LEADER
approach in
2007 – 2013
and beyond
Jela Tvrdonova,
IMRD Case Study SAU Nitra,
2016
1
2
14 February 2013
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
3
14 February 2013
LEADER method and
funding
LEADER seminar, Croatia
What is the Leader approach?
governance tool
endogenous development tool
innovation tool
territorial tool
integration tool
What is the Leader approach?
Territorial
policy tool
RDP/OP
ESI Funds/
Other public
and private
funding
LDS/CLLDS
Leader/CLLD
Method
7 principles
Added
value
6
14 February 2013
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)
7
14 February 2013
LEADER – method
A mode of local governance
7 features of LEADER as defined by the EU
 „Bottom up“
 Area based strategies
 Public-private partnerships
• governance tool
 Innovations
• endogenous
development tool
 Integrated and multi-sector
• innovation tool
activities
• territorial tool
 Networking
• integration tool
 Cooperation
8
14 February 2013
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)
9
14 February 2013
LEADER - money
Rural Development Programmes
 Objectives: CompetitivenessEnvironment- Quality of life
 Axes – measures – activities – finances
 LEADER - horizontal posibility
 Rules and responsibilities
10
14 February 2013
LEADER requires capacities
LEADER: multi-governance approach
Capacities at each level of governance in
concern:
 People
– information – knowledge – skills
Important - early start
11
14 February 2013
LEADER is process








Mobilising
Linking
Educating
Programming
Managing
Implementing
Monitoring
Evaluating
Each step needs to build specific capacities for
both – method and money
12
14 February 2013
Building capacities for LEADER
approach in Slovakia
SAPARD Technical assistance
13
14 February 2013
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
14 February 2013
Objectives of the project
At the local level
Motivation – partnerships – governance
capacities
At regional and national level
Policy – instruments –
capcities:administrative, management,
monitoring, evaluation
15
14 February 2013
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)
16
14 February 2013
WHERE they were located?
17
14 February 2013
HOW many / HOW much
Slovakia:
TA SAPARD area:
Total population:
 5 379 455
Total rural population:
 2 567 781
Number of rural
communities
 2783
Total Population:
 Cca 100.000 – 3,9%
Total number of rural
villages:
 145 – 5,2%
18
14 February 2013
WHAT was done
THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS
 Constant
motivation and animation of
actors from all three sectors: public,
private and civic
19
14 February 2013
LEADER 2007 - 2013
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
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)
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.
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)
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)

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
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 20102013)
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

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).
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%
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%
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
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;
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
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
Selection of local
development strategies


Territory related criteria
 Coherent area and critical mass
to support a viable
development strategy
Strategy related criteria
 integrated local development
strategy
Cooperation
Inter-territorial
cooperation
Transnational cooperation
Within EU
With rural territories in third
countries
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
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
39
LEADER 2007-2013 in
Slovakia
14 February 2013
40
Approved LAGs
14 February 2013
41
14 February 2013
Axis LEADER
Measures
Public
expenditure
Total
Of which EU
Of which SR
Local
development
strategies
63 184 491
49 919 570
13 264 921
Cooperation
3 726 000
2 980 800
745 200
Running the
LAG and skills
aquisition
12 102 715
9 682 172
2 420 543
TOTAL
79 013 206
62 582 542
16 430 664
42
14 February 2013
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.
43
14 February 2013
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
44
14 February 2013
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
45
14 February 2013
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!!!
46
14 February 2013
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
47
14 February 2013
HOW LEADER principles have
been followed
Integrated and
multisector activities
NO:
 only very limited
possibilities inside of
LEADER Axis in Slovakia
(Axis 3 measures)
48
14 February 2013
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
49
14 February 2013
HOW LEADER principles have
been followed
YES:
 There is the possibility
Cooperation
NO:
 Administrative threats
 Small size of projects –
Slovak LAGs not good
partners for
international
cooperation
 Small capacity
50
14 February 2013
Community led local
development – the future of
LEADER?
The future of LEADER
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
…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
 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
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
 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
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)
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
CLLD – possible actions
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
59
14 February 2013
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
60
14 February 2013
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
61
14 February 2013
Strategic choices – multifund





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 –
What are the options?
Mono-fund – administrative burden at LAG level
EAFRD
LDS
EFF
LDS
EFRD
ESF
LDS
LDS
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
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
65
14 February 2013
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
Multi-fund – administrative burden at MA level
establishment of „one stop shop“ or cross-fund
cooperation
EAFRD
EFF
EFRD
Medzi stupeň –
sprostredkovateľs
ký orgán
LDS
ESF
67
14 February 2013
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
68
CLLD in Slovakia
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
CLLD in Slovakia
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 ruralurban 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.
4 submeasures
 105 mil. EUR
Preparatory support
Implementation of strategies
Cooperation projects
Running costs and animation
69
70
14 February 2013
Thank you very much!
Contacts:
[email protected]
[email protected]