EU Rural Cooperation Fair 23 rd and 24 th September Edinburgh Day 1

1. EU Rural Cooperation Fair23rd and 24th SeptemberEdinburghDay 1

2. Roseanna CunninghamMinister for Environment

3. Jean Michel CouradesDG Agri, European Commission

4. Networking, Leader and Cooperation EU Rural Cooperation Fair – Edinburgh 23-24 September 2010 Jean-Michel Courades European Commission DG AGRI G3

5. Structure of the presentation Networking under the Rural Development Policy State of play of Leader implementation Leader Networking and Cooperation Activity of Voluntary Focus Groups 1 and 2

6. 1. A European Network for Rural Development is established for the networking of national networks, organisations and administrations active in the field of rural development. Aims: To collect, analyse and disseminate information on RD measures; To consolidate good rural development practice To provide information on developments in rural areas; To organise meetings and seminars; To set-up and run rural expert networks (notably for evaluation); To support the national networks and transnational co-operation initiatives. Networking under the Rural Development Policy

7. EN RD overview

8. NETWORKING WHAT ISSUES? RECOVERY PACKAGE GROWTH LEADER DIVERSIFICATION EMPLOYMENT COMPETITIVENESS FUTURE OF CAP INNOVATION SMEs AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY QUALITY OF LIFE OTHERS ENVIRONMENT & • NEW CHALLENGES: • Climate change • Water management • Renewable energy • Biodiversity TERRITORIAL COHESION COUNTRYSIDE

9. Main Leader activities of national rural networks Training and technical support for LAGs Information activities (publications, database) Support to cooperation Coordination meeting between LAGs and authorities

10. Importance of Leader in the programming period 2007-2013 The « Intensity » of Leader mainstreaming Financial priority given to Leader Rural areas coverage by the Leader method Scope of application Axes and measures implemented through Leader Integration of the method Is the specificity of Leader taken into account? Are RDPs implemented with an integrated and innovative approach?

11. % of EAFRD planned expenditure for Leader by Member State Ø 6,06 % 11

12. Selection of LAGs TOTAL (selected) NUMBER OF LAGs Number of LAGs already selected: 2.155 • LAGs selection process: state of play • RO will select LAGs in 2010/2011 (200 expected) • BG will select LAGs by the end of 2011 • 5 Member States have not totally completed the selection process 12

13. Total number of selected LAGs : 2155

14. Rural territory (%) covered by selected LAGs (based on OECD definition)

15. Financial implementation(declaration of expenditure Q 42006 to Q2 2010) vs. EAFRD Leader financial plan (

16. The added value of cooperation and networking under Leader Networking and cooperation are mainly seen as a source of inspiration and know-how for making improvements to LAGs domestic efforts.

17. Evaluating Leader networking Networking is one of the Leader principles : LAGs are supposed to disseminate innovative experiences and to learn from each other. Is Leader cooperation contributing to a networking of all rural areas in the Community ? Under Leader +: 83% of LAGs were involved in a interterrritorial cooperation project , 68% in transnational cooperation; under the current period the target in the RDPs for LAGs to be involved in cooperation is almost 100% ! Are LAGs using the NNU services ? NNU is perceived as an important source of information as to what other LAGs are doing or as a source of good practical advice for developing new projects. But existing evaluation of national networks indicates that a minority of LAGs still do not participate to the NNU activities. Most of the LAGs are using also other informal networks (e.g. national or regional LAG associations, ELARD) The local dimension of networking: LAGs are building local rural networks.

18. LAGs as local rural networks LEADER encourages civil society participation, although LAGs are mostly composed of delegated partners. Delegates from public bodies and voluntary organisations become more easily involved than economic partners in the partnerships, in a long term process for the sake of the territory. Through collective projects LAGs can also involve private economic partners.

19. Networking perceived as a success factor for cooperation « co- operation grows out of good networking activities and the personal relation between people with strong and powerful interest in co-operation » Network management at LAG level requires an open system of information and communication; networking and exchange among LAGs;

20. Activity of the Voluntary Focus Groups established under the Leader Subcommittee

21. 1. Leader Focus Groups FG 1: Implementation of the bottom up approach Lead : ELARD & IT NRN 20 MS + 3 NGOs 2+3 meetings FG 2: Preserving the innovation/experimental character of Leader Lead : DE & NL NRNs 12 MS 2 meetings FG 3: Implementation of the "cooperation" measure Lead : EE & FI NRNs 13 MS + 1 NGO 2+3 meetings MS representatives include MA, PA, NRN and LAG level 21

22. 2. Objectives of Focus Groups Identification of main difficulties / obstacles in the implementation of Leader axis and good practice Reflection on possible solutions Definition of recommendations for the future.

