1. 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

2. 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)

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. What do we know from the programming phase ?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

11. What do we know from the implementation phase?

12. 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

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

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

15. 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

16. 4 possible scenarios among others
No future scenario
CLLD goes on: status quo
CLLD goes on but is compulsory
Simplification of CLLD

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21.
DG REGIO collaborative platform
plus.google.com/+EuropeanCommission
Sign up for our 'REGIOFLASH'