State of Play of Leader

by Jean-Michel CouradesEuropean Commission - DG AGRI-G3

Leader as a driver for Rural Europe: workshop for new LAGs

The origin of the Leader approach

• The meaning of the acronym LEADER (French: Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l' Economie Rurale)

• born in the context of the first structural funds reform (1989-1993)

• launched as a Community Initiative in 1991 to introduce and test new methods, new concepts in the perspective of integrating them in the mainstream programs .

• with the aim of improving the development potential of rural areas by calling on local initiative, promoting the acquisition of know how on local development and disseminating this know how in other rural areas.

• LEADER I addressed rural areas lagging behind (Objective 1) or with a low level of socio-economic development (Objective 5b) as designated under the EU Structural Funds.

History and evolution of the Leader approachFrom the Community Initiatives…

• Leader I (1991-93) – experiment: integrated approach instead of individual projects – 217 LAGs

• Leader II (1994-99) - laboratory: limited to disadvantaged rural areas,innovation, pilot actions, introduction of transnational cooperation – 906 LAGs

• Leader+ (2000-06 and 2004-2006) 1153 LAGs –

• Community Initiative : 893 LAGs maturity phase: eligibility of the whole rural territory; reinforced role of networks and transnational cooperation –

• Leader+ type measure for new Member States 2004-2006 – 260 LAGs)

..to „mainstreamed Leader“ 2007-13:

• Leader axis – not any longer specific programmes; methodological approach to mainstream RD programming – 2192 LAGs

Funding Leader: the Evolution

STAGE FUND EU CONTRIBUTION

LEADER I EAGGF-Guidance, ESF, ERDF

450 million

LEADER II EAGGF-Guidance, ESF, ERDF

1.7 billion

LEADER + EAGGF-Guidance 2.1 billion

LEADER AXIS EAFRD 5.5 billion 6% of the EAFRD funding

Rural Development Policy 2007-2013: Architecture

Rural Development 2007-2013

« LEADER Axis »

Axis 1Competi -tiveness

Axis 2Environment +

Land Management

Axis 3Economic

Diversification.+

Quality of Life

Community strategic guidelines for Rural Development

• The resources devoted to axis 4 (Leader) should contribute to the priorities of axes 1 and 2, and in particular of

• axis 3, but also play an important role in the horizontal priority of improving governance and mobilising the endogenous development potential of rural areas

Planned funds for the Leader Axis

Axis 1Axis 2

Axis 3

Cooperation

LAG Management

Axis 1

Axis 2

Axis 3

Cooperation

LAGManagement

Distribution of Leader projects financed by axis (2009 indicators)

8%3%

90%

123

2.192 selected LAGs (situation December 2010)

338

264243

223

191

112 106 96 8663 56 51 51 43 41 36 36 33 31 26 25 15 5 4 3 0 0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

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

Financial implementation (declaration of expenditure Q42006 to Q3 2010) vs. EAFRD Leader financial plan

(situation 11 November 2010)

0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%4%

5% 5% 5%7%

9%

11%11%12%12%13%

15%15%

17%

23%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

MT

BG IT LT RO PL

SK FR GR CY

PT

HU LV ES

SE LU UK IE EE CZ SI

BE FI DE

DK NL

AT

Progression in declaration of expenditure (millions €)

Axe 4 - FEADER

0 0 0 06

2

1811

38

65

57

104

44

20

0

0

110

Q42006

Q22007

Q32007

Q42007

Q12008

Q22008

Q32008

Q42008

Q12009

Q22009

Q32009

Q42009

Q12010

Q22010

Q32010

Axe 4

Q1 2007

Total number of projects financed (411- 412 - 413): 31 281 (2007- 2010) (Situation 11 November 2010)

831218

8756

22521

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of approved cooperation projects (measure 421)

0 5

130

598

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010

2010 Special Report of Court of Auditors: Recommendations related to LAG responsibility

Topics: Responsibility of the LAG to implement the Leader features and soundness of LAG‘s financial management

• LAGs' selection of projects to be based on documented assessments that demonstrate the soundness and fairness of the decision in terms of consistent and relevant criteria.

• Rules to ensure that the partnerships are not dominated by the local authorities at project selection meetings

• Conflicts of interest: Commission and Member States should ensure that effective safeguards are in place, and check that they operate correctly

• LAGs should be required to set measurable objectives specific to their local area

15

Focus Groups – EN RD Leader Subcommittee

Three focus groups:• FG on the implementation of the bottom up approach

• FG on preserving the innovation/experimental character of Leader

• FG on the implementation of the "cooperation" measure

Objectives: • Identification of main difficulties / obstacles in the implementation of Leader axis

and good practice

• Reflection on possible solutions

• Definition of recommendations for the future.

Three major models used by Member States, with variants:

• Model 1: Decentralisation of project selection competence (used in 16 MS / 33 RDP)

• Model 2: Decentralisation of project selection and payment competence (used in 4 MS / 4 RDP)

• Model 3: Decentralisation of project approval (used in 10 MS / 35 RDP)

16

LEADER Implementation Models

First model Second model Third model

18

Main issues identified by the focus groups

1. Lack of clear distinction of roles between MA, PA and LAGs

2. LAG capacity constraints

3. Difficulty for LAGs to implement complex projects

4. Unsuitability of certain rural development rules and practices for LEADER approach

5. Securing public co-funding is problematic in some Member States

191919

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION