1. Expectations on the rural development programme and networking 2014-2020
Michael Pielke
Unit G1: Consistency of Rural Development
Swedish Rural Development Network Meeting
Stockholm 26/11/2013

2. Calendar for the new Rural Development Policy
November 2010
April 2013
October 2011
26 June 2013
November 2013
Political agreement between the Institutions
Communication on "The CAP towards 2020"
Start of the trilogues
(European Comm. – Council – Europ. Parl.)
Legal proposals for the CAP reform and the Common Provisions Regulation for the ESI-Funds
Adoption in the Plenary of the European Parl.
(CAP texts + CPR)

3. Calendar for the new Rural Development Policy (2)
Dec 2013 / Jan 2014
December 2013
May/June 2014
June 2014
Publication of the delegated acts
Publication of the legal basic acts
Adoption of the legal basic acts
Publication of the implementing acts

4. Main elements of the reform
More effective rural development policy
Better
co-ordination with other EU funds
Reinforced strategic programming
Changes to the measure menu
These are the three key points to remember regarding how RD policy will be improved.
They don't encapsulate all changes, but they summarise most of it well (and are easy to remember).

5. Better co-ordination with other EU funds

6. Partnership Agreement Rural Development Programme(s)
Better co-ordination with other EU funds
European
Level
Common Provisions Regulation for ESI Funds
Covering the EAFRD, ERDF, ESF, CF, EMFF
Reflecting EU 2020 Strategy through 11 common thematic objectives to be addressed by key actions for each of the funds
National
Level
Partnership Agreement
National document outlining the intended use of the funds in the pursuit of EU 2020 objectives
National or Regional Level
Rural Development Programme(s)
(+ other funds' "operational programmes")

7. Reinforced strategic programming

8. 6 Union priorities for rural development
Reinforced strategic programming
6 Union priorities for rural development
1. Knowledge transfer / innovation in agriculture, forestry, rural areas
2. Viability of all types of farming in all regions; innovative farm technologies;
Sustainable management of forests
3. Food chain organisation, animal welfare, risk management in agriculture
4. Ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry
5. Resource efficiency, low-carbon / climate-resilient economy in
agriculture, food and forestry sectors
6. Social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas 8

9. Grouping of measures and indicators per focus areas: an example
Reinforced strategic programming
Grouping of measures and indicators per focus areas: an example
Priority 5: Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors
Focus areas
Grouping of relevant measures
Efficiency in water use
Investments in physical assets
Farm and business development
Village renewal and basic infrastructure
Knowledge transfer
Advisory services
Investments in forest area development
Co-operation (new technologies)
[….]
Measure details (example)
Efficiency in energy use
Indicative list of relevant
operations to be supported
- Eligibility rules
- Aid intensities
Beneficiaries
Indicative budget
Other conditions, etc.
Supply and use of
renewable energy
Reducing GHG and
ammonia emissions
Carbon conservation and
sequestration
Indicators
Targets
(result)
Planned expenditure
Planned outputs

10. Required minimum budgetary allocations
Reinforced strategic programming
Required minimum budgetary allocations
A minimum amount of the total EAFRD contribution to the RDP must be reserved as follows:
At least 30% for:
environment- and climate-related investments (Article 18)
forestry measures (Articles and Article 35)
agri-environment-climate (Article 29)
organic farming (Article 30)
Natura 2000 payments (Article 31 with the exception of WFD related payments)
Payments in areas facing natural constraints (ANCs - Articles )
At least 5% for Leader
Nota bene: These provisions do not apply to the outermost regions and the overseas territories

11. Total EAFRD amount 2014-2020: € 84,936 M
Other considerations
"Show me the money"
Total EAFRD amount : € 84,936 M
Basic maximum co-financing rate = 53 %
Higher maximum rates for various regions
Less developed regions, outermost regions, smaller Aegean Islands, transition regions
Higher maximum rates for certain measures
Knowledge transfer (art. 15), producer groups (art. 28), co- operation (art. 36), LEADER
Higher maximum rate for operations contributing to environment- and climate-related objectives
Under arts. 18, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31 (3 / 4), 32, 35
Higher rates in various other circumstances
E.g. funds transferred from Pillar I (100 %)

