1. The 3 rd model of the typology of LEADER implementation: The Greek Model (Global Grant schemes) Intervention Areas of LEADER In Greece

2. General Characteristics of the Greek LEADER Area:52.000 km 2 (Country’s 40%) Population:2.335.000 habitants (Country’s 21%) Number of LAGs:41 Responsible Bodies involved:- ΜΑ (Managing Authority for Axis 4 of RDP ) - PA (Paying Agency) - LAGs The implementation contracts between the MA and the LAGs are expected to be signed soonThe implementation contracts between the MA and the LAGs are expected to be signed soon.

3. 1. Definition of responsibilities and decision making, Responsible Bodies A. Project development tasks TASK RESPONSIBLE BODY REMARKS Support to beneficiaries to develop projects and prepare applications LAG LAGslocal population not allowed proposal application conflict of interest LAGs inform the local population about the local programme and its opportunities for potential beneficiaries. They are not allowed to prepare proposal application on behalf of final beneficiaries (conflict of interest, as LAGs cannot evaluate the proposals that would have been prepared by themselves)

4. B. Project management tasks TASK RESPONSIBLE BODY REMARKS Preparation of calls LAG LAG MA LAG prepares its own call based on a Draft provided initially by MA. The calls have to be approved by MA. Deciding local project selection criteria LAG/ MA LAGs MA The criteria are approved by the Monitoring Committee of RDP. LAGs have to adapt them and can only add some criteria to meet special local aconditions And strategy. The final criteria to be used from each LAG are subject to prior MA approval. Publication of calls LAG. LAGs Obligatory to publish in local newspapers. LAGs can also use other means (open meetings, radio spots, TV channel publicity). Reception of applications LAG

5. B. Project management tasks TASK RESPONSIBLE BODY REMARKS Project assessment LAG LAGMA Assessment Committee consists of LAG staff. MA performs sampling Administration Control check on the evaluation procedure. Good Practices: - Allow to appeal against the selection results (appeal procedure) - Members os Assessment Committee does not coincide with the Appeal examination Committee. Project rankingLAGThe above Assessment Committee. Final list of selected projects proposed to the MA LAG LAG The decision making level of the LAG (Management Committee of the programme).

6. B. Project management tasks TASK RESPONSIBLE BODY REMARKS Fixing the amount of support LAGThe above Committees. Good Practice: - The Call includes an indicative cost unit table for all construction works. Project approval LAG / MA LAG MA The LAG Management Committee. The decision results are sent to MA. MA is checking only eligibility category expenditure and proceeds with the final acceptance entrance of final beneficiaries to IT system. Payment of claims LAG / MA / PA PA PA: Credits the LAG account with an advance payment. LAG LAG: Verifies by spot control the validity of the works and the correspondent invoices and pays the beneficiary. MA MA: Follows a supervising procedure. Especially for LAG expenses, makes administrative checks & approves the payments of the LAG.

7. B. Project management tasks TASK RESPONSIBLE BODY REMARKS Control tasksLAG / MA / PA / EU LAGs. - Administrative checks for the measure 41 have been delegated to the LAGs. MA MA implements a supervising system and carries out on-the-spot checks. - For measures 421 and 431, administrative checks are carried out by the MA. Project execution monitoring LAG LAGs LAGs are responsible. MA MA monitors LAGs according to a supervising system (sample checking controls of projects in each LAG – 5%)

8. legal personality LAGs are organisations with legal personality. Legal Form:Legal Form:Τhe majority of LAGs are Societes Anonyms of Local Authorities (Other public bodies) % of LAGs operated% of LAGs operated under previous programming periods: programming periods:LEADER+: 37/41 LAGs (90,2%) LEADER II:38/41 LAGs (92,2%) set-up for LEADER purpose,other EU and national programmesThe majority of the organizations performing as LAGs were set-up for LEADER purpose, but also deliver other EU and national programmes. 2. Key characteristics of the selected LAGs

