EU Commission - DG Regional and Urban Policy 16 European Structural and Investment Funds Community-led local development EU Commission - DG Regional and Urban Policy 16

New features on CLLD for 2014-2020 Building on the long-standing experience of LEADER and the EMFF, CLLD is now open to four European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF): EAFRD, EMFF, ERDF and ESF A common set of principles and rules for all the ESI Funds covers CLLD (in the Common Provisions Regulation Art 33-35) Coordination of ESI Funds and multi-fund strategies encouraged (possibility for one lead Fund)

Novelties ERDF and ESF can be used via bottom up approaches Optional tool CLLD can cover urban areas

CLLD principles Sub-regional areas: local territorial approach Concentration of Funds on the most needed areas – flexible and responsive solutions to address local and changing needs Community-led partnerships: participatory approach Co-responsability and ownership. No one interest group whether public or private dominates in the local action groups. Integrated multi-sectoral local strategies Horizontal integration with other local actors – vertical integration with other levels in delivery and supply chains Innovation New ways of thinking and doing – new markets, products, services, social innovation Networking and cooperation Local areas and communities learning from each other – new allies for strengthening their position

Overview of CLLD in ESI Funds Total CLLD budget EUR Number of MS concerned Expected number of LAGs EMFF 500 million 20 300 EAFRD 6.900 million 28 2500 ERDF 1.200 million 16 tbc 2017 ESF 600 million 13

Programmed ERDF and ESF allocation to CLLD by MS Programming results 18 MS apply CLLD in CP 14 MS use both ERDF/ESF GR, HU, PL, PT, SE via multi-fund OP Concentration 92% by 9 MS 25% by CZ alone

What do we know from the programming phase ?

Modest uptake Modest uptake under the ERDF and ESF (in total 18 MS, EUR 1.8 bn for the two Funds together) New instrument in Cohesion Policy (most MS have experience in LEADER in rural programmes) Reluctance to delegate (issues related to trust, administrative capacity, time required) Regulatory elements (thematic concentration, performance framework, "gold-plating", role of fund specific rules) Insufficient governance mechanisms which may lead to parallel investments or path-dependent activities that are not in line with actual or potential comparative advantage

Types of CLLD within Cohesion policy Small areas within cities, deprived urban neighbourhoods and historic centers Smaller cities and their surrounding rural areas Rural areas, urban-rural linkages Target group approaches (ESF) Thematic approaches e.g. environment, social inclusion

Territorial focus Territorial focus depends much on the national or regional coordination with EAFRD and EMFF. Complementary arrangements usually target rural areas involving small towns (e.g. CZ, SE, SK), while some MS use ERDF in distinctly urban settings for social inclusion (e.g. HU, PT, RO, UK)

What do we know from the implementation phase?

We do not know much… Slow implementation of 2014-2020 OPs in general Smal amount of expenditure reported under CLLDs CLLD strategies can be selected until 31.12.2017

…But we will soon know more CLLD strategies can be selected until 31.12.2017 Annual implementation reports 2017 will arrive by 30.06.2017: quality of data reported will be checked and data will be analysed An expert is working on data collection and case study

What does it means for the future of CLLD in cohesion policy?

Too early to predict What will cohesion policy look like? Scenarios for Europe New MFF Fact based policy making: we need facts, analysis before proposing anything It is time to work on the implementation of the current programming period

4 possible scenarios among others No future scenario CLLD goes on: status quo CLLD goes on but is compulsory Simplification of CLLD

No future scenario Hypothesis: High level of complaints from MS and actors involved about complexity of cohesion policy rules Very slow implementation of CLLD penalising the performance of programmes and causing decommitment of funds ERDF mainly used to cover expenditure ineligible under EAFRD and EMFF Unconvincing reporting on the performance of the instrument Dramatic simplification of the regulatory Framework applicable to cohesion policy Supression of CLLD

Status quo Hypothesis: Facts available are limited when proposing the post 2020 regulations The rationale for CLLD remains: cohesion policy is a place based policy. Innovative local development strategies developed and implemented by local actors is the best guarantee to focus the funding on local needs while making the link with European priorities and to contribute bridging the gap between Europe and citizens Optional CLLD does not harm Stability will help improving implementation in future CLLD is maintained unchanged as an optional cohesion policy tool

Compulsory use of CLLD Hypothesis: Cohesion policy budget is reduced Facts available show great success of CLLD Usefulness of bottom up approaches linking local and European strategies for bridging the gap between Europe and citizens is demonstrated Use of CLLD is made compulsory with Governance support and capacity building measures provided

Simplification of CLLD Hypothesis: The rationale for CLLD remains Analysis of implementation is broadly positive Stability will help improving implementation in future But the elements which have proven to be too burdensome are simplified Simplification of CLLD Limited regulatory constraints on CLLD Thematic concentration requirements not applicable to amounts used under CLLD A single set of rules applicable to ESIP simplifies the use of different funds

www.ec.europa.eu/inforegio www.facebook.com/EuropeanCommission www.twitter.com/@EU_Regional www.linkedin.com/company/1809 DG REGIO collaborative platform www.yammer.com/regionetwork plus.google.com/+EuropeanCommission Sign up for our 'REGIOFLASH' www.inforegiodoc.eu www.flickr.com/euregional