12. Changes to the measure menu

13. Measures: the overall approach
Changes to the
measure menu
Measures: the overall approach
Some measures from rolled together for better visibility
Many adjustments to scope, eligibility conditions, aid amounts etc. of existing measures, e.g.:
Shorter contracts for agri-environment-climate measure after initial 5-year phase
New measures to cover emerging needs, e.g.:
Co-operation (art. 36) – various forms of joint activity to deliver economic, environmental & social benefits; technological development (including for European Innovation Partnership)
Risk management (art. 37) – insurance, mutual funds, income stabilisation tool

14. Farm and business development (art. 20)
RD measures
Farm and business development (art. 20)
3 types of operations:
Setting-up aid for:
Young Farmers
Conditional on the submission of a business plan, which has to start being implemented within 9 months from the date of the decision granting the aid.
Non-agricultural activities in rural areas: extended from micro- to small businesses)
Development of small farms: extended to all "small" farms in EU - defined by Member States
Investments in non-agricultural activities
Support for farm restructuring
Annual or one-off payments for farmers eligible for the small farmers scheme under Pillar 1 who permanently transfer their holding to another farmer
Aid rates:
70.000 per young farmer
per beneficiary who diversifies
per small farm for development operations

15. Measure example: Co-operation (art. 36)
Changes to the
measure menu
Measure example: Co-operation (art. 36)
Pilot projects
Experimental development / refinement
Sharing facilities, resources
Environment / climate change
Co-operation
Encouraging joint solutions
Tourism services
Provision of biomass
The "new" Co-operation measure offers support to a wide range of entities to work together – to deliver economic, environmental, social and technological benefits. The measure will be very important for the EIP but goes well beyond it.
These are the themes mentioned in paragraph 2 of art. 36 (in abbreviated form).
When the measure is programmed, emphasis will be given to these themes. However, the list is not closed: it would be possible to offer support under other themes (but not, for example, "normal" supply chains).
Short supply chains, local markets
Forest management plans
Non-LEADER local development strategies
Social farming 15

16. LEADER in rural development programmes
Changes to the
measure menu
LEADER in rural development programmes
constitutes a specific element of CLLD to be included obligatory in a RDP:
preparatory support;
implementation of operations under the CLLD strategy;
preparation and implementation of co-operation activities of the LAG;
running costs;
animation costs.
LEADER should not be limited to standard RD measures.
Streamlined LEADER cooperation
Compulsory with a minimum of 5% of the EAFRD funding per programme and possibility of higher co-financing rates
LEADER as an integrated territorial development tool on sub-regional ("local") level will directly contribute to the balanced territorial development of rural areas, which is one of the overall objectives of the rural development policy. It can potentially serve any of the six Union priorities for rural development.
The implementation of LEADER local development strategies (LDS) can reinforce territorial coherence and contribute to the long term sustainable development of an area. It can also be an appropriate tool to address rural-urban relationships.
1st bullet:
Those are obligatory elements of CLLD support, they have to be offered in each RD programme
Preparatory support may cover :
Training actions for local stakeholders
Studies of the area concerned
Costs related to the elaboration of the local dev. strategy
Administrative costs of an organisation that is applying for preparatory support during the preparation phase
Support for small pilot projects
Some strategies (and relating projects) will cover the scope of several funds. In such case, each operation to be financed from the relevant fund, according to its rules.
Running costs are costs linked to the mgt of the implementation of the strategy, they consist of:
Operating costs
Personnel costs
Training costs
Costs linked to PR
Financial costs
Costs linked to monitoring and evaluation of the strategy
Animation (of the strategy or of the local group): should aim at facilitating exchange between stakeholders to provide information and to promote the strategy and to support potential beneficiaires to develop operations and prepare applications
2nd bullet: Keeping in mind the small scale and integrated character of LEADER projects as well as the bottom-up decision-making inherent to LEADER, but also drawing lessons from implementation difficulties of LEADER axis, it is recommended not to strictly bind the activities under LEADER to the standard measures as defined in the programme. The individual operations shall be eligible if they contribute to achieving the objectives of the local development strategy and correspond to the objectives and priorities indicated for support under LEADER in the PA and RDP. Consequently, the LDS should be the main criterion to assess the eligibility of LEADER projects and, in addition, the operations could also fit into the types of operations as defined under the "standard" measures in RDP. In any case, the aid intensities of the latter would have to be respected.
In principle, the projects could include all types of action eligible for support under the ESI Funds, as long as they are in line with objectives of LEADER defined in the programme and of the LDS.
3rd bullet: Streamlining transnational cooperation means that common rules concerning publishing selection procedures and deadlines for project selection. Moreover, DG AGRI will provide specific guidance on LEADER cooperation in due time.
4th bullet: Under the EAFRD, LEADER is compulsory with a minimum of 5% of the EAFRD funding per programme. No ring-fencing for community-led local development in the other Funds. Maximum co-financing rates in LEADER (Art EAFRD Reg. – if agreed in the final MFF!): up to 80% in “other regions”; up to 90% in the less developed regions 16

