European Rural Networks’ Assembly

LEADER ‘Landscape’

John Grieve

#LeaderCLLD

Brussels – 21 February 2017

LEADER Sub-group

#LeaderCLLD

The RDP Screening

• Based on the screening of 110 RDPs approved in2014-2015

• Results for 10 screening questions analysed

• RDP modifications since 2015 not part of the analysis

• Categorisation of answers for purposes ofcomparability

#LeaderCLLD

Questions and topics

• LEADER/CLLD priorities, needs

• LDS themes and contribution to Focus Areas

• Approach to overall strategy

• ESI funds and LEADER//CLLD

• The use of the lead-fund option

• Areas covered by LDSs/LAGs

• Population thresholds, derogations

• Coordination between EAFRD and other funds

• Coherence between the LDS, M16, M7, and other ESIF

• MA, PA, LAG tasks

#LeaderCLLD

Priorities and needs

16

15

5

7

28

57

12

18

12

41

6

17

19

5

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Local development planning capacity

Tourism offer

Forestry

Renewable energy

Social inclusion, poverty reduction

Employment, local economy, competitiveness, growth

Agriculture, local food

Rural depopulation, demographic challenges

Rural infrastructure

Rural services, quality of life

Broadband, internet, ICT

Rural innovation and knowledge transfer

Village renewal, cultural heritage

Rural-urban linkages, balanced territorial development

Better networking, cooperation, local governance

Resource efficiency, climate change, environment

Number of RDPs

#LeaderCLLD

Defining priorities and needs

Higher LAG autonomy

• France (Auvergne) – the LAG is “a living lab”, focus on rural-urban linkages

• Germany (Sachsen) – LEADER is “wide in scope and financially upgraded”Rheinland-Pfalz) – no measures prescribed from top-down

• Italy (Sicilia) – LEADER contributes to innovation and virtually all EU Priorities

• France (Lorraine) - LDSs can contribute in principle to all RD priorities

More specific description in RDP

• France (Picardie) – developing local economy and strengthening neighbourhood services

• Belgium (Flanders) - innovation, economic performance of entrepreneurs, rural poverty and the quality of human habitats

• Spain (La Rioja) - quality of life of inhabitants of rural areas, fostering self-employment and employment for women,, reducing the risk of poverty, access to ICT, tourism development in rural areas

#LeaderCLLD

LDS contribution to Focus Areas

24 21

7 712

5

23

4

158 5 5 4

135 2

34

109

13NU

MB

ER O

F R

DP

S

FOCUS AREAS

#LeaderCLLD

LDS contribution to Focus Areas

#LeaderCLLD

LDS themes – main themes

6

7

7

9

17

18

21

33

34

36

37

39

52

53

Training, capacity building, specific skills

Rural demographic challenges

Rural-urban linkages

Broadband, internet, ICT

Common goods, quality of life

Rural innovation

Networks, cooperation, local governance and…

Tourism

Agriculture, local food and production systems

Cultural heritage, landscape

Rural infrastructure, access to services

Social inclusion, poverty reduction

Resource efficiency, renewables, climate change,…

Employment, local economy, diversification

#LeaderCLLD

Approach to overall strategy

19 RDPs

76 RDPs

discrepancy no discrepancy

Due to:• Imbalance in allocation of

funds• Exclusion of certain types of

areas from LEADER• Inadequate consideration of

LAG capacity needs• top-down elements in the

LEADER delivery system• Lack of emphasis on rural

depopulation• Specification of LEADER

outputs

#LeaderCLLD

ESI funds and LEADER/CLLD

68 RDPs

30 RDPs

EAFRD only EAFRD + other ESIF

#LeaderCLLD

ESI funds and LEADER/CLLD

10

10

7

3

4 funds

3 funds

2 funds

no. of other funds not specified

Number of RDPs

#LeaderCLLD

The use of the lead-fund option (no of RDPs)

21

56

29

Lead fund applied Lead fund not applied Information not available

#LeaderCLLD

The use of the lead-fund option

18

21 1

21 1

EAFRD EMFF ERDF non-ESI Fund based on

LDS

selection

committee

decision

based on

LAG decision

based on

national

provisions

The choice of lead fund across RDPs

#LeaderCLLD

Areas covered by LDSs/LAGs

#LeaderCLLD

Population thresholds, derogations

RDPs analysed

90 RDPs

Population thresholds within 10,000-150,000 (EU criteria)

73 RDPs

Full compliance with EU criteria on population thresholds

45 RDPs

Modified within the EU population thresholds

28 RDPs

Population thresholds different from EU criteria

17 RDPs

#LeaderCLLD

Coordination between EAFRD and other funds

20

32

11

3

18 19

specialcoordinationmechanism,procedures

specialcommittee,

other commonstructure

thematic,territorial orother criteria

for demarcation

IT system,commonrecords

LDS level RDPs usingmore than one

type ofcoordination

method

Nu

mb

er

of

RD

Ps

#LeaderCLLD

Coherence between the LDS, M16, M7, and other ESIF

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

IT system

Distinct funding line

Thresholds related to amount of support

Prevention of double funding at project level

Administrative controls

Territorial demarcation

Measure not programmed in RDP

Integration into LEADER

MA or PA responsibility

Demarcation at sub-measure level

Institutional arrangements

LAG/LDS level

Eligibility rules

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

8

12

27

35

Number of RDPs

#LeaderCLLD

Thank you for your attention!