2. LEADER approach in 2007 – 2013 and beyond Jela Tvrdonova, IMRD Case Study SAU Nitra, 2016 1

3. Outline of the presentation  LEADER - method and funding  SAPARD technical assistance in building capacities for LEADER  LEADER 2007 – 2013  LEADER 2007-2013 in Slovakia  Future of LEADER -CLLD 14 February 20132

4. LEADER method and funding 14 February 2013 LEADER seminar, Croatia 3

5. What is the Leader approach? governance tool endogenous development tool innovation tool territorial tool integration tool

6. What is the Leader approach? Leader/CLLD ESI Funds/ Other public and private funding LDS/CLLDS Method RDP/OP 7 principles Added value Territorial policy tool

7. LEADER – method and money  METHOD: Support of endogeneous, area based integarted rural development versus sector based approach  MONEY: Legal framework and Fund (EC regulation 1698/2005, 1974/2006 on Rural Develoopment and EAFRD) 14 February 20136

8. LEADER – method A mode of local governance 7 features of LEADER as defined by the EU  „Bottom up“  Area based strategies  Public-private partnerships  Innovations  Integrated and multi-sector activities  Networking  Cooperation 14 February 20137 governance tool endogenous development tool innovation tool territorial tool integration tool

9. LEADER - money European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development Community strategic guidelines: The EU priorities:  Use the LEADER approach for introducing innovation in the thematic axis  better governance at the local level  endogenous development (local resources for growth and jobs) 14 February 20138

10. LEADER - money Rural Development Programmes  Objectives: Competitiveness- Environment- Quality of life  Axes – measures – activities – finances  LEADER - horizontal posibility  Rules and responsibilities 14 February 20139

11. LEADER requires capacities LEADER: multi-governance approach Capacities at each level of governance in concern:  People – information – knowledge – skills Important - early start 14 February 201310

12. LEADER is process  Mobilising  Linking  Educating  Programming  Managing  Implementing  Monitoring  Evaluating Each step needs to build specific capacities for both – method and money 14 February 201311

13. Building capacities for LEADER approach in Slovakia SAPARD Technical assistance 14 February 201312

14. Project: SAPARD for LEADER WHAT: build up the capacity for the “bottom up”, integrated and area based sustainable development of “LEADER type” USING: SAPARD Technical assistance measure DECISION: SAPARD Monitoring Committee, BUDGET: 375.000 EUR PERIOD: 16 months of 2004 / 2005 14 February 201313

15. Objectives of the project At the local level Motivation – partnerships – governance capacities 14 February 201314 At regional and national level Policy – instruments – capcities:administrative, management, monitoring, evaluation

16. WHO received the support Rural micro-regions  With more than 8.000 inhabitants  Able to co-finance 10%  Able to offer office equipped with the computer and Internet  Able to employ the local manager  With civil associations led by active and motivated people  With businesses able to invest (volume of investments was not important, but the willingness and the ability) 14 February 201315

17. WHERE they were located? 14 February 201316

18. HOW many / HOW much Slovakia: Total population:  5 379 455 Total rural population:  2 567 781 Number of rural communities  2783 TA SAPARD area : Total Population:  Cca 100.000 – 3,9% Total number of rural villages:  145 – 5,2% 14 February 201317

19. WHAT was done THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS  Constant motivation and animation of actors from all three sectors: public, private and civic 14 February 201318

20. LEADER 2007 - 2013 14 February 201319

21. Evolution of the LEADER approach LEADER: Liens Entre Actions de Developpement de l’Economie Rurale = Linkages between development actions regarding the rural economy The Community Initiatives:  LEADER I (1991-93) – experiment: result of criticism to the individual project approach in the Structural Policy  LEADER II (1994-99) - laboratory: limited to disadvantaged rural areas, innovation, pilot actions, introduction of transnational cooperation

22. Evolution of the LEADER approach  LEADER+ (2000-06) - maturity phase: eligibility of the whole rural territory; reinforced role of networks and transnational cooperation  (LEADER+ type measure for new Member States 2004-2006)

23. Experience with LEADER  Decentralised management and financing and local partnerships need more investments in the early phase (resources for capacity building, negotiation time, organisation development)  Accelerated programme delivery in later phases due to enhanced local capital, local ownership.