17. Advantages of the common CLLD approach for LEADER
RD measures
Advantages of the common CLLD approach for LEADER
Common local development approach in the ESI-Funds facilitates integrated territorial development
Harmonised rules for design and implementation of CLLD
"Multi-funded" LEADER strategies enable various EU policies to contribute to local development according to their policy objectives
ERDF
EAFRD
Rural area
ESF
- Strategic approach in PA, reflected in the programmes, based on LAG/FLAG experience
- Which types of areas should be supported and with which of the Funds? What is the available funding?
- LAGs decide to which extent they want to make use of the possibilities offered
Added value for rural areas: broader strategies and Local Action Group partnerships, improvement of rural-urban relations, synergies with Fisheries Local Action Groups
Until now LEADER has been a stand-alone tool for local development supported under EAFRD. The relating support was provided for in the legal framework for rural development policy and followed its rules.
The new legal framework under CPR, relating also to EAFRD, sets out so called "community led-local development (CLLD)" which is based on the LEADER approach. CLLD can be supported by EMFF, ERDF, ESF and EAFRD, whereas it is obligatory for the latter fund only. Common Provisions Regulation provides for common rules for CLLD, which are complemented by fund specific rules. This is the case of EAFRD and EMFF.
Based on the lessons learnt from Leader + ex-post evaluations, the report of Court of Auditors and the implementation experience of LEADER axis in , several improvements have been brought into the new legal framework (both CPR and EAFRD), including:
provisions on minimum elements to be included in local development strategies in order to ensure their sufficient quality
provisions obliging the MS to guarantee the presence of all LEADER specificities in RD programmes (e.g. minimum tasks of local action groups)
greater focus on animation and capacity building (e.g. through an explicit provision for preparatory support and the possibility for small pilot projects; an explicit allocation of funds for animation; and an increase in the budget for running costs and animation to 25% of the total public expenditure incurred within the LDS)
strengthening the participation of private sector in the partnership (through a specific rule requiring a minimum share of participation of the non-public sector partners in project selection decisions)
Cooperation between the ESI-Funds for CLLD:
It is a means to achieve results - not an end in itself
It is obligatory with or without multi-funding
Needs to take place at all levels EU, national, regional, local
Less coordination at one level means more at another
Commission has set the framework but the mechanics are left for national/regional levels
If this is not done well – complexity can drown local groups
Conditions for multi-funded CLLD:
Agreement between Funds over the types of areas and projects
Clear eligibility rules for the support through the lead fund (if opted for)
Common calls for preparatory support and the final selection of areas and strategies
Common criteria and procedures for the selection of areas, strategies and partnerships
Agreement over the role and function of the groups and authorities
Separate but coordinated plans for monitoring and evaluation
TOP-DOWN
BOTTOM-UP 17

18. Advantages of the common CLLD approach for LEADER
RD measures
Advantages of the common CLLD approach for LEADER
Common methodology strengthens the LEADER approach (Art CPR)
Greater focus on capacity building and animation
Stronger local strategies
Better LAG governance: strengthening the participation of the private sector in the partnerships
- Contribution to programme objectives
- Coherence and consistency with "top-down" or other strategies
- Local needs identified through SWOT analysis
- Bottom-up process
TOP-DOWN
Based on the lessons learnt from Leader + ex-post evaluations, the report of Court of Auditors and the implementation experience of LEADER axis in , several improvements have been brought into the new legal framework (both CPR and EAFRD), including:
provisions on minimum elements to be included in local development strategies in order to ensure their sufficient quality
provisions obliging the MS to guarantee the presence of all LEADER specificities in RD programmes (e.g. minimum tasks of local action groups)
greater focus on animation and capacity building (e.g. through an explicit provision for preparatory support and the possibility for small pilot projects; an explicit allocation of funds for animation; and an increase in the budget for running costs and animation to 25% of the total public expenditure incurred within the LDS)
strengthening the participation of private sector in the partnership (through a specific rule requiring a minimum share of participation of the non-public sector partners in project selection decisions)
BOTTOM-UP 18

