The experience with LEADER as a community-led development approach in rural development ESF Technical Working Group 27 November 2012 Josefine Loriz-Hofmann Head of Unit – Consistency of rural development European Commission DG AGRI Let me start by underlyining already now that throughout the last programming periods LEADER has proved to be an effective instrument to boost local development in rural areas. The Commission's vision for the next programming period is to make use of the LEADER approach to further encourage local development based on strategies developed and implemented under a bottom-up approach. We intend to do so by improving the effectiveness of Leader, widening the possibilites by broadening the scope and by harmonising as much as possible the rules. Well, I can say that „increasing effectiveness“ and „harmonisation" have been the two key words driving the Commission's proposals on Community-led Local Development for the next programming period. Important steps to achieve these objectives are re-shaping the rules and defining a single common model CLLD for all CSF Funds. We are looking forward to seeing a significant uptake of CLLD by the CSF-Funds, rural development being the only policy to allocate a minimum spending rate for LEADER, which is 5% of the EAFRD funding per programme.

Evolution of the LEADER approach Leader I (1991-93) – experience : following the criticism of the « single project » approach in the structural policy Leader II (1994-99) – laboratory : limited to less favoured rural areas, innovation, pilot actions; introduction of transnational cooperation Leader + (2000-06) – maturity phase : eligibility of all rural areas; reinforcement of the role to be played by networks and of transnational cooperation (Leader + type measure for the new Member States 2004-2006) « Integrated Leader » (2007-13) – Leader axis – no specific Leader programmes; Leader as a methodological approach following the general programming of rural development Leader approach as a base for the local development carried out by local actors in the Common Strategic Framework for 2014-2020 Over the last 20 years the LEADER approach to community-led local development has evolved from a Community Initiative aimed at testing a novel approach to supporting local development to a fully integrated method of implementing rural development programmes. The main novelty of the approach was to deal with territorial needs as a whole in the framework of a strategy providing for links between the rural economy and development actions. It should be recalled that the European Commission had promoted similar delivery methods based on partnerships through other initiatives such as URBAN in the Regional Policy and EQUAL financed by the European Social Funds. In the current programming period, local development based on the LEADER approach has also been supported in fisheries areas under the EFF. All this experience has proven an effective and efficient tool in the delivery of development policies. The Commission has therefore proposed to built on the strengths of LEADER, and simplify and expand the approach to all CSF funds in form of the CLLD. 2

FROM LEADER I TO «CLLD» Funds EU Budget (EUR) LAGs Leader I 1991-1993 EAGGF-Guidance, ESF, ERDF 450 million 217 Leader II 1994-1999 1.7 billion 821 Leader+ 2000-2006 EAGGF-Guidance 2.1 billion 893 in EU-15 (+ 250 under Leader+ type measure 2004-2006 in 6 NMS) Leader Axis 2007-2013 EAFRD 5.5 billion  6% of the EAFRD funding 2.331 (selection in BG and RO not completed) „Leader 5.0“ 2014-2020 EAFRD, ESF, ERDF, EMFF EAFRD: 4.5 billion proposed (min. 5% in each RDP) Other Funds: … - Leader has evolved not only in qualitative terms: it has also grew bigger in terms of the budget available and the number of local action groups implementing the approach. The implementation of CLLD as a development tool under the four policies is likely to expand the territorial coverage of the method outside rural and fisheries areas and will obviously have an impact on the volume of the budget available on the ground. 3

Number of LAGs by Member State (total: 2.303 – September 2012) The number of Local Action Groups in the different Member States has grown regularly over time. Nowadays there are more than 2300 LAGs supported by the EAFRD, and more than 300 funded through the European Fisheries Fund.

Lessons learnt from previous and current programming period Some rigidities in the use of LEADER as driver for CLLD Limited quality of strategies Unclear responsibilities of different involved parties Limited LAG's capacities to develop and implement a Local Development Strategy (LDS) Limited level of participation and limited interest by the private sector The experience with implementing LEADER in the previous and current programming period has provided useful lessons. The Commission has built upon them while proposing the CLLD for post-2013, while also taking into account the conclusions and recommendations from independent ex-post evaluations and from the report of the Court of Auditors. One of the main weaknesses observed has been a too rigid approach to the implementation of LEADER. It consisted in strictly linking the Leader activities to the rural development measures as defined in the RD Programmes. In a lot programmes, the standard measures eligibility criteria were also applied to Leader projects. However, we have to say that part of this problem was a condition in the legal basis which has been interpreted by MS in a very rigid way. Another problem has been an unequal, sometimes very limited quality of local development strategies, often due to a lack in managerial capacities at the LAG level. LAGs have not always been adequately staffed to fulfil their tasks. Division of tasks between LAGs, managing and paying authorities has also not always been clear. There have been e.g. attempts by the programme authorities to excessively influence or control LAGs choices regarding financing of projects. This means that some LAGs could not fully play their role in the development process and the bottom-up aspect of the approach has been undermined. Furthermore, Leader was often treated by the authorities as other standard measures under RD. This caused shortcomings and misunderstandings between the authorities and the LAGs, slowing down the implementation process and frustrating the Leader actors. Finally, partnerships have sometimes missed the presence of important players in the area. In particular, involvement of the private sector seems to have been limited while the public sector was dominating decision taking. Full involvement of public and private local actors is indeed an essential element to ensure the value added of the LEADER approach, as the Court of Auditors has recognised in its report. Indeed, the private sector plays an essential role in identifying and dealing with local development needs and potentials at territorial level and therefore cannot be neglected when local partnership are set up.

