Community-led Local Development as a European Movement CLLD and rural development

1. Community-led Local Development as a European Movement CLLD and rural development Robert Lukesch, ÖAR Regionalberatung GmbH OPEN DAYS - 9 October 2012 - 09A10

2. The experience of LEADER in Pillerseetal / Tirol

3. The experience of LEADER in Pillerseetal-Leogang / Tirol • LEADER II started with Austria’s EU accession in 1995 • The LAG operates since 1996 • It comprises 6 municipalities and two tourism associations, in some distance from the tourism resort Kitzbühel. • The territory (Pillerseetal-Leogang) • Relatively small • Crossing State borders (Tirol/Salzburg) • The LAG • Two managers over 16 years of existence • In terms of projects and funding/inhabitant: among the most successful ones in the EU

4. History of the LAG • Launching the LAG with LEADER II (1996-1999) • Started in 1996 with 4 (Tyrolian) municipalities • Building up autonomous structures (RegioTech GmbH 1998) • Pilot projects (family tourism and business incubation) • Intensive communication and forging relations • 1999: two more municipalities, including one from the State of Salzburg • Shaping a micro-region with LEADER+ (2000-2006) • Focus on project implementation • Intensifying territorial cooperation across Europe (e.g. Close links to Finnish LAGs) • Getting used to thinking and acting at area level. • LEADER Axis (2007-) • More than 50% of all projects are area-based (i.e. NOT local), only 10% “top-down” projects (imposition from State level due to the “mainstreaming effect” • Enhanced international cooperation • Preparing post-2013, possibly expanding by 2 or 3 municipalities which have understood the area-based approach

5. Types of projects • LEADER II • Family tourism • Business incubator and innovation centre • LEADER+ • Combining tourism and nature protection • Local and regional marketing • Mobility system • LEADER Axis • Specific tourism niches: Sculpture trail, all around climbing • Adult education initiative (ICT) • LA21 processes • Architecture and building

6. Working principles • Integrating funds (EAFRD plus SF) entails more independence from the sectoral administration • LAG developed from “funding agent” to “regional innovation broker and networking hub” • Large projects are flagships around which smaller projects aggregate • Cooperation with other areas is an asset • The regional focus must not undermine local autonomy. There is no trade-off! • The centrepiece is the “idea”, not the “funding”.

7. Integrating funds in practice • Since 2007 the Tyrolian government pursues the explicit strategy to integrate EAFRD and Structural Funds (including ETC) as far as possible. The LAG Managers are at the same time regional development agents (‘Regionalmanager’). • One of the examples how the LAG integrated funds is the Mining Museum (Schaubergwerk) Leogang. • The marketing has been funded by LEADER and ETC. • The investments have been funded by ERDF. • The training of guides has been funded by ESF. www.bergbauerlebnisse.eu

8. Integrating funds in practice • Other Austrian States do not pursue this explicit strategy, but the more skilful LAG Managers do it (with the support of their LAG board) in spite of frequent indications by authorities involved with CAP delivery that they should not do this (because of their EAFRD-funded status). But up to now no official intervention has disturbed this practice. • An example of this kind: LAG Sauwald(Upper Austria) created a network of hiking paths (‘Donausteig’) together with 5 Austrian and 1 German LAG, using co-funding from LEADER and ETC/CBC, as agreed with the Bavarian partners. • www.donausteig.at

9. LEADER Reloaded CLLD: don‘t just update Axis 4! • Implementing CLLD in rural, urban, agglomeration and coastal areas: great opportunity to rejuvenate the LEADER method (which has suffered by its subordination under the CAP regime). • Greater emphasis on reliable rules of the game (from top down) and the responsible/accountable role of the LAG in terms of content (bottom-up) are warmly welcome. Foreseeable administrative and funding conditions (e.g. earmarked national co-financing, advance payments) are essential for local partnership-based governance to evolve. • What could the area-based approach mean in densely populated (para-urban or peri-urban, in-migration) areas? -> Variable geometry with “fuzzy limits”:molecular design with partly overlapping & freely coalescing LAGs. • Disquieting: The Commission is late on explaining how multi-funds interventions should work: still different accounting rules, different indicators... • Make extensive use of “simplified cost options”!

10. Rural-urban relationships (1) The challenge of inter-fund coordination • CLLD is indeed an “ideal methodology for building linkages between urban, rural and fishery areas” (Commission fact sheet). • However there is obvious reluctance from MS to involve ERDF and ESF in CLLD. • CLLD will be the acid test for inter-funds-coordination! • We need institutional entrepreneurs in the MS who recognize and harness the innovative potential of the CLLD window.

11. Rural-urban relationships (2) CLLD, an instrument for regional resilient strategies • One of the rare EUpolicies which actually touches the ground. • More sustainable mobility solutions • Zero-carbon strategies, smart cities (housing and urban development) • Healthy and low-carbon food supply (short and medium distance value chains), with organic agriculture as the cross-compliance standard • Common welfare economy (social markets, food banks, local exchange and trade systems, third sector employment) • Intercultural cohesion: integration and inclusion in urban renewal • New forms of micro-, small and medium enterprise support and business networking (crowd sourcing, crowd funding, local and regional business incubation and promotion funds...)

12. LEADER/CLLD • If implemented in EAFRD only: • It may work. But there is the risk of fatigue break. • If rolled out in all funds: • It may fail. But it could become the gem of European cohesion policy. • And that’s worth the effort.