“Les démarches de développement local multifonds:Des réseaux en questionnement: ELARD ”

Panayiotis Patras, Vice President of ELARD

(European LEADER Association for Rural Development-aisbl )

1

SEMINAIRE INTERNATIONAL Le développement local :

un enjeu stratégique pour les territoires rurauxLa démarche LEADER en appui à la Stratégie 2020

16 Octobre 2012, Bruxelles

International non-profit association founded in 1999 by 5 European national informal LEADER networks:

1. French LEADER Network - LEADER France 2. Greek LEADER Network - Eλληνικό Δίκτυο LEADER 3. Irish LEADER Network - Comhar LEADER na hEireann 4. Italian LEADER Network - AssoLEADER 5. Spanish LEADER Network – REDR

Today, ELARD is representing more than 800 LAGs (from some 2300 in total) through voluntary networks in 23 EU countries:

Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, North Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Croatia & FYROM

In contact with Rural Networks in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany.

ELARD before and today

One of the most important aims of ELARD is to: "campaign to spread the philosophy, principles and reach of the LEADER method grounded in the eight specific features in order to achieve sustainable rural development across Europe".

The association aims also to:"represent the interests and needs of its members in front of other international, European, and national institutions to liaise with other stakeholders and institutions working towards an integrated rural development and to influence EU policies in favour of rural development".

3

ELARD aims

“Evolution of the LEADER approach” (1)

• Over the past 20 years experience of LEADER approach in EU: designed as Community Initiative to help rural actors consider the

long-term potential of their local region, it has become an important element of EU rural development

policy with a high level of acceptance all over Europe.• The EC promoted similar delivery method through other Community

Initiatives also, such as: URBAN (ERDF) INTEREGG (ERDF) EQUAL (ESF).

• In the case of LEADER, since then was proven an effective and efficient tool in the delivery of development policies.

• Since 2007, local development has also been a policy delivery tool in the European fisheries sector (FLAG’s).

“Evolution of the LEADER approach” (2)

1. Community Initiatives: LEADER I (1991-93) – experiment: “bottom up” approach v. “top

down approach” in the Structural Policy; establishing LAG’s, LEADER II (1994-99) - laboratory: limited to disadvantaged rural

areas; innovation - pilot actions - LAG’s to do “new thinks”; introduction of transnational cooperation,

LEADER + (2000-06) - maturity phase: eligibility of the whole rural territory; Thematic approach to Local Strategic Planning; Leader+ type measure for new Member States 2004-2006),

2. “Mainstreamed LEADER” 2007-13: LEADER axis 4 – mainstream in RD programming: not any

longer specific programme; gave LEADER scope to deliver across the 4 Axes;

3. Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) in the CSF-Funds 2014-2020: LEADER approach as basis for territories to implement “multi-

funded” integrated local development strategies.

Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) in the new framework

1. Europe 2020 strategy: Territorial development on sub-regional level as a cross-cutting issue

for inclusive growth;2. CSF addresses CLLD as a tool for territorial development;3. Partnership Contracts (PC) will have to address CLLD;4. Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) for the CSF Funds:

offers a common approach to support CLLD; The draft regulation (Chapter II - Articles 28-31) for future CLLD are

based on the LEADER approach and concern all the CSF Funds; in case of EAFRD (Art. 55-61), and EMFF puts a single set of rules

which are complemented by fund- specific features

This allows the integrated use of all CSF Funds on sub- regional level for: reinforcing implemention of multi level governance through “multi-

funded” local development strategies; improving strategic choices at Member State level regarding local

development

7

CHOISE 1. “Multi-funded” development strategies :Principle: “One area = one strategy with several funds”; Functional areas – coordinated intervention of several Funds; MS to choose/define the part of their territory which should be

covered by LDS; Harmonisation of eligibilty rules of the different Funds will

help in the management on national, regional and local level Possibility to opt for a “lead fund” Incentives: 10% more if Priority Axis is delivered through CLLD

CHOISE 2. “Mono-funding”: One area – one Fund

View on the future of LEADER as a local development tool

8

Benefit for LEADER groups: Reemphasizing of the 7 specific features of LEADER method; “truly” integrated strategies; Broaden the funding base; Reinforce rural-urban and rural-coastal links; Increase in LAG’s autonomy, More clearly defined roles for LAGs/MAs/PAs as regards quality,

selection and implementation tasks; LAGs to receive and assess applications for support and decide the

amount of support to be granted; More monitoring and evaluation tasks for LAGs to monitor the

effects of the LDS but also the project;

Opportunities and threats (1)

9

Benefit for LEADER groups: Maximum for the LAGs’ running costs (administrative costs) budget

will rise from 20% to 25% of the total public funding; Clearer definition of running costs; Clearer definition of ‘animation’ or communication costs; More preparatory support will be available including a LEADER

start-up kit for new LAGs and provisions for capacity building; The rules for the transnational cooperation projects have been

made easier (e.g. the foreign partner doesn’t have to be only another LAG & maximum 4 months decision making process);

EAFRD will grant prizes to limited number of projects that show innovation and have a transnational element.

Opportunities and threats (2)

10

Challenges for LEADER groups “money really matters” :

financial envelope 2014 -2020 – CAP overall budget cuttings 5% - 10%; ringfench of 5% for CLLD only in EARFD; what about the rest of CSF

Funds? Risk that multifunded approach will mostly benefit URBAN CLLD;

the likely rise in administrative burdens is seen as a potential issue: Shared strategic framework and management of CSF funds at

Commission and Member States’ level, will test the ability and competence of public authorities in putting in place a simplified and pragmatic implementation framework for CLLD at sub-regional and local level;

concerns that MAs/PAs may be tempted not to support integrated and resource intensive operations such as CLLD if easier ways to spend the funds exist;

Opportunities and threats (3)

11

Challenges for LEADER groups Multi-funded strategies are more complex:

to design and implement and require a certain level of experience and sufficient capacity on the ground;

Multi-funded strategies require broader LAG partnerships, as the strategies may address a larger number of issues and sectors. This brings more possibilities but also more complexity and requires more sophisticated methods of management.

Local development takes time: In former periods a considerable investment has been made at all levels

to create delivery structures (LAGs, but also at the level of the administration) and mobilise local actors around a shared strategy.

It is essential to safeguard the results of this investment, including the existing local dynamic, and the creation of any new framework should take into account the already existing structures and strategies.

Opportunities and threats (4)

panayiotis.patras@elard.eu http://www.elard.eu

European LEADER Association for Rural Development (ELARD)Rue de Saint-Laurent 36-38, B-1000

Brussels

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

TOGETHER WE ARE STRONGER