LEADER Reflection Group -...
Transcript of LEADER Reflection Group -...
Brussels, 06/02/2018
LEADER Reflection Group
Summary
John GrieveENRD Contact Point
• Convened by DG AGRI
• Informal group of LAGs, Managing Authorities, Paying Agencies, Networks, DG AGRI
• Reflecting on LEADER implementation experience and looking ahead
• Focus on improving future implementation at all levels
• Looking at issues and effects and proposing solutions
• Eleven main sets of issues, considerable cross over and shared solutions
LEADER Reflection Group
Multisectoralintegration
Multi-sectoral
integration
Approach eroded by increasing focus on
agriculture
All things to all people, insufficient
prioritisation
Lack of wider
awareness of LEADER
and potential
Coordination with other funds
Coordination with other
funds
Addressing local needs
No common CLLD
stakeholder platform
Separate financial, control, M&E rule and programmes
per fund
Rules not coordinated
or in line LEADER methodHarmonisation
of EU Regs
Innovation
Innovation
Definition and capture uncertainty
Co-funders limitations
Failure misunderstood / risk aversion /
knowledge
Administrative burdens
Policy objectives, monitoring and evaluation
Policy objectives, monitoring
and evaluation
Different views on
role
Unrealistic expectation
/ grant delivery tool
Operating in isolation
Input vs achievement - Adequacy
of indicators
Partnership
Partnership
LAGs not involved in
measure design
Vertical partnership inadequate to ensure method
Partnerships inclusivity,
municipalisation interest groups
Restrictive eligibility
limits ownership,
impact & local judgement
Decentralised management
Decentralised management
Restrictions on type of
actions and expenditure
LAG as “one-stop
shop”
Dedicated staff per
function/LAG requirement
“control by sanction”
Ineffective communication
in delivery chain
Controls
Controls
RoC
SCO and error rates
Control effort disproportionate
to non-compliance risk –
makes LEADER `heavy’
MAs `retrace` selection processes
Disproportionate sanctions
Additional controls –
“gold-plating”
Financial corrections
applied globally for
formal errors
Too many different control bodies
AREA
AREA
Fragmentation / LAGs too
small
Some areas – too large
Pre-defined territories / structures
Local development strategy
LDS
Funding gap between
programming periods
Deadline for
selection of LAGs
Poor strategic focus of the LDS
Unclear positioning (indicators,
local vs. higher
political obj.)
Cooperation and networking
Cooperation and
networking
Information exchange
Common definitions
Calls for cooperation projects by
the MA
Integration into the
LDS
Beneficiaries/partners
Income generating
TNC projects
Management and animation
Management and
animation
Req. “25% of public
expenditure incurred…”
Heavy admin
burden –less
animation
Bottom-up
Bottom-up
Formal requirements
met, qualitative improvement
needed
Complexity of processes
audits and sanctions
Local decision
making and trust
Standardised project
selection
• EU rules to codify, protect and promote the method
• LAGs ‘denatured’ into basic support - clarify positioning, better LDS focus
• Clarify responsibilities
• Strengthen LAG ownership
• Reinforce LAG decision making
• Strengthen networking
• Specific LEADER / CLLD MC or advisory group
• Extend LEAD fund approach
• Single MA /interlocuter for CLLD
• LAG as a platform / one stop shop
• Greater proportionality
• Avoid gold plating
• Advance preparation in current period
• Faster selection
Common points