Cooperation of FLAGs and LAGs

Report
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
[email protected]
12

similar documents