9. LAG staff:LAG staff: Average size: 5 persons / LAG (including 1 coordinator) – Less than in previous LEADER rounds(6-7) The staff is well educated and has proper skills Main Staff functions:Main Staff functions: Management & Coordination of the local programme, including: - Project assessment and monitoring - Compose the Evaluation and Assessment Committee - Administrating and Accounting checks - Payment of claims - Sensitivisation - Information - Publicity - Provide information to the IT system for RDP - Participate in project networks and workgroups 3. Management capacity of Local Action Groups

10. Staff training actions:Staff training actions: None for the current programming period Supporting documentsSupporting documents by the MA: by the MA: Joint Ministerial or Ministerial Decisions describing the guidelines for the implementation of the Axis 4 with information about tasks, duties, obligations and procedures. The MA also provides LAGs with various Draft Implementation documents (Call of Proposal - Contract with Beneficiaries etc.) 3. Management capacity of Local Action Groups

11. 4. LAG decision making rules – Project eligibility conflict of interest, transparency appeal LAG rules and practices related to conflict of interest, transparency and appeal : members of LAG Committees in orderto avoidAll members of LAG Committees (Management, assessment, appeal, project monitoring) and staff as well, sign legal documents in order to avoid conflicts of interest about the implementation of the projects (e.g. they cannot be beneficiaries of the local programme, or be involved in any part of a project etc.) specific limit Public Authorities Other Public BodiesStakeholdersThere is a specific limit to the LEADER budget allowed for the implementation of projects implemented by Public Authorities, Other Public Bodies and the Stakeholders of LAG partnership rulescriteriaAll the rules and criteria for the approval of the projects are described in the Call of Tender results are publishedAll results are published and interested parties have the right to appeal against the selection results (objection procedure)

12. do not coincideAssessment Committee members do not coincide with the Appeal Committee synthesis of the decision making level 50 - 50 rule (public - private)The synthesis of the decision making level of the LAG (Management Committee of the local Programme ) must fulfill the 50 - 50 rule (public - private) that is, the economic and social partners must represent at least 50% of the local partnership. Every single adjustment of the synthesis of the Committee is published and is subject to control of MA. add project selection criteriaLAGs can add project selection criteria, according to the specificities of the local development strategy. good practices The above mentioned rules are considered to represent good practices. NO eligibility NO eligibility outside the scope of rural development measures NO specific project eligibility rules NO specific project eligibility rules defined for LEADER 4. LAG decision making rules – Project eligibility

13. 5. Financial issues simultaneouslyNational co-funding obtained by the beneficiary simultaneously with the EAFRD support coordinated by the MAThe provision of national co-funding is coordinated by the MA Problems Problems associated with the running cost of the LAG: allowed ceiling -The allowed ceiling for the administration and operating costs (20%) is very low and will not cover the total cost of necessary expenses, comparatively to the needs of this implementation model bureaucratic -The control rules of running costs is very bureaucratic (payments for the LAGs costs must be accompanied with various documents) Eligibility -Eligibility of expenses (very strict list of eligible expenses) time first payment -The time between the decision of LAG’s selection and the first payment, is very long and causes problems regarding the LAG’s running costs

14. 6. Other points / Summary similar could be widerThe scope of LEADER eligible actions is quite similar compared with the previous programming period. It could be wider, including more eligible actions. skill acquisition and animationThe funds available for skill acquisition and animation (under Measure 431) are proportionally reduced in comparison to LEADER+. Mainstreaming lose its pilot characterMainstreaming of the LEADER approach certainly recognises the great success and popularity of this approach in the previous Programming Periods. However it seems that the LEADER approach is in danger to lose its pilot character (less autonomy, no specific national network, more bureaucracy, etc).

15. 6. Other points / Summary The LAGs, within the current typology of LEADER implementation model have : 1.many responsibilities higher percentageof ceiling 1.many responsibilities and the available funds are not adequate to cover the running cost of the LAG. Thus, this LEADER implementation model should have a higher percentage of ceiling for the running cost of the LAGs. visibility 2.better visibility towards implemented projects and development of their local strategy minimize the time 3.the possibility to minimize the time needed for assess, approve and payment of projects capacity reduce the risksThrough this model, locally exist organisations that have the capacity to successfully operate administration and accountability systems and reduce the risks of mismanagement of EU funds.

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Iro Tsimpri Coordinator of LAG Achaia SA Member of the Greek LEADER Network