23. 3. State of Play The Focus Groups presented their progress reports to Leader Subcommittee on 20 May 2010 Their main findings on problems, good practices, possible recommendations were debated A number of tentative concluding points emerged, but also more information and further analysis are needed

24. Focus group 1 : analysis of LEADER Implementation Models 24 Three major models used by Member States, with variants: • Model 1: Decentralisation of project selection competence(used in 16 MS / 33 RDP): • AT, CZ, DE (x14), DK, EE, ES (Galicia, Pais Vasco), FI, IT (Bolzano, Umbria, Veneto, Marche), LT, LV, NL, PL, SE, SK, HU* • Model 2: Decentralisation of project selection and payment competence(used in 4 MS / 4 RDP): • BE (Wallonia), LU, SI, UK (Wales) • Model 3: Decentralisation of project approval(used in 10 MS / 35 RDP) • PT, BG, BE (Flanders), ES (Cataluna), IT (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Emilia Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Piemonte, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia, Toscana, Trento, Campania, Lombardia, Molise, Valle d’Aosta), MT*, FR* • Including payment tasks: EL, IE, ES (x14), UK (Scotland) [72 RDP fiches]

25. Leader Implementation models:

26. Focus Group 1 : Main Issues Lack of clear distinction of roles of MA and LAGs LAG capacity constraints Inability of LAGs to implement complex projects Unsuitability of rules for LEADER approach Financial rules frustrate LAG efforts Control system discourages andcontradicts the LEADER approach 26

27. Focus group 2 :Main conclusions (1) Definition of innovation: Responsible authorities for the RDP’s should consider that: In RDPs which limit the scope of Leader to some mainstream measures innovative projects have to comply with the eligibility criteria described in these measures. Mainstream measures can also be innovative, but one of the core features of Leader is the possibity to promote projects beyond the restrictions of the mainstream measures. Defining innovation involves the risk of a restrictive interpretation. Therefore descriptions should avoid having a closed character. Every definition and limitation on the "abstract" level of the RDPs can potentially make the eligibility of a concrete project more difficult.

28. Focus group 2 :Main conclusions Commission’s task related to the future implemention of Leader in rural development policy: Rural development is a suitable frame also for innovative Leader-projects. But the question is if the relevant current financial framework is suitable. Commission should emphasize the fact that Leader + was promoted successfully under Structural Funds conditions with the consequence that Leader is now one of four axes of the Rural Development Policy. NRN role: moderating the different points of views through the organisation of common meetings with all relevant actors. (LAGs, Managing Authorities, Paying Agencies and Certifying Bodies); supporting the LAGs in performing their tasks by offering them the necessary expertise and the opportunities for exchange of views The FG 2 recommends a close collaboration between project promoters, LAGs as decision making bodies and the authorities dealing with the administration of the EAFRD already during the project preparation.

29. Follow up – FG1 & FG2 Focus Group 1: Additional information and analysis are required in order to clearly define the problems and solutions In the short-term, address specific issues, such as support to small scale projects, complex multisectoral integrated projects and LAG running costs In the long term, based on the findings of FG1, develop a framework compatible with the Leader approach for the next programming period. Focus Group 2 - Collect and analyse examples of innovative projects from, as far as possible, all MS, including what is considered innovative and criteria used for selection, with two possible outputs: General guidance points on innovation in Leader Initial database of innovative Leader projects (using “relevant experience” template)

30. Follow up - All FGs Finalise FG reports Contribute to TWG4 Develop dissemination proposals

31. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION 31

32. Ave BremseEstonian National Rural Network

33. EN RD Focus Group 3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEASURE "COOPERATION" IN LEADER

34. Focus Group 3 (FG3) Objective • Gather relevant solutions for Cooperation implementation issues • Operate an active cell to continue the discussions initiated by the Leader subcommittee • Keep open throughout operation to ensure max. representation: LAGs, MAs, PAs and NRNs Participation • Representatives from fifteen Member States (MS) and one NGO initially; the actual involvement & extent of contribution varied

35. Focus Group 3 (FG3) The role & issues of Cooperation

36. FG3: the role of Cooperation Reminder • Transnational Cooperation (TNC) is considered as one of the key elements of Leader approach • Joint projects between LAGs can contribute to increased competitiveness of the partnering areas, e.g.: - acquisition of new skills - diffusion of innovation & know-how - generation of new business partnerships - strengthening of territorial strategy - strengthening of territorial identity

37. FG3: Cooperation issues • Four main issues discussed (previously identified by by EN RD survey among EU MS): 1. Different timing in decision-making and different administrative rules 2. Different expectations towards beneficiaries in different programmes (definition of common action/cost) 3. Information needs of different partners involved in TNC implementation 4. What are the key areas in which cooperation projects are most needed?

38. Focus Group 3 (FG3) The function of cooperation for the local development strategy

39. FG3: the function of cooperation for the local development strategy Reminder • Cooperation helps to overcome challenges LAG areas meet with the implementation of the objectives of their local development strategies • Cooperation goes beyond simple exchange; project partners undertake common actions, e.g.: - joint experimentation / piloting work - common products / events are developed

40. FG3 findings: the function of cooperation for the local development strategy (a) FG3 issue 1: Preparatory meetings between potential partners are useful to develop projects successfully supporting the territorial strategy - not all EU MS foresee this technical support, which serve to agree on project objectives, common actions & division of tasks • Explore possibility to support preparatory meetings by other means to cover travel and negotiation costs • In the future, include preparatory technical support in the programme document

41. FG3 findings: the function of cooperation for the local development strategy (b) FG3 issue 2: Member States apply different criteria to define ‘common actions’: • Collect & publicise national definitions & typical examples of common action to reduce uncertainty

42. FG3 findings: the function of cooperation for the local development strategy (c) FG3 issue 2: ‘Common costs’ examined by different authorities involve the risk of contradictory decisions: • Provide info about eligible and/or not eligible costs (TNC administrative procedure fiches) • In the future, aim for unrestricted support to common action to avoid territorial restrictions being applied to common costs

43. FG3 findings: the function of cooperation for the local development strategy (d) FG3 issue 4: Key areas in which cooperation projects are needed: • Establish neither thematic restrictions nor fixed ideas for Cooperation projects in programme documents or local development strategies • Consider the contribution to the implementation of the objectives of the local development strategy as sufficient

44. Focus Group 3 (FG3) The capacity & know-how requirements LAGs are facing

45. FG3 findings: the capacity & know-how requirements LAGs are facing (a) FG3 issue 1: Differences in the maximum level of funding: • Preferably no fixed levels of funding to maintain flexibility • Instead, communicate relevant examples of eligible costs to illustrate how funding requirements are coped with

46. FG3 findings: the capacity & know-how requirements LAGs are facing (b) FG3 issue 1: Differences in project application documentation requirements: • Provide basic documentation requirements (examples) through the Guide on the measure ‘Cooperation’ • In the future, consider letters of intent or a provisional agreement sufficient for project application

47. FG3 findings: the capacity & know-how requirements LAGs are facing (c) FG3 issue 3: Absence of information about different rules, timing of project-calls, approval of projects: • Provide comparable information via TNC administrative procedure fiches - Selection procedure details. - Financial framework: min/max financing available - Typical examples of eligible common costs - Typical examples of common actions

48. FG3 findings: the capacity & know-how requirements LAGs are facing (d) FG3 issue 4: Key areas in which cooperation projects are needed: • Collect & disseminate more project examples to inspire & activate the Cooperation process, as and when these become available. • At the current stage the most common themes on the cooperation offers database of the Contact Point may provide trend information

49. FG3: final remarks • The findings of FG 3 display the significantly varying degrees of experience with implementing the Cooperation measure. • Certain FG3 participants suggested, in view of the requirements and provided resources permit, that employing coordinators or other permanent staff to manage Cooperation projects at LAG level may be considered a good practice.

50. EN RD Contact Point:Pascale Van Doren Dieter Wagner