mostof of the potential of LEADER/CLLD for innovation

Transcription

1 Makingthe mostof of the potential of LEADER/CLLD for innovation Paul Soto, ENRD CP Finland May 2018

2 El futurode LEADER/DLP Reflexiones a nivel nacional y regional (Finlandia)

3 CLLD: the only EU wide programme where local people are in the drivingseat Local management and financing Territorial Partnership BOTTOM UP Networkingand cooperation Innovation Integrated

4 SUSTAINABILITY SCALE UP Cooperation Marketing LAG Animation Pilots Small scale investments Research contracts Technical/ feasibility studies Community Contribution Training Needs audits IDEA

5 Evolution of LEADER: Fuente: DG AGRI SFC, Marzo 2016 LEADER + LEADER/Axis GAL Mainstreamed LEADER/Measure GAL LEADER II GAL GAL All rural areas LEADER I Les favoured rural areas GAL Experimental #EventName 5.4 BILLONES 5.1 BILLONES 8.9 BILLONES 9.7 BILLONES 1.2 BILLONES

6 350 ExpectednumberofLAGsand averagelag Budget (total public caution early estimates) Espected number of LAGs Average LAG budget (EU-28) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Average LAG budget EUR) Average budget per LAG (million EUR) No. of LAGs Fuente: DG AGRI SFC, Marzo 2016

7 LEADER Principles Importance Bottom-up approach Local public-private partnerships Area based LDSs Networking Multi-sectoral Innovative approaches 50% requirement in project selection Cooperation projects 49% limitation on voting rights 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Essential Important Medium importance Low importance Not at all

8 LEADER Principles Practice Extent to which LAGs are able to Implement the Elements of the LEADER Approach Local public-private partnerships Area based LDSs Bottom-up approach Networking Multisectoral LDS Cooperation projects Innovative approaches 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fully Mostly Moderately Slightly Not at all

9 LAG's ability to implement LEADER constrained by bureaucracy & admin Admin & reporting requirements limit LAG s capacity for animation & local development LAG is able to use qualitative criteria & local knowledge for project selection decisions LAG has overall control of setting selection criteria & defining calls for projects Eligibility conditions for LEADER beneficiaries are appropriate & proportionate to support sought LAG funding for the animation of local stakeholders & networking is sufficient. Implementation procedures are able to meet local development needs in a flexible, innovative way Decision-making power of LAGs is not overly limited by RDP level procedures & regulations Project application procedure is accessible & encourage local stakeholders to participate in LEADER Project holders` ability to implement LEADER projects is not overly constrained by bureaucracy & admin burden LEADER Principles Practice Aspects of LEADER Implementation as seen by Local Action Groups 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Agree strongly / agree Disagree strongly/ disagree

10 Subsidiarity stops with me Europe National Regional? Local people

11 State of play: October 2017 CLLD implementation in the MS Various combinations Mono-funded strategies Financed only with one fund Multi-funded strategies Integration of various Funds EAFRD EMFF ERDF ESF ERDF ESF EAFRD EMFF Other ESIF combinations Rural LAGs Fishery LAGs Urb/Rur LAGs Urban LAGs Urban-Rural LAGs Rural-Fishery LAGs Rur/Urb/Fish LAGs Mono-fund LAGs 717 Multi-fund LAGs Traditional approach 752 New approach 193 Under ERDF/ESF Sources: EAFRD DG Agri, 02/2017 EMFF and EAFRD/EMFF FARNET, 09/2017 ERDF & ESF Own Expert assignment, 08/2017 Current total: LAGs

12 200 Overview of n. of LAGs using ERDF/ESF in the EU (Aug. 17) expected approved Source: Own Expert assignment on LAGs using ERDF and ESF

13 Types of CLLD in Cohesion Policy Smaller areas within cities, deprived urban neighbourhoods, historic centers, but also other types Small cities and their surrounding areas Rural areas, urban-rural linkages Target groupapproaches(citizensof theneighbourhood, youngpeople, elderly, local communities, unemployed, deprived areas) Thematicapproaches(environment, climatemitigation, circular economy, social inclusion, poverty reduction, job creation, capacity building, etc.)

