The EAFRD: Activities of the European Network for Rural Development on the delivery system Jean-Michel Courades European Commission DG AGRI G3 Farnet Meeting of Managing Authorities, 28-29 September 2010, Brussels
STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION The EAFRD including the main differences with the EFF Main findings of the Thematic Working Group on the delivery system (financial aspects ) Main findings of the Leader focus groups (financial aspects)
Rural development policy 2007-2013: Objectives and Priorities «LEADER Axis» local development / governance Axis 1: Competitiveness : - Human and physical capital - Innovation - Knowledge-transfer - IT technologies Axis 2: Environment and Land Management : - Eco-systems (Natural Resources/ Biodiversity /Habitats) - Landscape Amenities - Climate Change Axis 3: Diversification and quality of life : - Diversification of economic activities - Quality of life EAFRD: European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 3
Main differences between EFF and EAFRD Principles of assistance EFF: proportionality principle applying inter alia to control requirements included EAFRD : proportionality principle not included LAG running costs EFF: Up to 10% of the budget allocated to the area EAFRD: Up to 20%. Advances for LAGs EFF: no advances for LAG running cost EAFRD: advances up to 20% of LAG runnings costs
Main differences between EFF and EAFRD Financial engineering EFF: Holding funds (set up to invest in several venture capital funds, guarantee funds and loan funds) are eligible EAFRD: No holding funds Expenditure declaration to the Commission EFF: in total eligible expenditure paid by the beneficiaries EAFRD: in total public expenditure
Thematic Working Group 4 Delivery mechanisms of EU rural development policy Preliminary results of the case studies Initial comparative review Presentation prepared by the CP 27/07/2010
Sources of information Case Studies: Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy (Emilia-Romagna), Latvia, Spain (Cataluña) Data sources: Individual interviews, focus groups, existing programming documentation and other sources (such as evaluation reports) Respondents: Stakeholders in MS (MAs, PAs, self-govt., Leader, researchers, professional organisations, NGOs), EC Presentation prepared by the CP 27/07/2010 7
Financial aspects of implementation Innovative approaches / Good practices Safety nets to smooth out effects of economic downturn (national credit fund) National system for advanced payments Specific issues Problems with advance payments (for some beneficiaries / more generally in certain MS due to economic downturn and/or reaching budget ceilings for individual measures) Requirement of minimum % per Axis can lead to running out of money for specific axes or measures Presentation prepared by the CP 27/07/2010 8
Implementation of integrated territorial development strategies incl. Leader Examples of Innovative approaches Introduction of flexibility regarding advance payment rules Giving LAGs the authority to change the aid intensity of individual projects based on emerging outcomes Presentation prepared by the CP 27/07/2010 9
Case study Ireland Absence of advances for LAGs. LAGs have no more a global grant/allocated budget on their bank account (Leader+); MA pays LAGs in response to each individual claim to PA; then LAGs pay the beneficiaries
Voluntary Focus Groups FG 1: Implementation of the bottom up approach Lead : ELARD & IT NRN 20 MS + 3 NGOs 2+3 meetings FG 2: Preserving the innovation/experimental character of Leader Lead : DE & NL NRNs 12 MS 2 meetings FG 3: Implementation of the "cooperation" measure Lead : EE & FI NRNs 13 MS + 1 NGO 2+3 meetings MS representatives include MA, PA, NRN and LAG level 11
Objectives of Focus Groups Identification of main difficulties / obstacles in the implementation of Leader axis and good practice Reflection on possible solutions Definition of recommendations for the future.
