Second FLAG Focus Group, Lithuania Report

Transcription

1 Second FLAG Focus Group, Lithuania Report Sofia, 23 d March 2011

2 Participants: Mr. Tomas Keršys, Chief specialist, European Support Unit, Fisheries department, Ministry of Agriculture Ms. Simona Utaraitė, Chief specialist, European Support Unit, Fisheries department, Ministry of Agriculture Ms. Vilma Daukšienė, Chairman, Klaipėda district initiatives FLAG Mr. Arvydas Veikšra, Chairman, Zarasai and Visaginas FLAG Ms. Nijolė Šukštulienė, Member, Zarasai and Visaginas FLAG Mr. Voldemaras Kesminas, Chairman, Kretinga FLAG Mr. Gediminas Ragauskas, Chairman, Klaipėda city FLAG Mr. Karolis Panasenka, Member, Vilkauda FLAG Mr. Edmundas Kilkus, Chairman, Ignalina district FLAG Ms. Ligita Smagurauskienė, Member, Ignalina district FLAG Mr. Edita Rukšytė, Member, Utena district FLAG Ms. Asta Šimkutė, Chairman, Raseiniai district FLAG Mr. Saulius Jočbalis, Chairman, Tauragė FLAG Moderator: Mr. Marius Kairys, FARNET Geographical Expert Questions analyzed during focus group: I: Introduction to the focus group II: What are the main challenges and obstacles that you face in implementing Axis 4? III: What kind of technical assistance would you like from the FARNET Support Unit (FSU)? IV: What resources and experiences do you have which could be of use to other Member States? V: What are the key themes on which you are planning to work in the fisheries groups and which would you be interested in finding out more from FSU and/ or from other Member States over the next few years? VI: FLAG network situation in Lithuania? VII: Comments of the FARNET Geographical expert

3 1. Introduction to focus group FARNET geographical expert and focus group moderator - Marius Kairys (below - moderator) introduced the process of the focus group and the nature of the issues to be raised and analyzed. He also encouraged all FLAG members to participate actively throughout the focus group. Moderator then asked Simona Utaraitė, the representative of the Lithuanian Fisheries Department to say a word of introduction. Ms Utaraitė welcomed FLAG representatives participating in the focus group, and urged all to actively express their thoughts, suggestions and critical observations. 2. What are the main challenges and obstacles at the present Axis 4 implementation stage? This question was the most essential to many members of the focus group and as such was the first topic discussed and that which inspired the most animated discussions. All members of the focus group were asked to present the main problems they are facing at this axis 4 implementation stage and given several minutes to think over and indicate them. All focus group participants presented publicly the main problems faced by their FLAG, so everyone had the opportunity to speak and present their arguments and to analyze the reasons why these problems arise. The following issues were the most common among the difficulties that the different FLAGs faced in implementing Axis 4: The long terms and length of time needed to evaluate applications. The large administrative apparatus in the National Paying Agency (NPA) generates various obstacles in assessing applications and payment request, as well as paying support for the beneficiaries.

4 Lack of coordination between the internal and territorial units of the NPA. The territorial units of the NPA request additional documentation which is not foreseen in the legal Axis 4 implementation basis (implementation rules, Operational Programme, Regulations); Budget and Financing. In particular, low administrative budgets for certain FLAGS. It is difficult to ensure adequate and proper management process for those FLAGS whose budgets are very small, so there is a danger that low-quality local projects will be selected, and the FLAG administration will be hampered. For example, Utena FLAG s budget is , which means an administrative budget of (10%) for the whole period. This amount is too small to hire a project administrator, appraisers, and accountants or to maintain a FLAG office. Effective FLAG representation. There is a need for more active FLAG representation at the highest level. In order for FLAG interests to be seen and heard, the FLAG network must operate effectively and carry out more lobbying. Proposals how to solve resulting problems: Fisheries department proposed: To organise periodic common working meetings (on request) between Ministry, NPA and FLAG representatives. Such meetings should focus on the main problems which are faced by FLAGS during Axis 4 implementation. Enhance greater coordination between agencies. FLAGS representatives propose to organize such meetings every quarter. To re-examine and comment on the legal basis regulating the implementation of Axis 4 projects in order to simplify and speed up administrative processes. Hold joint meetings to discuss and analyze the observations made by the FLAGS. In order to make the evaluation process faster, FLAGs must answer queries send by the NPA as soon as possible, this helps to save time, and evaluate applications quicker.

