European Structural and Investment Funds Community-led local development

1. European Structural and InvestmentFundsCommunity-led local development EU Commission - DG Regional and Urban Policy 16

2. New features on CLLD for 2014-2020 Building on the long-standing experience of LEADER and the EMFF, CLLD is now open to four European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF): EAFRD, EMFF, ERDF and ESF A common set of principles and rules for all the ESI Funds covers CLLD (in the Common Provisions Regulation Art 33-35) Coordination of ESI Funds and multi-fundstrategiesencouraged (possibility for one lead Fund)

3. Novelties ERDF and ESF canbeused via bottom up approaches Optionaltool CLLD cancoverurban areas

4. CLLD principles Sub-regional areas: local territorial approach Concentration of Funds on the mostneeded areas – flexible and responsive solutions to address local and changingneeds Community-ledpartnerships: participatoryapproach Co-responsability and ownership. No one interest group whether public or privatedominates in the local action groups. Integrated multi-sectoral local strategies Horizontal integrationwithother local actors – vertical integrationwithotherlevels in delivery and supplychains Innovation New ways of thinking and doing – new markets, products, services, social innovation Networking and cooperation Local areas and communitieslearningfromeachother – new allies for strengtheningtheir position

5. Overview of CLLD in ESI Funds

6. ProgrammedERDF and ESF allocation to CLLD by MS • Programming results • 18 MS apply CLLD in CP • 14 MS use both ERDF/ESF • GR, HU, PL, PT, SE via multi-fund OP • Concentration • 92% by 9 MS • 25% by CZ alone

7. What do we know from the programming phase ?

8. Modest uptake Modest uptake under the ERDF and ESF (in total 18 MS, EUR 1.8 bn for the two Funds together) • New instrument in Cohesion Policy (most MS have experience in LEADER in rural programmes) • Reluctance to delegate (issues related to trust, administrative capacity, time required) • Regulatory elements (thematic concentration, performance framework, "gold-plating", role of fund specific rules) • Insufficient governance mechanisms which may lead to parallel investments or path-dependent activities that are not in line with actual or potential comparative advantage

9. Typesof CLLD withinCohesionpolicy • Small areaswithincities, deprivedurbanneighbourhoods and historiccenters • Smallercities and theirsurrounding rural areas • Rural areas, urban-rural linkages • Target groupapproaches (ESF) • Thematicapproaches • e.g. environment, social inclusion

10. Territorial focus • Territorial focus depends much on the national or regional coordination with EAFRD and EMFF. • Complementary arrangements usually target rural areas involving small towns (e.g. CZ, SE, SK), while some MS use ERDF in distinctly urban settings for social inclusion (e.g. HU, PT, RO, UK)

11. What do we know from the implementation phase?

12. We do not know much… • Slow implementation of 2014-2020 OPs in general • Smal amount of expenditure reported under CLLDs • CLLD strategies can be selected until 31.12.2017

13. …But wewillsoon know more • CLLD strategies can be selected until 31.12.2017 • Annual implementation reports 2017 will arrive by 30.06.2017: quality of data reported will be checked and data will be analysed • An expert isworking on data collection and case study

14. Whatdoesitmeans for the future of CLLD in cohesionpolicy?

15. Tooearly to predict • Whatwillcohesionpolicy look like? • Scenarios for Europe • New MFF Factbasedpolicymaking: • weneedfacts, analysisbeforeproposinganything • It is time to work on the implementation of the currentprogrammingperiod

16. 4 possible scenarios amongothers • No future scenario • CLLD goes on: statusquo • CLLD goes on but iscompulsory • Simplification of CLLD

17. No future scenario • Hypothesis: • High level of complaints from MS and actorsinvolved about complexity of cohesionpolicyrules • Very slow implementation of CLLD penalising the performance of programmes and causingdecommitment of funds • ERDF mainlyused to coverexpenditureineligibleunder EAFRD and EMFF • Unconvincingreporting on the performance of the instrument • Dramatic simplification of the regulatory Framework applicable to cohesionpolicy • Supression of CLLD

18. Status quo Hypothesis: • Factsavailable are limitedwhenproposing the post 2020 regulations • The rationale for CLLD remains: cohesionpolicyis a place basedpolicy. Innovative local developmentstrategiesdeveloped and implemented by local actorsis the best guarantee to focus the fundingon local needswhilemaking the linkwithEuropeanpriorities and to contributebridgingthe gap betweenEurope and citizens • Optional CLLD does not harm • Stabilitywill help improvingimplementation in future • CLLD is maintained unchanged as an optional cohesion policy tool

19. Compulsory use of CLLD Hypothesis: • Cohesionpolicy budget isreduced • Factsavailableshow greatsuccess of CLLD • Usefulness of bottom up approacheslinking local and Europeanstrategies for bridgingthe gap between Europe and citizensisdemonstrated • Use of CLLD is made compulsory with Governancesupport and capacity building measuresprovided

20. Simplification of CLLD Hypothesis: • The rationale for CLLD remains • Analysis of implementationisbroadly positive • Stabilitywill help improvingimplementation in future • But the elementswhich have proven to betooburdensome are simplified • Simplification of CLLD • Limited regulatoryconstraints on CLLD • Thematicconcentration requirements not applicable to amountsusedunder CLLD • A single set of rules applicable to ESIP simplifies the use of differentfunds

21. www.ec.europa.eu/inforegio www.facebook.com/EuropeanCommission www.twitter.com/@EU_Regional www.linkedin.com/company/1809 DG REGIO collaborative platform www.yammer.com/regionetwork plus.google.com/+EuropeanCommission Sign up for our 'REGIOFLASH' www.inforegiodoc.eu www.flickr.com/euregional