220 likes | 345 Views
CLLD as a Successful Story in the Czech Republic 2014 – 2020? Ing. Radim Srsen, Ph.D. President of ELARD http://www.elard.eu Brussels , Belgium 28th May , 201 4. LEADER approach today and after 2013 – new challenges Petri Rinne ELARD. Viimsi Spa, Estonia 15th September, 2011.
E N D
CLLD as a Successful Story in the Czech Republic 2014 – 2020? Ing. Radim Srsen, Ph.D. President of ELARD http://www.elard.eu Brussels, Belgium 28thMay, 2014 LEADER approach today and after 2013 – new challenges Petri Rinne ELARD Viimsi Spa, Estonia 15th September, 2011
Why territorial dimension ? • Difference in GDP/pax betweenthe most developed and poorest EU region is 13x • Therichest EU region is3x above EU average, thepoorestone 4x below • Significantpolarisationbetweenrural and urbanareas, esp. in SE Europe – Bratislava, Praha, Budapest • Tematicinterventions in thecurrentprogramming period 2014 – 2020 proved to support and deepentheinequalitybetweenrural and urbanareas
What are the instruments to face it ??? • ITI (IntegratedTerritorialInvestments) • Top-downapproach • Strategicintegratedinvestments to the area specified in advance • Combinationof soft and hard instruments • Combinationofdifferent EU funds + interventions = synergyeffect • Engagingallstakeholders = public-privatepartnership • Delegationof in-advanceplanning, decisionmaking and financing to thehandsofregionalplayers = „EU subsidiarity principle“
What are the instruments to face it ??? • CLLD (Community-led localdevelopment) • Area-based approach • Bottom-up approach • Local public-private partnerships: Local Action Groups • Innovative approach • Integrated and multi-sectoral approach • Networking • Cooperation • De-centralised administration
EUROPE 2020 Strategy • Smart growth • Sustainablegrowth • Inclusivegrowth • Disappearingregionaldisparities • Importanceoflinkagesbetweenrural and urbanareas • Multilevelgovernance and subsidiarity • Inclusionofallstakeholders in theprocessofplanning and implementingintegratedstrategiesoflocaldevelopment
TERRITORIAL DIMENSION IN THE CZ OPERATIONAL PROGRAMES Coordination Region RPC INTEGRATED INSTRUMENT ITI Metropolitan areas Townwithsurround. area IPTD Regionalcentres Ruralareas CLLD LAG NPC MMR ORSP MMR NOC MAs Stakeholders
IdentificationProcess Problem Area due to PA Identified Problems due to PA Selected needs of development with Territorial Dimension EU tematic goals OP – specific goals
ITI metropolitních oblastí schématické znázornění Ústecko – chomutovská metropolitní oblast Hradecko- pardubická metropolitní oblast . Pražská metropolitní oblast . Ostravská metropolitní oblast . Plzeňská metropolitní oblast . Brněnská metropolitní oblast .
st EU Integrated Instruments 2014 – 2020 Border of a country Region CLLD/LAG ITI Metropolitan Area / IPTD CLLD/LAG Border of a counntry ITI ESTC
Project 1 ERDF Running costs, animation, networking possibly through „lead Fund“ Project 2 ESF ESF EAFRD LOCAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ERDF EMFF Project 3 EAFRD Project 3 EMFF Local action group Local governments Local entrepreneurs Local NGOs, civil society
From the “glocal” point of view: door openers needed! Project organisations Universities Professional associations Businesses Place-based interests Non-profit organisations Local municipalities CREATIVE PERSONS Other interests
CLLD in the Czech Republic • Total allocation: cca 1billion EUR • Integrated Regional Development Program – 37% • Rural Development Program – 17% • OP Employment – 11% • OP Enviroment – 5% • OP Industry, Innovation for Competition – 12%??? • OP Education – 8% • OP Technical Assistance – 10% (running costs)
Role of LAGs in the Czech Republic • LAG as LEADER/CLLD implementation body • LAG as beneficiary • LAG as animator in theruralareas • LAG as a building stone ofpartnership and strategy on regionallevel
Struggle for CLLD+++++++ • huge support of regional partners • Accociation of Local Governments • Association of Regions • Accociation of Cities • National Network of LAGs • very good political support • strength of the National Network of LAGs • 178 out of 181 LAGs as members • almost 100% coverage of area
Struggle for CLLD- - - - - - - • political instability • institutional instability • length and exhausting from the negotiating process • LEADER as such very limited in relation to LAG needs • at least 5% co-financing of running and animation costs (and just 10% overall)
Thinkglobally… …actlocally
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Radim SRSEN ELARD President radimbz@seznam.cz http://www.elard.eu • European LEADER Association • forRuralDevelopment (ELARD) • RueduTrone 60 • B-1050 Brussels