leader/clld state of...

LEADER/CLLDState of play

Leader/CLLD subgroup meetingBrussels, 16 February 2016

#LeaderCLLD

A quick look at Measure 19 (LEADER/CLLD) in RDPs...

• Implemented in 109 RDPs

• All RDPs include LEADER in Focus Area 6B (except UK England – 6A)

• Expected total number of LAGs: 2513

• Total public funding allocated: € 9.7 billion

• Planned number of jobs created: 44.400

M19.1 Preparatory

support; 1,0%

M19.2 Implementation of operations;

78,5%

M19.3 Cooperation

activities; 4,0%

M19.4 Running costs &

animation; 16,5%

Measure 19 (LEADER/CLLD) - EU28 total public budget allocation by sub-measures

Expected number of LAGs and average budget (total public)

75

30

60

4

160

306

26 26

251

55

323

47 45

100

28

186

50

5

32

320

256

60

120

5033

50

119

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

Average budget per LAG (M€) No. of LAGs

Source: DG AGRI 2014-2020 SFC Database

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AT BG CY CZ DK EE GR HR HU IE LT LU LV MT NL PL RO SE SI SK BE DE ES FI FR IT PT UK

Measure 19 LEADER/CLLD - Total public budget allocation by sub-measures by MS

M19.1 Preparatory support M19.2 Implementation of operations

M19.3 Cooperation activities M19.4 Running costs & animation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AT BG CY CZ DK EE GR HR HU IE LT LU LV MT NL PL RO SE SI SK BE DE ES FI FR IT PT UK

Measure 19 LEADER/CLLD - Total public budget allocation by sub-measures by MS

M19.1 Preparatory support M19.2 Implementation of operations

M19.3 Cooperation activities M19.4 Running costs & animation

CZ Preparatory support & running costs funded by

ERDF

UK-EN/SC Preparatory support funded from TA

2007-2013

LEADER Cooperation M19.3 Budget allocation per MSs(Total public, Million Euro)

75,5

65,2

35,5

30,5

23,1 22,4

16,615,0

12,910,0 9,2 8,0 7,3 7,0 6,5 6,4 6,2 6,0

4,5 4,4 4,1 4,0 2,9 2,4 1,3 0,6 0,5 0,020

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

DE IT FR ES FI Uk RO PL PT IE LV AT SE CZ BG NL HU SK BE GR HR SI LT LU EE MT CY DK

Mill

ion

EU

R

Source: DG AGRI 2014-2020 SFC Database – Data for the total of 112 RDPs approved at the 16.12.15

M19.3 Budget share of LEADER budget(Total public, Percentage)

Source: DG AGRI 2014-2020 SFC Database – Data for the total of 112 RDPs approved at the 16.12.15

22%

12%

9%

8%7%

7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5%4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3%

3% 3% 3%2%

1,44%1%0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

32

3

30

6

25

6

25

1

18

6

16

0

12

0

11

9

10

0

75

60

55

53

50

50

50

47

45

33

32

30

28

26

26

20

5 4 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FR DE PL ES IT CZ RO UK HU AT BG FI PT LT SE SK GR HR SI LV BE IE DK EE NL LU CY MT

OUTPUT - Number of LAGs selected

Total planned no. of LAGs selected: 2,513

26

42

26

85

22

44

11

18

16

27

13

08

16

12

00

00

12

79

83

31

12

34

75

08

96

10

13

2

55

30

00

0

53

00

00

0

41

37

00

4

41

25

00

0

39

00

00

0

30

00

00

0

28

00

00

0

24

70

30

8

22

13

22

7

18

28

66

6

16

90

00

0

14

27

72

4

13

70

00

0

13

50

00

0

10

51

76

8

10

00

00

0

66

00

00

47

27

30

26

87

33

15

00

00

10

00

00

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

DE FR IT PL UK ES RO HU CZ PT AT SE NL GR IE DK FI BE HR BG SI LT SK LV EE MT LU CY

OUTPUT – population covered by LAGs

Total planned populationcovered by LAGs: 161 millions

10

0%

10

0%

10

0%

85

%

75

%

75

%

74

%

68

%

67

%

66

%

65

%

65

%

60

%

58

%

55

%

55

%

54

%

52

%

51

%

47

%

47

%

46

%

46

%

44

%

40

%

29

%

23

%

21

%

12

%

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

120,00%

TARGET: percentage of rural population covered by local development strategies

10

41

0

59

43

40

26

31

00

30

22

29

31

25

28

20

55

20

00

17

05

17

00

16

54

11

00

96

0

75

0

60

0

50

0

49

0

41

1

28

0

25

0

20

0

18

0

15

5

66

25

20

10

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

ES PL UK IE IT FR PT RO GR FI SE DE SK LT CZ BG HU AT DK EE NL LV HR BE SI LU CY MT

TARGET: Jobs created in LEADER supported projects

Planned no. of jobscreated in LEADER supported projects: 44,396

Comparing CLLD in ESI Funds

FundTotal CLLD budget(EU contribution)

No. of MS concerned

Expected no. ofLAGs

EMFF 20 300

EAFRD 28 2500

ERDF 16Info not

availableESF 13

€ 7.000 M

€ 500 M

€ 1.200 M

€ 700 M

Source: Information received from DGs, December 2015

• The following slides are based on a survey carried out by the ENRD CP in January/February 2016

• On-line questionnaire sent to national MAs and forwarded to regional MAs

• Responses received on 75 RDPs

• THANKS to all those who filled it for their effort, especially big thanks to those regionalised MAs who helped us contact the regions!

