Leader Subcommittee: Focus Group 1

Questionnaire on the Implementation of Leader: Preliminary Results

Rome, 24 March 2010

Jean-Michel Courades, DG AGRI Haris Martinos, EN RD Contact Point

Contents

• • Reminder of scope of questionnaire • • • Preliminary results on: • • • • Key characteristics of selected LAGs Management capacity of LAGs LAG decision making rules Project eligibility Financial issues Comparison with Leader+ Other issues 2

Scope of Questionnaire

• • • • • Sections on: • • Definition of responsibilties and decision making (for Inventory of Leader Implementation Models) Characteristics, capacity, decision making, financial issues, etc Questionnaires sent to all members of FG1 15 received/analysed covering 12 Member States A partial picture is emerging on some aspects Wait for more questionnaires before drawing conclusions 3

Key Characteristics of LAGs

• • • LAG status: • In practically all cases LAGs have legal personality (except 30% in PT) • “NGO/voluntary sector” status: in large majority of MS • Some private sector (DK) • Public bodies (GR and FR) Experienced • LAGs operating also in previous programming period: Mostly “old”: PT (98%), IE (94%), GR (90%), LV (72%), • • Mixed: FR (61% communities ), DE (>50%), PL (44%) Mostly “new”: DK (25%), SE (19%), CZ (9%), BG (N/A), MT (N/A) Delivering other EU / national programmes or funds: • Yes, in all MS, in varying degrees, esp. EFF, ESF, ERDF, Interreg & some national programmes (GR, SE) or bilateral aid (LV) • Widespread, e.g. GR, IE, FR, PT, DK, LV • Some LAGs do it, e.g. DE, CZ 4

Management Capacity of LAGs (I)

• LAG staff: • mostly 1-2 employees (CZ, DK, FR, LV, MT) • • • • larger teams: GR (1 coord + 3-4 others), IE (3-5 mangt/admin + 1-3 project officers), PT (1+5) big variations (SE) plus, other personnel with part-time / service contracts (e.g. LV) distinction between mangt/admin & project officers ?

• Training actions for LAG staff: • carried out in most MS: CZ, DK, FR, IE, LV, PL, SE, DE, PT • not yet / planned in: BG, GR, MT • Support documents: • in all cases (except CZ; in preparation in BG) 5

Management Capacity of LAGs (II): Examples of Training Actions

• • Poland (by MA in cooperation with relevant institutions): • Already organised on: • running of LAG • • • • local products and local brand in terms of tourism development Planned on: • cooperation projects in spring 2010 • monitoring of LDS cooperation fair and workshops procedures and local grant fund Ireland (by MA and/or NRN): • RDP IT System Training • • • • • Overview of New Programme Preparing-Procedures Manuals Measuring Performance Financial Controls General Information Sessions 6

LAG Decision Making Rules

• Variety of rules and practices which are generally considered adequate • Conflict of interest “not a problem”: • SE (general legal provisions); IRL (specific rules adopted) • Transparency is assured by publicity: GR, PL, CZ • Specific references to appeal: • PL: LAGs have to introduce appeal procedure • SE: appeal not possible in Leader 7

Project Eligibility (I)

• Project eligibility outside scope of RD measures (Art 64): • No: CZ, GR, IE, SE • • Yes (no projects yet approved): FR, PL, BG, MT Yes (with approved projects): LV Projects mostly for public benefit: establishing and improving of social services, sports courts, playgrounds for children, youth centres, different places for leisure activities, the necessary equipment for cultural and sports activities, and other activities compliant with the LDS. [Link with measure 321 basic services ?] • Can the LAG select complex projects combining various types of eligible actions and/or measures ?

• No: BG, LV, MT, PL, PT • Yes: GR, SE, DE, IE (within Axis 3), CZ (1 main + max 2 adjacent measures), FR (yes, but difficult), DK: ?