24. LEADER Axis  Mainstreaming of LEADER - LEADER axis – not any longer specific programmes; methodological approach to mainstream RD programming  The various policy options  Wider thematic and geographical scope of application  Application to the 3 axis  Geographical application (application on a wider scale for certain MS only)

25. LEADER axis – technical options  Selection of measures – menu of RD regulation  measures will have to be chosen out of the European ‘menu’ of measures.  Sub option A : measure implemented exclusively with the LEADER method  Sub option B :measure implemented in addition to the top down method Implementation of own measures (e.g. territorial measures)

26. Delivery system via measures (Art 63) a ) Implementing local development strategies to achieve the objectives of one or more of the 3 axis b)Cooperation c)Running the local action group, acquisition of skills and animating the territory

27. Balance between objectives (Art.17)  LEADER axis budget :  At least 5 % of total EARDF contribution in the old MS  At least 2,5% in the new MS.  Romania and Bulgaria (2,5% applying to 2010- 2013)

28. EARDF contribution (Art.70) increased participation + 5%  80 % of public expenditure in regions covered by the convergence objective  55 % of public expenditure in other regions

29. LEADER expenditures in 2007 – 2013 Programmed expenditure for LEADER in the EU:  Public: € 8.9 billion – of which EAFRD: € 5.9 billion  Private: € 5.0 billion  Maximum co-financing rate of 55% (80% in Convergence regions).

30. Breakdown of the EAFRD contribution Implementation of local development strategies (Measure 41): 77, 5%  Competitiveness (sub-measure 411) : 9,5%  Environment and Land Management (sub-measure 412): 3,0 %  Quality of Life and Economic Diversification (sub-measure 413) : 65,0%

31. Breakdown of the EAFRD contribution Inter-territorial and transnational cooperation (Measure 421) : 5,0% LAG running costs, skills acquisition and animation (Measure 431) 16,5%

32. LEADER axis implementation steps  Acquisition of skills for new and existing LAGs  Selection of local developemnt strategies  Contracting LAGs  Implementation of local development strategies  Monitoring and evaluation

33. Acquisition of skills  promotional events and the training of LEADERs  the training of staff involved in the preparation and implementation of a local development strategy;  studies of the area concerned (territorial diagnostic, development strategy)  measures to provide information about the area and the local development strategy;

34. Selection of local development strategies  Opened selection procedure ensuring competition between LAGs  In the RDP:  Procedure and timetable for selecting the local action groups,  Eligibility selection criteria  Planned maximum number of LAGs  Planned percentage of rural territories covered by local development strategies and their justification  Detailed selection criteria approved later after consultation with the Monitoring Committee

35. Selection of local development strategies  Partnership related criteria  Representativeness of partners from the various sectors  At decision-making level representation of the economic and social actors and civil society (at least 50 % of the local partnership)  (e.g. Chambers of trade, agriculture, or SMEs, NGOs, rural women association)  Ability to define and implement a development strategy;  Ability to administer public funds

36. Selection of local development strategie s  Territory related criteria  Coherent area and critical mass to support a viable development strategy  Strategy related criteria  integrated local development strategy

37. Cooperation  Inter-territorial cooperation  Transnational cooperation  Within EU  With rural territories in third countries

38. Eligibility rules and conditions for cooperation  Eligible costs : project development and implementation of a joint action including coordination costs for all areas  Role of Lead LAG  At least one partner selected under the LEADER Axis

39. Cooperation projects  Can be integrated in local development strategy  Advantages : coherent with the bottom up approach; quicker procedure since local action groups select the projects (Art.62.4); cooperation is coherent with the strategy  If not integrated in local strategy, authorization by the managing authorities  Advantages : better control on the respect of requirements (e.g. presence of a common action)  Coordination mechanism at EU level