The way forward Strengthening the role of LDS as central tool to meet core objectives at local level, unlocking strategies from RD measures Greater focus on animation and capacity building Strengthening the participation of the private sector in the partnerships Reinforced networking tools for LAGs on EU and national level Streamlined transnational cooperation The new proposal addresses the problems I have just highlighted: To unlock LEADER from RD measures, the MS are advised to programme LEADER under the Union priority 6 (promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas) as a separate measure with own, adapted eligibility criteria. At the same time, if a MS finds it appropriate following its analysis and strategic choices, it can implement other EU priorities through CLLD. The clear provisions on the obligatory elements of a local development strategy will hopefully help to improve their quality. Similarly, the proposed list of tasks of local action groups should help with defining the role of different actors involved in the implementation process. The processes of setting up a partnership, drawing up a strategy and actually implementing it shall be facilitated by a greater focus on capacity building, training and networking. These elements will be covered by the preparatory support offered across the funds. An additional tool (start-up kit) financed under the preparatory support has been specifically proposed under the EAFRD. I will say a few words about it later on. The participation of the private sector in the partnerships is ensured by specific requirements in the legal text on the participation of the different partners. Finally, provisions on cooperation, including common rules for their approval, shall facilitate implementation of transnational cooperation projects. Networking and cooperation activities, including transnational cooperation, allow for sharing innovative ideas and development patterns between different areas and actors. They are essential to boost the added value of the approach at the level of the Union.

What's new? Possible multi-funded LDS (EAFRD-specific) "LEADER start-up kit" EAFRD support rate to LEADER up to 80% (90%) Minimum 5% EAFRD contribution to LEADER From the LEADER perspective, the most important new elements of the legislative proposals can be summed-up in 4 points 1. The MS will have the possibility to open the CLLD to all CSF Funds (let me repeat: minimum funding is compulsory only under the rural development policy). They will need to specify in their partnership agreement how they intend to support CLLD and which mechanism they will put in place to ensure its smooth implementation. I’ll come to the advantages of the multi-fund approach in a minute. 2. I have already mentioned the capacity building actions for groups before they submit a development strategy. Under the EAFRD another, a specific tool has been proposed for less advanced areas in order to facilitate creation of partnerships and preparation of local development strategies. The so-called start-up kit will allow partnerships to build capacity and support small projects in a more experimental way, without necessarily produce a full local strategy at the end of the process. It is based on the assumption that these areas might need more time to get acquainted with and test the method on a smaller scale. MS are free to design both the capacity building and the small projects in a way that best fits the needs of the territories/future partnerships concerned. 3. An incentive has been proposed for operations implemented through LEADER, with maximum co-financing rates, depending on circumstances, varying between 80% and 90%. This is a considerable change as the previous rates have been 50 and 85 % respectively. 4. The compulsory ring-fencing of 5% of each MS’s EAFRD allocation will continue in the 2014-2020 period.

The added value of the common approach broadens financial support for CLLD facilitates integrated territorial development enables various EU policies with their instruments to contribute to local development improves the consistency and coordination of EU Funds support The slide lists the potential the common approach has. I am convinced that the added value it offers outweights the co-ordination efforts the MS will need to provide in order to make the CLLD work. Therefore, I encourage all the MS to take the opportunity given by the legislation and allow multi-funded local development strategies.

Final Remarks Consideration should be given to multi-funded CLLD strategies Improving implementation aspects: clear attribution of roles to different actors and better cooperation between them Involvment of private sector is essential to increase effectiveness of interventions towards local development needs in a comprehensive way Let me finish with repeating that expanding the LEADER method to other funds is an opportunity for local development. I am convinced that it is worth being proposed in all the MS. "One area, one strategy, one LAG" should be the driving principle to approach local development issues. We all have to work on improving the implementation of the approach. The Commission has endeavored to propose a simplified but also more comprehensive framework, it will be up to the MS to adapt it to their needs and make the best of it. It should not be forgotten that private sector has an important role to play in development processes from defining the needs of an area till contributing (not least in financial terms) to project implementation. This should be properly reflected in the composition and functioning of the LAGs,

Thank you for your attention!