5 FLAG representatives: Noted that if we want to assure effective and smooth Axis 4 implementation at the local level, training should be organized and the administrative capacity of potential project promoters needs to be increased. Pointed out that while preparing the legal basis and local calls documentation, good practice from Lithuanian LEADER local action groups should be taken into account in order to avoid the same obstacles and to make the same mistakes. More experienced FLAGS proposed their help for less experienced FLAGs in helping to prepare the documentation of local calls. In order to ensure adequate local administration processes, where there are limited funds available for administrative costs, to include local governments/municipalities, which could assume part of the administrative burden, or hire a company to carry out these functions. FLAGs also suggested that the department of fisheries submit a request to the European Commission to allow an increase in administrative costs of 10 percent for those FLAGS which have small budgets. Indicated that in order to assure proper representation of FLAG interests, clear objectives and targets for the chairman of the FLAG network should be laid out. The chairman of the FLAG network must be accountable to the FLAGs for the jobs which were done by him. The FLAG network must be united and represent the interests of all active Lithuanian FLAGs. FLAG participation in international events - in order to ensure fair representation and dissemination of information, a representative of the Fisheries Department working directly with Axis 4, and knowing all implementation issues, should take part. 3. What kind of technical assistance would you like from the FARNET Support Unit (FSU)? Bearing in mind that the focus group was held after the trans-national seminar organized by FARNET support unit (FSU), the FLAGs agreed on the following kinds of assistance being necessary: Organization of meetings and training. Participants indicated they were keen for the FSU to train FLAG members as well as representatives from the Ministry and the National Paying Agency (NPA). Requested more training seminars like in Gijon, Almere, Sofia. Mediation and assistance when making contacts with FLAGs from other EU countries. Participants indicated the Polish FLAG and neighboring countries FLAGs as strategic partners and agreed that bilateral study visits would be useful.

6 Dissemination of experience and good practice by using FARNET projects database. Lithuanian FLAGs set the highest priority for evaluating and spreading good practice. FLAGs requested that FSU provided latest information of all FLAG projects and proposals. It also expressed the wish to put up information on the FSU website in Lithuanian language. Follow how the problems raised during this focus group are solved at the member state level. Allow to organize focus groups, more than once a year. Twice a year was proposed. 4. What resources and experiences do you have which could be of use to other Member States? In comparison with other EU countries, Lithuania can not boast of long-term experience in implementing Priority Axis 4 or LEADER programmes. Therefore Lithuania s experience in implementing Axis 4 which could be presented to other Member States is closely related with already implemented projects from INTEREG NEIGHBOURHOOD and CROSS BORDER COPPERATION programmes. Projects in the following areas have been developed: cultural, culinary (revive old recipes, organized fish and crawfish eating day, etc.) and fishing architectural heritage, ship building in ancient ways (Kurenai, Hansa-type vessels). 5. What are the key themes on which you are planning to work in the FLAGs and which would you be interested in finding out more from FSU and/ or from other Member States over the next few years? According to preliminary data FLAGs plan to focus on the following topics: Topics of the local projects Denaturalization of natural migration paths, biodiversity and landscape fostering Small-scale fisheries, recreational and tourism related infrastructure cognitive adaptation and management Modernization and improvement of small medium fisheries enterprises, implementation of innovative technologies Expected number of projects to be supported

