Urszula Budzich-Tabor Brussels, 27 May 2014 LEADER from a non-traditional point of view The perspective of fisheries areas

2 Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund  Transfer of the LEADER experience to areas dependent on fisheries  Common points: Cross-sector partnership Bottom-up strategy and projects Importance of linkages Role of the (Fisheries) Local Action Group (FLAG)  Some key differences: Areas: coastal and (in some MS) inland (but: size, dispersion) With a significant share of fisheries (Usually) a strong role of fisheries sector in decision-making body (Often) projects focused on fisheries sector, fish, water... Linkages: horizontal (within the sector, between fisheries and the wider community) and vertical (along the fisheries chain)

3 Axis 4 of EFF and Axis 4 of EAFRD  Axis 4 EFF is not obligatory  Only 21 MS decided to use this option  Some used the same Managing Authority  Most used similar delivery mechanisms  Some FLAGs are also LAGs, possibilities include: The same area The same accountable body The same or very similar partnership A combination of the above  In some MS the experience of LEADER was hardly taken into account (but often this created delays!)

4 312 FLAGs in 21 countries 11.6 % of EFF budget Average budget per FLAG: EUR 2,3 mln Wide variety in areas, strategies, partnerships Axis 4: state of play

5 Huge diversity FromTo Total Axis 4 budget778,000 (EI) 3,606,000 (FI) 190,072,000 (PL) 50,754,000 (ES) Number of FLAGs1 (BE, CY, SI)48 (PL) 42 (IT) Average budget per FLAG 260,000 (EI) 620,000 (LV) 5,280,000 (PL) 4,289,000 (RO) Average project size22,000 (LV)171,000 (NL) Starting date of FLAGs 2007 (DK, FI)2013 (...) Capacity buildingnonefully-fledged FLAG network

6 State of play in May 2014: 8215 projects

7 Types of projects supported by Axis 4

8 MA plans for CountryFunds available in fisheries areas Stand-alone FLAG vs. LAG/FLAG DenmarkEMFF, EAFRDboth EstoniaEMFF, EAFRDboth FinlandEMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDFboth FranceEMFF, EAFRD, ERDF (ITI)both (umbrella organisation) IrelandEMFF, EAFRDboth ItalyEMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDFboth LatviaEMFF, EAFRDboth LithuaniaEMFF, EAFRDboth PolandEMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDFboth PortugalEMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDFboth RomaniaEMFF, EAFRD, ERDFboth SloveniaEMFF, EAFRDboth Spain (And.)EMFF, EAFRD, ERDFboth Spain (Can. Cant. Cat.)EMFF, EAFRDboth SwedenEMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDFboth UK (Engl.)EMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDFonly stand-alone UK (Scot., Wales)EMFFonly stand-alone

9 Some examples of CLLD strategies  Sweden: Axis 4 EFF started under a separate MA but during the period was transferred to the same MA as Leader In Sweden is planning to allow CLLD in all the four Funds (EAFRD, EMFF, ERDF and ESF) Groups will be allowed to have multi-funded strategies There will be a single Intermediate Body responsible for CLLD in all the Funds There will be a joint network for LAGs and FLAGs  France: Axis 4 EFF had relatively little connection with Leader at programme level, but could have at the pays level (umbrella) Increased role of regional authorities in ERDF available under ITI

10 Some examples - Poland  EAFRD and EMFF programmed at the national level, with regional authorities as IB  ESF and ERDF programmed at the regional level  Nationally: Good cooperation between regional, rural and fisheries teams in the respective Ministries Plans to have a special law on CLLD (only general points) Full integration of some LAGs and FLAGs already in this period, probably more in the next Some FLAGs (mainly coastal) might choose to remain independent  Regionally: 2 or 3 regions (out of 16) have decided to use the two „regionalised” Funds for CLLD At least one of them might include CLLD in cities In others there will be LAG/FLAGs and possible dedicated calls from other funds, some issues still open

11 Possible challenges  Going beyond rural and fisheries areas (e.g. urban CLLD) – FARNET experience emphasises how long the learning process can be...  Maintaining the specific focus of each Fund (e.g. fisheries sector in EMFF) while giving maintaining both flexibility and integrated character  Specific fisheries focus – how to ensure this with a very small sector? How to ensure it in view of EMFF delays, while stakeholders of other funds will already go ahead?  Issues and misunderstandings about Thematic Objectives and Fund priorities  Maintaining at least a minimum coordination of rules and procedures  Facilitating cooperation of LAGs using different Funds

12 Thank you for your attention FARNET Support Unit 38 rue de la Loi B Bruxelles