LAGs already in place

Dec. 2014 Jan. - Jun. 2015 July - Dec. 2015 January 2016 February 2016

DEBrandenburg& Berlin



DK

DEBaden-WurttembergSchleswig-Holstein

FR Bretagne


FIMainland

DE



DK PTAT


FR Bretagne

ESLa Rioja

ES Aragon

BEWallonie

UKEngland

UKScotland

FR Basse-Normandie

DEDE

DE

DEDE

DESachsenSaarlandBayernThuringenHessenRheinland-PfalzNiedersachsen & Bremen


FIMainland

DE

DE



DK PTAT

DE

SE


FR Bretagne

ESLa Rioja

ES Aragon

BEWallonie

UKEngland

UKScotland

FR Basse-Normandie

DEDE

DE

DEDE


Saxony-Anhalt


FIMainland

DE

DE

LAGs already in place (24 RDPs)


DK PTAT

UK

DE

SE


FR Bretagne

ESLa Rioja

ES Aragon

BEWallonie

UKEngland

UKScotland

FR Basse-Normandie

DEDE

DE

DEDE


N. Ireland

Saxony-Anhalt


FIMainland

DE

DE

LAGs shortly operational

Jan. - Mar. 2016 Apr. - Jun. 2016 Jul. - Sept. 2016

FR

LV

CY

Haute-Normandie

LAGs shortly operational


FR

LV

CY

ES

LT

FI

PL

FR

EE

Haute-Normandie

Asturias

Aland

Limousin

FRE

PACA

LAGs shortly operational (12 RDPs)


FR

LV

CY

ES

LT

FI

PL

FR

FR

EE

Haute-Normandie

Asturias

Aland

Limousin

Rhone-Alpes

SI

FRE

PACA

Calls for strategies ongoing

January February March April May June September October

ES

CZ

ES

Pays VascoITLiguria

ITSardegna

Cantabria

Trento

Calls for strategies ongoing


ES

HU

CZ

HRBG

ES

Navarra

ES

Pays VascoITLiguria

IT

ITIT

BolzanoLombardiaPiemonte

ITSardegna

IT Marche

Cantabria

Trento

Calls for strategies ongoing (16)


ES

HU

CZ

HRBG

ES

Navarra

ES

Pays VascoITLiguria

IT

ITIT


IT

ITEmilia RomagnaVeneto

ITSardegna

IT Marche

IT

Lazio

Cantabria

Trento

Calls for strategies planned


ES

GR

HU

CZ

ROHR

BG

ES

Navarra

Madrid

ES

ES

Pays VascoITLiguria

IT

ITIT


IT


ITSardegna

IT Marche

IT

Lazio

Cantabria

IT

IT IT

BasilicataSiciliaToscana

ITTrento

Calls for strategies (16 ongoing + 10 planned)


ES

GR

HU

CZ

ROHR

BG

ES

Navarra

Madrid

ES

ES

Pays VascoITLiguria

IT

ITIT


IT


ITSardegna

IT Marche

IT

Lazio

AbruzzoCampaniaValle d”Aosta

IT

ITIT

Cantabria

IT

IT IT

BasilicataSiciliaToscana

ITTrento

LEADER cooperation selection process:

39,5%42,0%

12,3%

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

45,0%

Handled by the RDP managingauthority through the

publishing of calls

carried out by the LAG,according to their Local

Development Strategy (LDS)

Both

Administrative procedures for LEADER cooperation

17

4

11MA currentlydeveloping calls forproposals

Call for proposalspublished

Other

MA planning to use SCO

3534yes

no

Using SCO by sub-measure

11

17 16

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

19,1 19,2 19,3 19,4

MA planning to use umbrella projects

12

39

21

yes

no

n.a.

Information in the following slides is based primarily on the analysis of a sample of 26 RDP screenings:

• All available national RDP screenings (17)

• Selected regional RDPs (9):• BE – Flanders and Wallonia

• DE – Saxony Anhalt

• ES – Aragon

• FI – mainland

• FR – Bretagne

• IT – Puglia

• PT – mainland

• UK – England

and therefore should be seen as an approximation, further work in progress!

