight and the RAP

Phase II is highly participative and cannot start until the theme is clear. The team works through a drivers’ analysis, a shared vision for a chosen “landing place” in time (5, 10 or even 50 years ahead) and a SWOT analysis prepared in advance, not brainstormed from a blank sheet. The output is one public document with three parts:

Phase III: Follow-up and implementation

The work turns convergent and ends in consensus on an executable plan. Three things make it stick:

1. Endorsement. Key beneficiaries endorse the plan in public, for example at a final consultation, ideally with the implementing actors present.
2. Adoption of the roadmap. The institutions that must act formally accept the timeline and their duties. D3.1 says the question of who does what, and with what money, must be raised early. Without adoption, “the RAP will remain a report.”
3. A monitoring committee. People with local political standing follow up when floods, elections or staff changes derail delivery.

Where the pilots stand

All nine pilots revised their RAPs in November 2025. D2.3 reports statuses from “early implementation” (Spain) to “advanced” (Vidzeme), with blended EU and local finance as the common answer to short-term funding.

Worked example: the County Monaghan RAP, element by element

another tellingexample world: irelanddepth: standard2 min markdown

The County Monaghan pilot is led by Monaghan Integrated Development, with technical support from MAC. Its RAP shows how a real plan maps onto the D3.1 method. All facts below come from the fact sheet and from D2.3 (submitted), which summarises the RAPs as revised in November 2025.

Phase I: the theme

The pilot’s challenge is the circular economy: low awareness, weak collaboration and little finance for circular or green enterprise, with waste-to-resource and community energy as openings (fact sheet, RP1). This meets D3.1’s theme test. Waste and energy are on its list of areas that need urban-rural policy coordination, and D2.3 records the rural-urban linkage as rural areas tied to nearby towns for jobs, services and education.

The pilot also started gathering needs through a funded third party. GREEN, a EUR 5,000 Outreach project, scoped green and circular business opportunities in the county. It is completed, with its outputs approved by the panel (D6.3).

Phase II: vision, action plan, roadmap

The method has a technical layer too. Technical pilot TP1, led by MAC, defines and implements the RAP using action-foresight, system dynamics modelling and MapWhiteboard GIS (fact sheet).

Phase III: follow-up

D3.1 asks for monitoring, and the Period 2 priorities supply measurable targets (D2.3, §4.3):

• establish the Circular Economy Hub and train SMEs in the green transition;
• integrate foresight results into county policy;
• KPIs: at least 50 SMEs trained, at least 3 new circular business models, a 10% waste reduction, and alignment with the regional climate plan.

D2.3 reports the plan’s status as “active implementation”.

Where the roadmap is still thin

D2.3’s review (§4.2, Table 10) lists the weak points: limited access to national co-financing, a risk of over-reliance on EU grants, and gaps in linking the circular bioeconomy with youth employment. Its recommendations are to diversify funding (EIB, private finance, LEADER+), create a youth green-entrepreneurship scheme, and mainstream the hub’s outputs into the county development strategy.

That last recommendation is D3.1’s Phase III in practice. A plan is only safe once the institutions that hold the budget have adopted its roadmap.

Check yourself: The Plan Is Endorsed. Why Has Nothing Moved?

A pilot region has published its Regional Action Plan: a vision for 2035, a list of measures, and a launch event where local businesses and community groups endorsed it. The plan was drafted by the pilot team with citizens and beneficiaries; the county council and funding bodies were invited to the launch. Six months later, no measure has started. What most likely went wrong?

A) “Too few citizens took part” The bottom-up track was too thin, so the plan lacks legitimacy.

B) “The roadmap was never adopted by the actors” The institutions that must legislate, budget and implement were not part of the process and never committed to the timeline and financing.

C) “The drivers’ analysis was too narrow” The team kept only 4 priority trends; it should have carried 15 into the plan.

D) “The SWOT analysis was too shallow” A more detailed SWOT would have produced measures that stakeholders want to carry out.

Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.