19. EIP on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability
Changes to the
measure menu
EIP on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability
A new facility for building bridges between research and practice, whilst encouraging innovation
Acts through operational groups carrying out innovative projects
Model story of an operational group: a farmer has an innovative idea but does not have means to develop it. He/she joins forces with e.g. a scientist, a farm advisor and a technology supplier and they set up an operational group. The idea is developed and shared via the networks. EAFRD co-finances project-specific costs and costs of co-operation.
Supported by a national and EU network
National network can be part of the Rural Network
Key RD measures for implementing the EIP:
Co-operation
Investments (various measures)
Knowledge transfer
Advisory services
EIP Actions funded under Rural Development
The aims of the EIP and the functions of Operational Groups are described in Art 61 –63 of the proposal for a Rural Development Regulation for the programming period (COM (2011) 627-3). Article 62 of the draft regulation refers to "interested actors such as farmers, researchers, advisors and businesses involved in the agriculture and food sector" as members of Operational Groups. The EIP Communication (COM(2012) 79) mentions in addition NGOs as possible members.
Operational Groups are built around concrete innovation projects, on the initiative of the interested actors. The composition of an Operational Group may vary from project to project in function of the project pursued. Operational groups shall draw up a description of the innovative project, the expected results, the approach towards implementing the project, and the decision making process guiding the work of the Operational Group. Furthermore, Operational Groups have to commit themselves to disseminate the results of their work via the EIP network.
Operational Groups may pursue "the development of new products, practices, processes and technologies in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors"(Art 36 (2)(a)) and "pilot projects"(Art.36 (2)(b)). Further possible areas of action include joint work processes, short supply chains, joint climate change actions, collective environmental projects, etc. The projects of Operational Group may involve the testing and adaptation of technologies and processes to specific geographical and environmental contexts.
Member States could use eligibility conditions and selection criteria in order to prioritise support to certain types of projects or areas of action, or to certain compositions of operational groups. Alternatively, Member State could rely on bottom-up initiative in defining content and objectives of the projects pursued by Operational Groups. Of course, projects must fall in any case into the scope of the EIP as stipulated in Article 61: they must promote a resource efficient, productive, low emission, climate friendly and resilient agricultural sector in harmony with essential natural resources on which farming depends.
Actions under Article 36 benefit from an increased EAFRD co-financing rate. Support can cover both the setting up and running of Operational Groups and the funding of their operations. Article 36 offers support for the use of innovation brokers to help with the establishment of operational groups, including finding the partners and refining the conceptualisation of innovation projects.
The funding of the setting up and running of Operational Groups may be combined with support under other rural development measures such as knowledge transfer and information actions(Art. 15), advisory services (Art. 16), investment in physical assets(Art.18), farm and business development (Art. 20), forestry investments (Art. 27), producer groups (Art. 28) etc. Investments done in the framework of EIP Operational Groups may profit from a higher support rate the measure "investments in physical assets" (art. 18). Operational Groups may also use funding instruments outside rural development policy, especially those of the EU's research policy.

20. Networking

21. National Rural Networks
Networking
National Rural Networks
European network for rural development - aims to:
increase the involvement of all stakeholders in the implementation
improve the quality of rural development programmes
informing the broader public on the benefits of RD policy
support the evaluation of rural development programmes
EIP network – aims to:
facilitate the exchange of expertise and good practices;
establish a dialogue between farmers and the research community and facilitate the inclusion of all stakeholders in the knowledge exchange process

22. Objectives and tasks of the NRNs
Involve stake- holders
Improve the quality of RDP implementation
Inform the broader public and potential beneficiaries
Foster innovation
Thematic and analytical exchanges between stakeholders, sharing and dissemination of findings 
Share and disseminate monitoring and evaluation findings
Networking activities for advisors and innovation support services
Collection of examples of projects covering all RDP priorities
Training and networking activities for LAGS
Publicity and information concerning the RDP, information and communication activities aimed at a broader public
Participate in and contribute to the ENRD activities

23. Cooperation with ENRD and EIP:
Participation at meetings and exchanges at EU level
Input into planning at EU level
Providing examples of projects and good practices
Providing information for network statistics
Contribution to thematic work
Contribution to EIP

24. Thank you very much for your attention!