14 Geographical scope of CLLD within Cohesion Policy rural development urban development urban-rural linkages peri-urbhan areas coastal areas

15 Large sub-regional areas, with integrated (prevailing rural) development strategy Meridaunia(Italy) 30 Municipalities LAG NAD ORLICÍ (Czeck Republic) 58 Municipalities (only 4 more than 3k inh.) ESI Funds Budget ERDF (Lead) ESF EAFRD ESI Funds Budget ERDF (Lead) EAFRD National Funds (Inner Areas)

16 Medium sized sub-regions and aggregation of few municipalities dealing with economic (rural) development and access to services LAG SydostLeader(Sweden) 11 Municipalities and 3 Counties GotseDelchev-Garmen-Hadzhidimovo (Bulgaria) ESI Funds Budget EAFRD (Lead) ERDF ESF EMFF ESI Funds Budget EAFRD (Lead) ERDF ESF

17 Tyrol/ Austria usingtheleader/ CLLD method for an integrated approach All EU and national programmes related to local development are managed through local partnerships according to the principles of CLLD Domestic LEADER/ CLLD Crossborder LEADER /CLLD Austria/ Italy

18 CLLD in Tyrol 1. Platform of all relevant stakeholders on local level involved in all programmes established at local level 2. One stop shop for local management of all programmes avoiding double structures on local level and coordination on regional level => creating linkages 3. Governance of policy makers. One department ensures cooperation between regional and local level working towards the same goal

19 Example: Tyrol 1. Common strategy, platform and management of 14 villages and 1 city since Local ownership of broadband infrastructure (300 Mbits/ 5 G) Creating a business-model and open sharing for telecom companies 3. SMART solutions Common local management of water ressources, mobility, smart buildings Common strategy for buiseness development including Splitting the taxes between the villages

20 Local Innovation = Little things Progressive development= big things Communitities of interest around food, tourism, energy SeedfundingfromLEADER + Horizon+ ESI funds Special purpose vehicle for 35 m tidal energy project ERDF grant

21 CLLD and Smart Villages CLLD supportsthecreationofstateoftheart community owned broadband Bioenergy Villages CLLD isusedas seedmoneytobringfarmers and other villagers together into a cooperative business model which levers in private investment. CLLD supports the rolling out of a mobility app developed by a social enterprise to other rural areas in France

22 CLLD and Smart Villages CLLD supportsa social enterpriseprovidinga training itinerarytosupportrural SMEsin their digital transformation CLLD cooperationmeasureisusedtobuilda regional network of co-working spaces accross an entire region

23 Can CLLD deliver on the Urban agenda themes? Low carbon neighbourhoods Local circular economies Local energy production and distribution Integrating migrants and refugees Affordable housing Land and natural areas Why not?

24 CLLD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CAP Communication Focus on the bottom-up and locallydrivendimension of LEADER Instrument to build local capacity Contribution to social inclusion, povertyreduction, job creation Need to achieve better synergy and coordination with municipal authorities and local agencies

25 What does the Communication imply for CLLD Flexibilityin the design and control of the measure(to be done in partnership) Focus on achieving results(lag flexibility vs. RDP target setting) LEADER has to demonstrate it can make a difference (capacitybuilding and provision, linkages, strategic, social innovation) and can support longer term transition processes(climate action, smart villages, social entrepreneurship, )

26 Lessons learned Reflections from ERDF 1. Integration of different funds in one programme? LEAD Fund and earmarking the different funds? 2.Multilevel Governance? Differentiated approach to take into account national territorial governance and institutional arrangements 3.Minimum fundingmust bemandatoryforall funds? Helping to overcome monosectoral thinking towards an integrated approach Additional incentives for more cooperation? 26

27 Thankyoufor yourattention! ENRD Contact Point Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat, 38 (bte 4) 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË Tel info@enrd.eu