40. LEADER 2007-2013 in Slovakia 14 February 201339

41. Approved LAGs 14 February 201340

42. Axis LEADER MeasuresPublic expenditure Total Of which EUOf which SR Local development strategies 63 184 491 49 919 57013 264 921 Cooperation 3 726 000 2 980 800745 200 Running the LAG and skills aquisition 12 102 715 9 682 1722 420 543 TOTAL 79 013 20662 582 54216 430 664 14 February 201341

43. Cooperation  19 submitted applications  6 national &13 international projects  716 716 EUR requested amount of public expenditure in submitted applications  37 700 EUR/project  35 Slovak partners and 20 international partners. 14 February 201342

44. HOW LEADER principles have been followed „Bottom up“ YES to certain extent:  Design and approval of local strategies  Project selection  Mobilisation and animation of local people NO:  No financial independence  Low level of mobilising local resources 14 February 201343

45. HOW LEADER principles have been followed Areas based strategies NO:  Only one axis measure selection  Not reflecting real needs  Not involving local resources  A lot of mobilisation with very low outreach to stakeholders 14 February 201344

46. HOW LEADER principles have been followed Innovation YES:  LEADER as such is innovation  Innovative design and approval of local strategies  Innovative publicity NO:  Innovation at project level not eligible!!! 14 February 201345

47. HOW LEADER principles have been followed Public-Private partnership YES:  in terms of sectors, decision structures NO: (not always) in terms of  Territorial  Social  Institutional  Gender 14 February 201346

48. HOW LEADER principles have been followed Integrated and multisector activities NO:  only very limited possibilities inside of LEADER Axis in Slovakia (Axis 3 measures) 14 February 201347

49. HOW LEADER principles have been followed Networking YES:  National rural network – obligatory  LAG network – voluntary NO:  No links between both, on purpose as well till recently 14 February 201348

50. HOW LEADER principles have been followed Cooperation YES:  There is the possibility NO:  Administrative threats  Small size of projects – Slovak LAGs not good partners for international cooperation  Small capacity 14 February 201349

51. 14 February 201350 Community led local development – the future of LEADER?

52. The LEADER approach based on its specific features will continue to be an important tool of rural development policy after 2013  Within the EU priorities for rural development unlocking local potential will continue to be an important element  The implementation mechanisms of LEADER will be improved in order to be able to better meet the expected added-value of the LEADER approach The future of LEADER

53. …on the basis of the lessons learned from the previous LEADER Community Initiatives and the „mainstreamed“ LEADER in 07-13: More guidance to the Member States in the legal framework:  offering flexibility for the implementation without being too prescriptive  Goal: Make LEADER fit to better serve innovation and local governance The future of LEADER

54.  Strengthening the role of the local development strategies (LDS) as the central tool to meet objectives: quality of design and implementation (including better monitoring and evaluation)  Ensuring the presence of all LEADER specificities especially: more freedom for LAGs to chose those projects, which best fit their strategies The future of LEADER

55. Concretely:  Clearer distribution of tasks between the authorities and the LAGs (depending on the implementation model followed)  Greater focus on animation and capacity building (also for the preparation of the strategies)  Strengthening the participation of the private sector in the partnerships The future of LEADER

56.  Streamlining transnational cooperation  Re-inforced networking tools for LAGs on EU and national level  Synergies with the local development networking instruments of the other EU Funds The future of LEADER

57. CLLD in the EU policy Europe 2020 strategy => unlocking the EU's growth potential  Part of potential for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth lies in the endogenous growth potential at sub regional level  Sub-regional development policies acting at grass roots level can in particular contribute to the social inclusion targets of Europe 2020  The EU tools in support of the Europe 2020 strategy include levers for growth and jobs such as the EU budget  EU financial support is delivered through the EU funds in shared management (EAFRD, ERDF/CF, ESF, EFF)

58. CLLD in the EU policy Europe 2020 strategy => unlocking the EU's growth potential  Common Strategic Framework ( CSF) is proposed to strengthen the coordination and integration of EU policies for the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy  CSF will contain strategic guidelines for sub regional/local development  Rules between the Funds for local development will be harmonised

