LEADER from a non-traditional point of view The perspective of fisheries areas

1. LEADER from a non-traditional point of viewThe perspective of fisheries areas Urszula Budzich-Tabor Brussels, 27 May 2014

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. Axis 4: state of play 312FLAGsin 21 countries 11.6 % of EFF budget Average budget per FLAG: EUR 2,3 mln Wide varietyinareas, strategies,partnerships

5. Huge diversity

6. State of playinMay2014: 8215 projects

7. Types of projectssupportedby Axis 4

8. MA plans for 2014-2020

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 Unit 38 rue de la Loi B - 1040 Bruxelles +32 2 613 26 50 www.farnet.eu ubs@farnet.eu