Axis 4 of the EFF: The Leader Approach in European Fisheries Areas… Marseille, 26 th September Monica Burch, FARNET Support Unit

2  FARNET and the EU FLAGs (Fisheries Local Action Groups)  success stories and lessons learnt from LEADER dissemination into fisheries areas  introducing the LEADER approach to EU urban policy (ESF, ERDF)?  future plans for CLLD in in the EMFF (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) The Leader Approach in European Fisheries Areas…

3 Sectoral challenges Fisheries areas challenges  dwindling fish stocks  fishing overcapacity  lack of competitiveness  Vulnerability of small scale fisheries  lack of organisation and integration within the sector and along the chain  Rising costs (especially fuel)  Low attractivity of employment in fisheries  urbanisation pressure  environnemental degradation  peripheral areas  depopulation in some small fishing communities  lack of economic alternatives A fisheries focus

4 The sustainable development of fisheries areas  €600M or 13% of the EFF (€826M total public)  Average budgets: €3.3 million – but huge range (€200,000 - €17 million)  Differences in strategies, partnerships & areas.  Nearly 2/3 have formal cooperation with LEADER.  Over 300 groups with integrated local development strategies, implemented by bottom-up partnerships in 21 countries

5 An Axis 4 example...

6 Forms of LAG-FLAG coordination EFF EARDF ERDF ESF LAG/FLAG Seperate selection committees One LAG-FLAG Common accountable body FLAG LAG ERDF ESF ACCOUNTABLE BODY LAG / FLAG cooperation

7 Other formal coordination Defining areas that fit strategies Boundaries for coastal strips and rivers Boundaries for dispersed fishing communities Other forms of coordination Board members - cross partners Common admin and fin. support Shared staff Shared premises Technical coordination meetings Agreed criteria and procedures Same or similar boundaries Demarcation LAG/FLAG How to achieve synergy & respect specificity ?

8  different forms of cooperation : Adapt model of cooperation to needs  advantage when building on prior experience  But not force things into artificial structures (divided up into too small packages (eg merely distributed to Leader groups) – need to look at all the alternatives & chose option best suited to area. Ideally no blanket rule at national level  Ensure fit between strategies and programme goals (budgets, types of measures, criteria…..)  Adapt boundaries to fit what you want to achieve (FI, IT, FR…)  Build partnerships from allies required to achieve change.. A few lessons…

9 introducing the LEADER approach to EU urban policy (ESF, ERDF)?  reticence on the part of urban policies (partly because sums of money much bigger – and already many actors)  Need to convince the cities if it is to appear in Operation Programmes (Ops)  CLLD often used in deprived areas…  but can also be used in other types of areas (industrial districts, knowledge districts, city centres…)  or specific target groups  or by theme (employment, entrepreneurship, low carbon transport, food, water…) …

10  Expectation for Axis 4 to be strengthened  Option for multi-funding (but rules need to be really simple within any ONE fund)  flexible tool for fisheries communities - possibilities for fisheries focused strategies & broader coastal development (link water-land) Future plans for CLLD in in the EMFF

11 Thank you for your attention! FARNET Support Unit rue Saint Laurent B Bruxelles