59. Improving strategic choices at Member State level regarding local development:  Partnershoip Agreement – the main tool for strategic choices  Link local development potential with their overall growth strategy  Broaden the funding base  Reinforce rural-urban links CLLD – possible actions

60. Strategic choices on CLLD in the Partnership Agreement On the basis of an analysis of disparities and development needs, the MS will have to:  present the main challenges to adress with CLLD  define the types of CLLD territories  the role envisaged for the different funds in different types of area  Identify the lead fund  the common administrative set up for CLLD Design the most flexible and comprehensive framework Involve stakeholders as the system set up will have a direct impact on the ground 3 14 February 201359

61. Strategic choices – single fund Local development strategies funded by one Fund only:  initially simpler from management point of view However:  broader strategies excluded  achievement of synergies between funds limited  less likely to address broad cross-cutting challenges  budget likely to be smaller  sometimes an obstacle to the creation of territorially homogenous strategies 14 February 201360

62. Strategic choices – multi- fund  broader scope of LDS  better definition of and dealing with common cross-cutting challenges  artificial demarcation or overlaps between strategies avoided  facilitates the joint use of the funds  possibly higher funding Solid preparation and capacity building actions on the existing structures – 14 February 201361

63. What are the options? EAFRD Mono-fund – administrative burden at LAG level EFF EFRD ESF LDS

64. Strategic decisions for CLLD: single mono fund Solution – only one fund, usually Leader:  Simple solution for administration, lost opportunity for local areas And:  Exclusion of broader strategies  Threatening the develop territorially integrated strategies  Lowering the probability of solving real problems of rural areas.  Limiting the synergy among ESI Funds  Lessing the money

65. Strategic decision for CLLD: coordination among funds Multi-fund, but each separately – coordination of procedures, Common management of several funds:  Capacity building  Coordination of procedures e.g. parallel selection of LAGs, one application form, comparable selection criteria, deadlines, single committee etc.  Common Monitoring Committee

66. Simplification of multi-fund approach Lead fund  optional tool to cover the running and animation costs Joint intermediate body  possibility for Managing Authorities to delegate tasks  to be used as a one stop shop  could help meet the need for coordination 14 February 201365

67. EAFRD Multi-fund – administrative burden at MA level establishment of „one stop shop“ or cross-fund cooperation EFF EFRD ESF LDS Medzi stupeň – sprostredkovateľs ký orgán

68. Coordination between funds Joint capacity building Selection of Local development strategies  if multi-fund: common selection procedure, selection criteria, deadlines, joint selection committee  if mono-fund approach: selection procedures should be coordinated, parallel calls for proposal, compatible selection criteria, ideally common deadlines Monitoring Committee 14 February 201367

69. CLLD – 2 funds, 2 programmes:  Increase of money –205 mil. EUR (from 79 mil. EUR)  Number of LAG – min. 50 (from 29)  Population cover – min. 1 000 000 inhabitants (from 500 000)  Much more possibilities  More measures, more type of beneficiaries  Bigger flexibility – not only few measure, not only measure and condition from RDP, but also possibility to go outside of RDP 68 CLLD in Slovakia

70. CLLD – 2 funds, 2 programmes Integrated regional operational programme (IROP) – ERDF  Priority axis 5 – Community led local development  Specific objective 5.1.1 – support for businesses  Specific objective 5.1.2 – public services, support for rural- urban linkages  100 mil. EUR Rural development programme (RDP) – EAFRD – as LEADER measure  Measures from regulation EU 1305/2013, except „non project“ measures  Beneficiaries – farmers, agri holdings, forestries, municipalities etc.  105 mil. EU R 69 CLLD in Slovakia 4 submeasures  Preparatory support  Implementation of strategies  Cooperation projects  Running costs and animation

71. Thank you very much! Contacts: jelatvrdonova@gmail.com jela@ruralevaluation.eu 14 February 201370