| IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE: The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. |
|
Local financing in rural areas[ Summary ]
Chapter 1:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Advantages and drawbacks of the four most common types of funding |
||||
| Subsidies and lost equity donations | Credit (with/without ethical requirements) | Guarantees | Equity participation | |
| Cases where it is better to use this type of financing | Collective projects with a social or ethical aim; high-risk innovative projects; projects by young people and other groups in difficulty; Third World projects | Projects with a commercial aim; investments in businesses that meet ethical criteria (ethical ratings) | Any investment project by structures belonging to a collective guarantee project | To boost territorial solidarity |
| Specific advantages | Make it possible to restore the balance in terms of access to resources, even at territorial level | Relationship that can be built up over the long term | Ability to negotiate with banks; guaranteed access to credit; collective approach and, in most cases, assured project follow-up | To strengthen local links and confidence in the area’s future |
| Disadvantages | Can sometimes encourage a lack of social responsibility | Terms are ill-matched to the specific needs of applicants; limitations in the case of certain projects, especially those with a social aim | Risk of failure | Time to build up trust and to secure capital for investment and rotation |
| Fund providers | Public players at various levels, public/private partnerships | Banks (traditional, ethical) | Cooperatives and guarantee funds | Local savers, local business firms |
|
|
European |
Agriculture |
![]() |