Essential tasks for the implementation of local development strategy under LEADER approach: 1. Elaboration of calls including definition of local selection criteria; 2. Publication of calls; 3. Reception of applications; 4. Project assessment; 5. Project ranking; LEADER Implementation Models 6. Final list of selected projects, including fixing the amount of support; 7. Monitoring the implementation of the strategy, including monitoring the realisation of selected projects; 8. Evaluation of the strategy ; 13
LEADER Implementation Models Three major models used by Member States, with variants: Model 1: Decentralisation of project selection competence (used in 16 MS / 33 RDP): AT, CZ, DE (x14), DK, EE, ES (Galicia, Pais Vasco), FI, IT (Bolzano, Umbria, Veneto, Marche), LT, LV, NL, PL, SE, SK, HU* Model 2: Decentralisation of project selection and payment competence (used in 4 MS / 4 RDP): BE (Wallonia), LU, SI, UK (Wales) Model 3: Decentralisation of project approval (used in 10 MS / 35 RDP) PT, BG, BE (Flanders), ES (Cataluna), IT (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Emilia Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Piemonte, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia, Toscana, Trento, Campania, Lombardia, Molise, Valle d Aosta), MT*, FR* Including payment tasks: EL, IE, ES (x14), UK (Scotland) [72 RDP fiches] 14
First Model Second Model Third Model
Definition of Responsibilities & Decision Making Main findings: The LAGs execute the majority of implementation tasks. In many cases there are varying degrees of involvement by the programme authorities in selected tasks (elaboration or publication of calls; defining local project selection criteria, project ranking; establishing the final list of selected projects, fixing the amount of support) 16
Definition of Responsibilities & Decision Making Different view points and issues for discussion: It has been suggested for discussion that: there is a need to define more clearly the division of labour in programme implementation by specifying in detail the responsibilities of MA, PA and LAG by attributing to LAGs major implementation tasks in all stages, they can become reliable local development structures conveying RD policies through the LDS (whilst the MAs should provide the implementation framework, facilitate LAGs, provide monitoring/supervising system). 17
Definition of Responsibilities & Decision Making Specific good practice ideas: Close cooperation and improved flows of information ( acting in partnership ) between MA, PA and LAGs is essential, for example, by: appointing a single contact person in the MA for each of the LAGs holding regular meetings between programme authorities & LAG managers informing / involving the LAG in the control task, even if it is not delegated 18
LAG Capacity and Other Characteristics Management capacity of LAGs: Size of LAG staff: 1-1,5 to 2 staff in BE Flanders, CZ, DE, DK, FI, FR, LV, MT, SL, SE and UK- Scotland. 3 or more in EL, HU, IE, PT, SK and most of ES regions where most of the administrative tasks are the responsibility of LAGs. In some MS (e.g. PL, LT) both cases are applicable. Training actions for LAG staff: have been carried out in most MS with few exceptions; Support documents (manuals, guides, templates, etc): have been produced and made available to LAGs; 19
Different view points and issues for discussion: The majority of LAGs have a very small staff and many face difficulties in performing the multiple tasks required of them, especially if they have responsibility for control tasks. A major issue raised for discussion is whether the prevalence of small LAG teams represents a lack of critical mass and a fundamental weakness which could undermine the viability of the LEADER axis in RD policy. There is extensive activity in training and other forms of support, especially manuals and guides. However, an issue arising is whether this represents mostly ad hoc responses to needs as they arise and that a more strategic approach is required for building and maintaining the necessary capacity. Specific examples of good practice: LAG Capacity and Other Characteristics Transparency rules in LAG decision making are well established and there are many examples of good practice to inspire MAs/LAGs that may still lack some of these procedures. 20
Financial Aspects (I) National public co-funding is obtained: Simultaneously with the EAFRD support in BE Flanders, FI, EL, HU, ES, IE, PL, PT, SK, SL and SE. By the beneficiary separately in CZ (one request form, separate payments), LV, DE (in most cases) and UK Scotland. Both procedures are used in DK, FR. LAGs play a role in obtaining or granting the national public co-funding in several MS 21
Financial Aspects (II) LAG running costs and advance payments - most commonly reported problems: The 20% ceiling fro running cost (EL, PT, SI), Lack of possibility to receive advance payments (DK) or provisions allow for low percentage; Cost of bank guarantee for advance payment is high (PL, BG, SK and SI). Eligibility rules (FR structure of running costs, no lump sum support, LV - limit for salary, PT, SI - non eligibility of VAT), non eligibility of costs related to voluntary working groups (DE Schleswig-Holstein) 22
Financial Aspects (III) Different view points and issues for discussion on co-funding: Securing public co-funding is problematic in some MS. Practical solutions to current difficulties suggested for discussion include the following: to establish national, regional and/or local funds to ensure that beneficiaries obtain public co-funding simultaneously with EAFRD support to accept project co-financing by private funding without national public co-funding in a context of a financial crisis where national co-funders can only support the implementation of their statutory tasks. Specific examples of good practice: include the use of a joint application form for EU and national co-funding. 23
Financial Aspects (IV) Different view points and issues for discussion on running costs: The 20% ceiling may not be enough in some cases: LAGs with a control task or full tasks under Model 3 LAGs with local development strategies with very low budgets if rules stipulate that the cost of animation costs should be included under the 20% ceiling (e.g. IT). Possible solutions suggested for discussion include: derogation or use of TA if additional tasks are delegated (payment and control) on the initiative of the MS funding of animation activities under measure 3.4.1. 24
Main Issues 1. Lack of clear distinction of roles of MA and LAGs 2. LAG capacity constraints 3. Inability of LAGs to implement complex projects 4. Unsuitability of rules for LEADER approach 5. Financial rules frustrate LAG efforts 6. Control system discourages and contradicts the LEADER approach 25
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION 26