Priorities and Needs

3

3

5

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

8

9

9

11

14

16

Climate Change

Renewable Energy

Forestry

Social Inclusion

Diversification

Food

Community

Employment

Tourism

Agriculture

Culture & Heritage

Business & Entrepreneurs

Cooperation & Collective actions

Services (advisory, basic & availability)

Environment

Innovation

Number of RDPS Containing Theme

Interesting Points on Areas Covered by LEADER/CLLD

• BG – option for ‘territories with specified characteristics’ to be involved in CLLD; broad definition but common characteristics to be ‘progressive depopulation and unused economic potential’

• DE Saxony-Anhalt has no restrictions

• DK sophisticated model based on a mixture of minimum 45% of rural area , size of town, distance from urban area and falling employment

• ES Aragon – almost whole area eligible but LAGs can justify why they exclude urban areas

• FI – possible will pilot a few urban CLLD groups (> 15,000inhabitants)

• RO – LEADER/EAFRD support LDS <20,000 inhabitants while urban CLLD for >20,000 inhabitants under ROP/ERDF

Lead Fund Provisions

6

7

1

11

1

Envisaged EAFRD ERDF Not using Outside ESIF

Lead Fund: MS

Envisaged,choce of Fund will depend on LAG choice &type of area

DE(SA), GR, LT, PL, PT, SI

EAFRD AT, BG, DK, ES(AR), IT(PU), LV, SE

ERDF CZ

Not using Lead Fund

BE, EE, FI, HR, HU, IE, LU NL, RO, SK, UK(ENG)

Outside ESIF FR(BR)

Source: ENRD CP - Screening of 26 sample RDPs

Interesting Points on Lead Fund

• If LDSs are multi-fund then Lead Fund is likely to be used (but not always). Decisions taken at national or individual LAGs level

• In FR Bretagne – Lead Fund used from outside ESI funds – Regional Council will provide facilitation support to LDS

• In SI Lead Fund set by which fund has the highest financial contribution in the LAG area

• SK – not using Lead Fund – majority of LAG running costs funded through ERDF and animation funded through EAFRD

MS Planning to Support Multi-funded Strategies

YES:19 MSs

Multifunding: MS

ALLOWED AT, BG, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK and UK

NOT ALLOWED BE, CY, EE, HR, IE, LU, MT NL and RO

NO:9 MSs

Source: ENRD CP - Screening of 28 approved Partnership Agreements and sample of 26 RDPs

ESI Funds used to Support LEADER/CLLD

10

4

10

4

4 Funds 3 Funds 2 Funds 1 Fund

Category MS

Multi-fund Mono-fund

EAFRD, ERDF, ESF & EMFF

BG, DE, ES, FR, GR, IT, PL, PT, SE, UK

EAFRD, ERDF & ESF

CZ, HU

EAFRD, ERDF& EMFF

SI

EAFRD, EMFF & ESF

LT

EAFRD &EMFF

CY, DK, FI, LV EE, HR, IE, RO

EAFRD & ERDF

AT, SK

Only EAFRD BE, LU, NL, MT

Source: ENRD CP - Screening of 28 approved Partnership Agreements and 26 sample RDPs

Tasks Main responsibility of..

Overall responsibility for the delivery of LEADER in line with EU Regulations & RDP objectives

MA, PA

Managing calls for LAGs and providing selection criteria MA, PA

Approval of LDS (some use contracts to define roles) MA, PA

Provide or run Network Support Unit MA

Monitoring and Evaluation of LAGs MA, PA

Define and monitor LAG management &control systems MA, PA

Eligibility – setting criteria and checking projects MA, PA

Approval of projects MA, PA

Approve & open calls for cooperation and LAG projects MA

Support implementation of LDS MA, PA

Approve & monitor use of fully transparent project selection criteria

MA

Disburse funds and checks claims PA

Authorises payments MA, PA

Keeping financial records PA

Tasks of PA• Many RDPs do not differentiate between MA and PA

tasks

• Definition of roles of MA and PA do vary between MS (and also within regional MS); some MS require PA only to disburse funding

• PA usually ensure project eligibility; spot checks on projects; ensure no double funding

• UK, LV & CZ: PA makes project approval

• UK & HR: PA calls for LAGs, approves projects and claims and performance manage the LAGs

• In PT definition of MA & PA role still to be decided and will be done at individual LAG level

• RO: PA involved in M&E

LAG responsible for

Design and implement LDS (varying degree of autonomy to choose themes)

Professional management and administration of the LAG

Organising calls for projects

Ensure fully transparent project selection criteria are used

Assess and select applications for support

Build capacity of local actors, both LAG members and project promoters

Animate and advise potential applicants

Promoting networking across the sector

Carry out eligibility checks (sometimes delegated from the PA)

Monitor and evaluate implementation of LDS at LAG level

Ensure local needs are incorporated to the whole process

Monitor projects – ensure coherence with LDS

Some LAGs can run their own and cooperation projects

Selection of projects – MA/PA usually make final approvalExcept in DE Saxony Anhalt where, after selection by national Steering Group, the LAG are fully autonomous

Thank you for your attention!

www.enrd.eu

#LeaderCLLD

http://www.enrd.eu/

leader/clld state of...

Documents