8

Project Eligibility (II)

 Specific project eligibility rules for Leader:  PL (“small scale projects”), SE (“umbrella projects”), IE, LV  Project selection criteria:  defined by MA & LAG: GR, IRL, LV  defined by LAG only: FR, PT, DE?

, DK?

 confusion between “eligibility” and “selection” criteria?

 Leader experience under Axes 1 & 2:  No: DK, IE, LV, PL, PT, (BG), (MT)   Yes (limited): GR, SE, DE?

Yes (extensive): CZ, FR  FR: good example Montagne Basque / Revermont  CZ: LAGs based mainly on farmers and local small businesses have chosen measures from Axis 1 but face administrative and other difficulties 9

Financial Issues : procedure to obtain national co-funding

• Separate procedure to obtain the co-funding • there is no single national fund and many source of funding (FR) • National public funding obtained simultaneously (BG, CZ, GR, IE,PL,SE) • Simultaneous request on the application form (CZ) • Mixed model (DK) national public funding obtained simultaneously if the co-funding is provided by the MA 10

Financial Issues : role of LAG in obtaining national co-funding

• LAGs do not play a role in obtaining the national co-funding (CZ, GR, IE, LV, MT, PL) • LAGs play a role in obtaining national co-funding: • DK in some cases • • FR in some regions where a regional fund was set-up SE: LAG has to obtain 50% of the national funding. the projects in advance to some extent.

This generally gets paid in advance to the LAG and not separately for each project. The LAG will therefore also play a role as paying authority, and are also able to pay 11

Running costs issues

• • • • • • 20% ceiling considered as a limiting factor (DK, GR) Advances: • bank guarantee is an issue (BG); advances not applied (DK) Difficulty to build a financial plan in the case of many sources of funding (FR) Eligibility: • • non eligibility of lump sum (FR); limit for salaries (LV); restricted list of eligible expenditure (GR) Control rules - considered too bureaucratic: • presence of analytical accounting documents (GR) Demarcation issues with EFF (LV)

Comparison with Leader+ : scope

• Leader axis has a wider scope (LV,PL) resulting from access to additional measures (LAG Achaia – GR) • Broader scope but more precise eligibility rules result in restricting the scope of projects (DK, FR) • Possibility to choose projects has been restricted (FR) • Some area of intervention are more restricted (IE) 13

Comparison with Leader+ : nature of projects

• Projects are similar (DK, GR, IE, SE) • Leader axis more focused on investment (CZ, LV). In Leader+ studies could be supported (LV) • More difficulty to finance private beneficiaries due to the public co-financing obligation (FR) 14

Other main issues : eligibility

• The need to follow strictly the measures (incl. eligible applicants, activities and costs) of Axes I – III even in small projects in Leader Axis does not give any “added value” of Leader (CZ) • VAT eligibility rules for LAG which are mainly public bodies (FR) • The same rules for all RDP measures – it is more difficult to implement innovative or integrated projects (PL) • Reflection to be conducted on what types of projects put in place outside Leader and inside Leader: what is the value added of Leader in a mainstream approach? (FR)

Other main financial issues

• The annual financial allocation for LAGs constraints the LAGs in the strategic planning for the whole programming period (CZ) • Public spending system does not facilitate private bodies’ involvement in LAG projects (FR) • Public co-financing is quite complex to manage due to the strict system of fixed rate (FR) • Less funding available for the running costs due to the economic crisis (IE)

Issues related to the institutional delivery system

• Number of bodies interpreting the regulations which can lead to inconsistencies when determining project eligibility (IE) • Discrepancy between the Leader method with flexibility and bottom up approach on one hand and the control functions within the RDP, which are “upside-down”, on the other hand, and the implications these have on the whole Leader model (SE) • Accreditation process limits delegation of tasks to LAGs (PL)

Good practice

• Dialogue between MA and PA and delegates of the LAGs allowing some hard difficulties to be solved (CZ) • A common set of rules at programme level and a system of advice provided by the PA does facilitate a more consistent approach to determining eligibility (IE)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

For further information please contact the Contact Point of the EN RD at the following e-mail address: [email protected]