Presentation on theme: "Approach of rural development by Limousin (France) 731 000 inhabitants 731 000 inhabitants 43 inhabitant / km2 43 inhabitant / km2 39% population is rural."— Presentation transcript:
Approach of rural development by Limousin (France) inhabitants inhabitants 43 inhabitant / km2 43 inhabitant / km2 39% population is rural 39% population is rural
A rural development policy founded on infraregional project areas: the districts 14 rural districts -averaging 30,000 hab., 1100 km², 48 municipalities, per district 2 Regional parks = 21% of the Limousin region 22 structural hubs -Towns with an agglomerated pop. of more than inhabitants (average is 5,460 inhabitants) = urban framework of the rural zone 2 agglomeration districts -Limoges 200,000 and Brive 85,000 hab. = 40% of the Limousin population
A structure mirrored by the LEADER Local Action Group -8 LEADER territories 80 % of municipalities and 50 % of the inhabitants of Limousin - The rural districts and the National Regional Parks (some of which are grouped into one single LAG) = support territories for LEADER programmes.
Founding principles of the Rural Development policy A contractual and territorial policy in partnership with the French government and the French Departments (two three-year contracts for ), Strong coordination with the European EARDF programmes (axis 3 and axis 4), and also with ERDF (notably in terms of policies for welcoming new populations), These integrated and multi-sector project approaches are part of a global approach led by the districts according to their own reality (demographics, employment), Striving for mutualisation and the coordination of effort and means (leadership, seeking the structural character of actions…), A convergence between a bottom-up approach (needs expressed by the districts) and a top-down approach (in line with regional policies), Greater participation of local stakeholders (socio- professionals, associations, population…) in the preparation of the public decision and the evolution of the policies enacted, Promotion and dissemination of the principles of rural development through territorial policies.
Action principles Shared recognition of the project districts enables the coordination of public policies, Greater complementarity in public interventions (region, state, Europe), ensures their coherence within a territory Safeguarding the contractual planning of the interventions facilitates the work of the contracting authorities and funders, through the signing of agreements, Creation of a solidarity mechanism based on equalisation between territories, Territorial contracts (including Leader counterparts) must guarantee an overall financial framework adapted to the budgetary possibilities and safeguarded for the period.
The content of territorial projects The areas where the Region works with the territories can be arranged into 3 major themes: The attractiveness of the territory and lifestyle (policy for reversing rural exodus, cultural development, sports, services, health, pre-school children, mobility, habitat and training) Economic development (support for business and crafts, tourism, forestry/wood and agriculture), The environment and the management of natural resources and heritage (water resources, natural sites, landscape charters, local climate plans and non-moveable heritage). And 2 more transversal axes: Support for leadership and engineering (general and thematic), Transversal approach to sustainable development the integration of sustainable development principles in projects. Areas of intervention which are also those identified as priorities by the LAG.
Which synergies between ERDF and EARDF in Limousin?
1/ Policies that are primarily community-focused Through the budgetary choices made: ERDF OP M; EARDF 348.4M [for the record, Pillar I of the CAP represents M] Through the strategic choices made (Community Strategic Guidelines and Regulation – ref. i.e. articles 9 and 12 of the ERDF regulation and the EARDF budget limits set for each axis): ideological breach, is the lisbonization accepted in the Financial Perspectives ruro- compatible? Through the management choices made: General Management by financial instrument.
2/ A rather unfavourable translation on the national level Government option in favour of a unique national plan – the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development (PDRH) A national policy of the PDRH is imposed for 80% of available resources: M in the Limousin region A regional policy(Regional rural development policy (DRDR) that is minimalist on a financial level (85.2 M in the Limousin region) but very open on the thematic level (90% of actions are eligible under EARDF rules) National guidelines on the complementarity of ERDF/EARDF... to manage the shortage
3/ A regional focus on ERDF-Innovation and EARDF- competitiveness of the agricultural sector ERDF OP: 65% in favour of Research and Development/Economic aid compared with 35% for Regional attractiveness and sustainable development EARDF regional rural development policy: 65% in favour of Axes 1 and 2 compared with 35% for Axis 3 (quality of life in a rural environment and diversification of the rural economy) and Axis 4 (the programme named LEADER – a French acronym for Links between actions for the development of the rural economy)
4/ An issue that is financially minor but politically sensitive Avoid shared sectors (no economic aid and initially no EARDF cooperation…) in order to educate beneficiaries and ensure proper administrative coordination (one- stop shop) For the shared sectors (public services, sports/tourism/culture infrastructures), define objective, simple and acceptable criteria (public, nature, total cost…) Prioritise allocating the funds to the new challenges facing French rurality (welcoming new populations, residential economy, use of ICT, climate change…) Favour the integrated approach by seeking to smooth out technocratic obligations (control delegation, single application, unique regional programming committee – CRUP, coherence with the regional planning and sustainable land development scheme – SRADDT – and the Agenda 21 plan for the Limousin region…)
5/ A practice that has trouble withstanding the shortage of financial means A high rate of planning (35% for ERDF and 35% for EARDF – cumulated national and regional policies) – the highest in France – which can demonstrate the relevance of the regional strategy; A visible shortage: 30M of ERDF funds identified as needed, but only 10 M in funds available for Sports/Tourism/Culture facilities; Biased responses: instructing authorities lack knowledge of boundaries (Measures 35 and 36 of the ERDF/Measure 321 B of the EARDF); the midway review is always running one reminder late; the current state of the CAP is swayed (Axes 3 and 4 are excluded in practice from modulation); the amount of earmarking is obstructive (basic infrastructures arent counted); the rigidity of community management (the article 37-6 b – General Rules style integration is contested)
6/Example of sports/culture/tourism and public service equipments ERDFEARDF measure 321 Cultural, tourism and sports and leisure services Limoges and Brive urban areas* Measure 35 (projects over 1.5 M) Rural areas Measure 321 B (facilities costing less than 600,000) Measure 36 (all projects except those that fall into the measure 35 category ) Rural areas Measure 35 (projects over 1.5 M) Measure 36 (all projects except those that fall into the measure 35 category – whose cost is greater than 600,000 and less than 1.5 M) Service hubs Limoges and Brive urban areas*Measure 36 Rural areas Measure 321B (projects costing less than 300,000) Rural areas Measure 36 (projects costing over 300,000) Facilities for early childhood and youth Multi-disciplinary health centres Limoges and Brive CUCS zones (areas targeted for improvement of social cohesion) Measure 36Rural areas Measures 321A and 321B Home care centres for the elderly Limoges and Brive CUCS zones Measure 36Not eligible Employment services and welcoming new businesses All areas or only CUCS zones ?Measure 36Not eligible Land development operations for the rehabilitation and re-use of commercial rustbowls Limoges and Brive CUCS zonesMeasure 36Not eligible
7/Example of transnational cooperation Intervention measures LAG EPCI / NRPLocal authorities, association, Public institution Intensity Cooperation EARDF Measure ,000 euro first contacts grant OK x x Measure Exchange best practices OK x x ERDF Measure x x x Measure Networks x OK OK Measure Pilot project Skills sharing x OK
2 ème pillar of CAP EARDF Cohesion policy ERDF Transnational cooperation (LEADER axis) Territorial cooperation (objective 3) European Rural Network Regions for Economic Change CAPITALISATION TRANSFER Convergence (objective 1) Competitiveness (objective 2) Axis 3Axis 4 Pilot projects Good practices Axis 2Axis 1 network of european Regions transferring good practices for rural innovation in regional programmes
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Slide show created by the Commission for Cooperation and the Department of Migration and Territories Slide show presented by Cédric Léger, Project Manager