Makingthe mostof of the potential of LEADER/CLLD for innovation Paul Soto, ENRD CP Finland May 2018
El futurode LEADER/DLP Reflexiones a nivel nacional y regional (Finlandia)
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
SUSTAINABILITY SCALE UP Cooperation Marketing LAG Animation Pilots Small scale investments Research contracts Technical/ feasibility studies Community Contribution Training Needs audits IDEA
Evolution of LEADER: Fuente: DG AGRI 2014-2020 SFC, Marzo 2016 LEADER + LEADER/Axis 2007-2013 2 402GAL Mainstreamed LEADER/Measure 2014-2020 2 515GAL LEADER II 1994-1999 906GAL 2000-2006 1 153GAL All rural areas LEADER I Les favoured rural areas 1991-1993 217GAL Experimental #EventName 5.4 BILLONES 5.1 BILLONES 8.9 BILLONES 9.7 BILLONES 1.2 BILLONES
350 ExpectednumberofLAGsand averagelag Budget (total public caution early estimates) 10 300 306 323 9 8 Espected number of LAGs 250 200 150 100 50 0 251 256 186 160 Average LAG budget (EU-28) 120 119 100 75 60 55 47 45 49 53 50 50 32 26 26 28 32 33 20 4 5 3 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 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Average LAG budget EUR) Average budget per LAG (million EUR) No. of LAGs Fuente: DG AGRI 2014-2020 SFC, Marzo 2016
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
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
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
Subsidiarity stops with me Europe National Regional? Local people
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 1.989 271 1+4 30 158 69 490 2.295 Mono-fund LAGs 717 Multi-fund LAGs 2.224 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: 3.012 LAGs
200 Overview of n. of LAGs using ERDF/ESF in the EU (Aug. 17) 180 160 140 120 91 100 80 60 40 expected approved 40 20 0 8 4 19 88 23 4 60 23 23 1 38 86 16 63 37 42 21 Source: Own Expert assignment on LAGs using ERDF and ESF
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.)
Geographical scope of CLLD within Cohesion Policy rural development urban development urban-rural linkages peri-urbhan areas coastal areas
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) 2.592.587 ESF 428.099 EAFRD 835.350 ESI Funds Budget ERDF (Lead) 3.000.000 EAFRD 8.630.000 National Funds (Inner Areas) 17.000.000
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) 5.287.288 ERDF 537.213 ESF 453.142 EMFF 109.733 ESI Funds Budget EAFRD (Lead) 2.500.000 ERDF 1.500.000 ESF 760.000
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
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
Example: Tyrol 1. Common strategy, platform and management of 14 villages and 1 city since 2013 2. 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
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
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
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
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?
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
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, )
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
Thankyoufor yourattention! ENRD Contact Point Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat, 38 (bte 4) 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË Tel. +32 2 801 38 00 info@enrd.eu www.enrd.ec.europa.eu