Urszula Budzich-TaborBrussels, 27 May 2014

LEADER from a non-traditional point of viewThe perspective of fisheries areas

2

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)

3

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!)

4

312 FLAGs in 21 countries

11.6 % of EFF budget

Average budget per FLAG: EUR 2,3 mln

Wide variety in areas, strategies, partnerships

Axis 4: state of play

5

Huge diversity

From To

Total Axis 4 budget 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)

Average project size 22,000 (LV) 171,000 (NL)

Starting date of FLAGs

2007 (DK, FI) 2013 (...)

Capacity building none fully-fledged FLAG network

6

State of play in May 2014: 8215 projects

7

27 %

19 %

10 %

26 %

17 %

(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 (…)

Types of projects supported by Axis 4

8

MA plans for 2014-2020Country Funds available in fisheries

areasStand-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

9

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

10

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

11

Possible challenges

Going 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

12

Thank you for your attention

FARNET Support Unit38 rue de la LoiB - 1040 Bruxelles+32 2 613 26 50

www.farnet.eu ubs@farnet.eu