viimsi spa, estonia 15th september, 2011 leader approach today and after 2013 – new challenges...
TRANSCRIPT
Viimsi Spa, Estonia15th September, 2011
LEADER approach today and after 2013 – new
challenges
Petri RinneELARD
CLLD as a Successful Story in the Czech Republic 2014 – 2020?
Ing. Radim Srsen, Ph.D.President of ELARDhttp://www.elard.eu
Brussels, Belgium28th May, 2014
New EU Programming Period
Why territorial dimension in the EU?
Why territorial dimension ?
Difference in GDP/pax between the most developed and poorest EU region is 13x
The richest EU region is 3x above EU average, the poorest one 4x below
Significant polarisation between rural and urban areas, esp. in SE Europe – Bratislava, Praha, Budapest
Tematic interventions in the current programming period 2014 – 2020 proved to support and deepen the inequality between rural and urban areas
What are the instruments to face it ???
ITI (Integrated Territorial Investments)
Top-down approach Strategic integrated investments to the area specified in
advance Combination of soft and hard instruments Combination of different EU funds + interventions = synergy
effect Engaging all stakeholders = public-private partnership Delegation of in-advance planning, decision making and
financing to the hands of regional players = „EU subsidiarity principle“
What are the instruments to face it ???
CLLD (Community-led local development)
Area-based approach Bottom-up approach Local public-private partnerships: Local Action Groups Innovative approach Integrated and multi-sectoral approach Networking Cooperation De-centralised administration
EUROPE 2020 Strategy
Smart growthSustainable growthInclusive growth
Disappearing regional disparitiesImportance of linkages between rural and urban
areasMultilevel governance and subsidiarityInclusion of all stakeholders in the process of
planning and implementing integrated strategies of local development
TERRITORIAL DIMENSION IN THE CZ
INTEGRATED INSTRUMENTINTEGRATED INSTRUMENT
RegionRegion
Town with
surround.area
Town with
surround.area
LAGLAG
ITIITI
IPTDIPTD
CLLDCLLD
RPCRPC
NPCNPC
Metropolitan areasMetropolitan areas
Regional centresRegional centres
Rural areasRural areas
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMESOPERATIONAL PROGRAMES
Coordination
MMR ORSP MMR NOC MAs Stakeholders
Identification Process
Problem Area due to PA
Identified Problems due to PA
OP – specific goals
Selected needs of development with Territorial Dimension
EU tematic goals
Schematic illustration of TD types of territories
ITI metropolitních oblastíschématické znázornění
Pražskámetropolitní oblast
.Ostravská
metropolitní oblast.
Brněnskámetropolitní oblast
.
Plzeňskámetropolitní oblast
.
Hradecko-pardubická
metropolitní oblast.
Ústecko –chomutovská
metropolitní oblast
LEADER – successful Czech story ?
12
EU Integrated Instruments 2014 – 2020
Region
ITI Metropolitan Area / IPTD
CLLD/LAG
CLLD/LAG
ITI ESTCBorder o
f a counntry
Border of a country
14
Local action group
ERDF
ESF EAFRD
EMFF
Local governments Local entrepreneurs Local NGOs, civil society
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Project 3EAFRD
Project 3EMFF
Running costs, animation, networking
possibly through „lead Fund“
Project 1ERDF
Project 2ESF
From the governance point of view: door openers needed!
Place-basedinterests
Project organisations
Businesses
Non-profit organisations
CREATIVE PERSONS
Localmunicipalities
Professionalassociations
Universities
Otherinterests
From the “glocal” point of view: door openers needed!
CLLD in the Czech Republic
Total allocation: cca 1billion EUR Integrated Regional Development Program – 37% Rural Development Program – 17% OP Employment – 11% OP Enviroment – 5% OP Industry, Innovation for Competition – 12%??? OP Education – 8% OP Technical Assistance – 10% (running costs)
Role of LAGs in the Czech Republic
LAG as LEADER/CLLD implementation body
LAG as beneficiary
LAG as animator in the rural areas
LAG as a building stone of partnership and strategy on regional level
Struggle for CLLD+++++++
huge support of regional partners Accociation of Local Governments Association of Regions Accociation of Cities National Network of LAGs
very good political support strength of the National Network of LAGs
178 out of 181 LAGs as members
almost 100% coverage of area
Struggle for CLLD- - - - - - -
political instability institutional instability length and exhausting from the negotiating
process LEADER as such very limited in relation to LAG
needs at least 5% co-financing of running and
animation costs (and just 10% overall)
Think globally… …act
locally
