SEMINAIRE INTERNATIONAL
Le développement local :
un enjeu stratégique pour les territoires ruraux
La démarche LEADER en appui à la Stratégie 2020
16 Octobre 2012, Bruxelles
“Les démarches de développement local multifonds:
Des réseaux en questionnement: ELARD ”
Panayiotis Patras,
Vice President of ELARD
(European LEADER Association for Rural Development-aisbl )
1
ELARD before and today

International non-profit association founded in 1999 by 5
European national informal LEADER networks:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

French LEADER Network - LEADER France
Greek LEADER Network - Eλληνικό Δίκτυο LEADER
Irish LEADER Network - Comhar LEADER na hEireann
Italian LEADER Network - AssoLEADER
Spanish LEADER Network – REDR
Today, ELARD is representing more than 800 LAGs (from
some 2300 in total) through voluntary networks in 23 EU
countries:


Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, North Ireland,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Croatia & FYROM
In contact with Rural Networks in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany.
ELARD aims
 One of the most important aims of ELARD is to:
"campaign to spread the philosophy, principles and reach of the
LEADER method grounded in the eight specific features in order to
achieve sustainable rural development across Europe".
 The association aims also to:
"represent the interests and needs of its members in front of other
international, European, and national institutions to liaise with
other stakeholders and institutions working towards an integrated
rural development and to influence EU policies in favour of rural
development".
3
“Evolution of the LEADER approach” (1)
• Over the past 20 years experience of LEADER approach in EU:
 designed as Community Initiative to help rural actors consider the

long-term potential of their local region,
it has become an important element of EU rural development
policy with a high level of acceptance all over Europe.
• The EC promoted similar delivery method through other Community
Initiatives also, such as:
 URBAN (ERDF)
 INTEREGG (ERDF)
 EQUAL (ESF).
• In the case of LEADER, since then was proven an effective and
efficient tool in the delivery of development policies.
• Since 2007, local development has also been a policy delivery tool in
the European fisheries sector (FLAG’s).
“Evolution of the LEADER approach” (2)
1. Community Initiatives:
 LEADER I (1991-93) – experiment: “bottom up” approach v. “top
down approach” in the Structural Policy; establishing LAG’s,
 LEADER II (1994-99) - laboratory: limited to disadvantaged rural
areas; innovation - pilot actions - LAG’s to do “new thinks”;
introduction of transnational cooperation,
 LEADER + (2000-06) - maturity phase: eligibility of the whole
rural territory; Thematic approach to Local Strategic Planning;
Leader+ type measure for new Member States 2004-2006),
2. “Mainstreamed LEADER” 2007-13:
 LEADER axis 4 – mainstream in RD programming: not any
longer specific programme; gave LEADER scope to deliver
across the 4 Axes;
3. Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) in the CSF-Funds 20142020:
 LEADER approach as basis for territories to implement “multifunded” integrated local development strategies.
Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) in the new
framework
1. Europe 2020 strategy:
 Territorial development on sub-regional level as a cross-cutting issue
for inclusive growth;
2. CSF addresses CLLD as a tool for territorial development;
3. Partnership Contracts (PC) will have to address CLLD;
4. Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) for the CSF Funds:
 offers a common approach to support CLLD;
 The draft regulation (Chapter II - Articles 28-31) for future CLLD are
based on the LEADER approach and concern all the CSF Funds;
 in case of EAFRD (Art. 55-61), and EMFF puts a single set of rules
which are complemented by fund- specific features
This allows the integrated use of all CSF Funds on sub- regional
level for:
 reinforcing implemention of multi level governance through “multifunded” local development strategies;
 improving strategic choices at Member State level regarding local
development
View on the future of LEADER
as a local development tool
CHOISE 1. “Multi-funded” development strategies :
Principle: “One area = one strategy with several funds”;
 Functional areas – coordinated intervention of several Funds;
 MS to choose/define the part of their territory which should be
covered by LDS;



Harmonisation of eligibilty rules of the different Funds will
help in the management on national, regional and local level
Possibility to opt for a “lead fund”
Incentives: 10% more if Priority Axis is delivered through CLLD
CHOISE 2. “Mono-funding”:

One area – one Fund
7
Opportunities and threats (1)

Benefit for LEADER groups:

Reemphasizing of the 7 specific features of LEADER method;
“truly” integrated strategies;
Broaden the funding base;
Reinforce rural-urban and rural-coastal links;
Increase in LAG’s autonomy,
More clearly defined roles for LAGs/MAs/PAs as regards quality,
selection and implementation tasks;
LAGs to receive and assess applications for support and decide the
amount of support to be granted;
More monitoring and evaluation tasks for LAGs to monitor the
effects of the LDS but also the project;







8
Opportunities and threats (2)

Benefit for LEADER groups:

Maximum for the LAGs’ running costs (administrative costs) budget
will rise from 20% to 25% of the total public funding;
Clearer definition of running costs;
Clearer definition of ‘animation’ or communication costs;
More preparatory support will be available including a LEADER
start-up kit for new LAGs and provisions for capacity building;
The rules for the transnational cooperation projects have been
made easier (e.g. the foreign partner doesn’t have to be only another
LAG & maximum 4 months decision making process);
EAFRD will grant prizes to limited number of projects that show
innovation and have a transnational element.





9
Opportunities and threats (3)

Challenges for LEADER groups

“money really matters” :




financial envelope 2014 -2020 – CAP overall budget cuttings 5% - 10%;
ringfench of 5% for CLLD only in EARFD; what about the rest of CSF
Funds?
Risk that multifunded approach will mostly benefit URBAN CLLD;
the likely rise in administrative burdens is seen as a potential
issue:

Shared strategic framework and management of CSF funds at
Commission and Member States’ level, will test the ability and
competence of public authorities in putting in place a simplified and
pragmatic implementation framework for CLLD at sub-regional and local
level;
 concerns that MAs/PAs may be tempted not to support integrated and
resource intensive operations such as CLLD if easier ways to spend
the funds exist;
10
Opportunities and threats (4)

Challenges for LEADER groups

Multi-funded strategies are more complex:

to design and implement and require a certain level of experience and
sufficient capacity on the ground;
 Multi-funded strategies require broader LAG partnerships, as the
strategies may address a larger number of issues and sectors. This
brings more possibilities but also more complexity and requires more
sophisticated methods of management.

Local development takes time:
 In former periods a considerable investment has been made at all levels
to create delivery structures (LAGs, but also at the level of the
administration) and mobilise local actors around a shared strategy.
 It is essential to safeguard the results of this investment, including the
existing local dynamic, and the creation of any new framework should
take into account the already existing structures and strategies.
11
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !
TOGETHER WE ARE STRONGER



[email protected]
http://www.elard.eu
European LEADER Association for
Rural Development (ELARD)
Rue de Saint-Laurent 36-38, B-1000
Brussels