7 Improvement of professional skills and new training methods and tools, 42 promotion of regional and transnational cooperation Promotion of scientific research, analysis, feasibility studies in the fisheries 4 sector Promotion of fisheries traditions, festivals and eco-tourism, ethnographic 35 and recreational fishing, crafts development Maintaining the viability of the fisheries sector 5 Strengthening fisheries area social and economical potential 7 Adding value to the fisheries and aquaculture products 3 Diversification of economic activities 14 Experiences and directions we are interested in are: Exchange of experiences and best practices with the Nordic and Baltic Sea Countries neighbouring regions. (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Latvia and Estonia). As well experiences in projects related to inland waters. Member States with similar objectives in their strategies International conferences and training courses, both for dealing with specific problems and finding contacts. Get involved in the policy debates at the European level. 6. Roles that fisheries group can play in testing and piloting certain aspects of broader policies In order for FLAGs to be influential, firstly they have to be widely seen and known at national level. In order to promote the position of FLAG, it is necessary to create strong networks - this could contribute greatly to the development of fisheries policy. A permanent collaboration between Managing Authorities and FLAGs is a must. FARNET could contribute to creating strong organizations networks and developing their activities not only at national and regional, but also at European level.

8 7. FLAG network situation in Lithuania Establishing a working network: 2010, February 24 Fisheries Department held a meeting to discuss the establishment of a single national FLAG network. 2010, June 28 FLAG network was registered in Lithuanian legal bodies. 2010, September 30, the Chairman of Fisheries Local Action Groups Network, Saulius Jočbalis, officially introduced the fisheries network to the Ministry of Agriculture. At present, 9 out of 10 FLAGs are official members of the Network. The tenth are planning to become member in the near future. The network has signed Baltic States cooperation agreement with Latvia and Estonia FLAG networks. Network objectives: To represent the interests of its members within the Republic of Lithuania and the European Union's fisheries management bodies and organizations; Encourage network members and the European Union FLAGs develop cooperation activities aimed at sharing relevant information and best practices; Encourage the development of Lithuanian FLAGs through the local fishing community initiatives and partnerships, to help them improve the quality of life, to solve the social, economic and environmental problems. Network tasks: ensure members of the network internal and cross-border liaison, promoting the exchange of information, experiences and best practices; encourage FLAGs to work together and to help implement their strategies and provide administrative, legislative and other necessary and possible assistance; to organize FLAG and fisheries sector representatives training and skills development seminars; collect, analyze and disseminate relevant and current information to FLAG members at national level.

9 8. Personal comments by the Geographical Expert The focus group was very alive and effective. Meeting questions and topics for discussion had been sent two weeks before meeting and participants was well prepared for them. Much time was spent on first question. FLAG representatives identified a lot of problems in administrative process and strategies implementation rules. FLAGs had a lot of suggestions for strategies and projects implementation rules. FLAGs and MA agreed that the following week (after the focus group) FLAGs would send all comments and suggestions to the MA. 5 FLAGs sent their suggestions to the Ministry. After that, on April 9 th, 2011 National Paying Agency initiated a round table discussion with the Vice Minister responsible for the fisheries sector, FLAGs, MA and National Paying Agency. All suggestions was deeply discussed and the MA is now preparing certain changes to the implementation rules. On the FLAGs network question, the head of the network Saulius Jocbalis presented the network s regulations and vision of further work. The FLAGs decided to change some of the network s regulations. Now FLAGs network board will include all ten FLAGs representatives (instead of 3 as it has been until now) and 1/3 board will rotate each year. Now the FLAGs Network involves 9 FLAGs of 10. During this question the 10 th FLAG from Klaipeda city promised to join network in next general meeting in May 16, Focus Group participants highlighted the benefits of the focus group and asked the geographical expert to organize this type of meeting more often, ideally 2 3 times a year in FARNET events like Gijon, Almere and Sofia.