LEADER from a non-traditional point of view The perspective of fisheries areas Urszula Budzich-Tabor Brussels, 27 May 2014 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) 2 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!) 3 Axis 4: state of play 312 FLAGs in 21 countries 11.6 % of EFF budget Average budget per FLAG: EUR 2,3 mln Wide variety in areas, strategies, partnerships 4 Huge diversity From Total Axis 4 budget To 778,000 (EI) 3,606,000 (FI) 190,072,000 (PL) 50,754,000 (ES) Number of FLAGs 1 (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) 22,000 (LV) 171,000 (NL) Average project size Starting date of FLAGs Capacity building 2007 (DK, FI) 2013 (...) none fully-fledged FLAG network 5 State of play in May 2014: 8215 projects 6 Types of projects supported by Axis 4 17 % 27 % 26 % 19 % 10 % (a) adding value, creating jobs, and promoting innovation (…) (b) supporting diversification (…) (c) enhancing and capitalising on the environmental assets (…) (d) promoting social well being and cultural heritage (…) (e) strengthening the role of fisheries communities in local development (…) 7 MA plans for 2014-2020 Country Funds available in fisheries areas Stand-alone FLAG vs. LAG/FLAG Denmark EMFF, EAFRD both Estonia EMFF, EAFRD both Finland EMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDF both France EMFF, EAFRD, ERDF (ITI) both (umbrella organisation) Ireland EMFF, EAFRD both Italy EMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDF both Latvia EMFF, EAFRD both Lithuania EMFF, EAFRD both Poland EMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDF both Portugal EMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDF both Romania EMFF, EAFRD, ERDF both Slovenia EMFF, EAFRD both Spain (And.) EMFF, EAFRD, ERDF both Spain (Can. Cant. Cat.) EMFF, EAFRD both Sweden EMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDF both UK (Engl.) EMFF, EAFRD, ESF, ERDF only stand-alone UK (Scot., Wales) EMFF only stand-alone 8 Some examples of CLLD strategies Sweden: • Axis 4 EFF started under a separate MA but during the 2007-2013 • • • • period was transferred to the same MA as Leader In 2014-2020 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 2014-2020 • ERDF available under ITI 9 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 10 Possible challenges 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 Going 11 Thank you for your attention FARNET Support Unit 38 rue de la Loi B - 1040 Bruxelles +32 2 613 26 50 www.farnet.eu ubs@farnet.eu 12