Approach of rural development by Limousin (France)

1. Approach of rural developmentby Limousin (France) • 731 000 inhabitants • 43 inhabitant / km2 • 39% population is rural

2. A rural development policy foundedon infraregional project areas: the “districts” • 14 “rural” districts • averaging 30,000 hab., 1100 km², 48 municipalities, per district • 2 Regional parks • = 21% of the Limousin region • 22 structural hubs • Towns with an agglomerated pop. of more than 2 000 inhabitants (average is 5,460 inhabitants) = urban framework of the rural zone • 2 “agglomeration” districts • Limoges 200,000 and Brive 85,000 hab. = 40% of the Limousin population

3. A structure mirrored by the LEADERLocal Action Group • 8 LEADER territories • 80 % of municipalities and 50 % of the inhabitants of Limousin • - The rural districts and the National Regional Parks (some of which are grouped into one single LAG) = support territories for LEADER programmes • .

4. Founding principles of the Rural Development policy • A contractual and territorial policy in partnership with the French government and the French Departments (two three-year contracts for 2007-2013), • Strong coordination with the European EARDF programmes (axis 3 and axis 4), and also with ERDF (notably in terms of policies for welcoming new populations), • These integrated and multi-sector project approaches are part of a global approach led by the districts according to their own reality (demographics, employment), • Striving for mutualisation and the coordination of effort and means (leadership, seeking the structural character of actions…), • A convergence between a bottom-up approach (needs expressed by the districts) and a top-down approach (in line with regional policies), • Greater participation of local stakeholders (socio-professionals, associations, population…) in the preparation of the public decision and the evolution of the policies enacted, • Promotion and dissemination of the principles of rural development through territorial policies.

5. Action principles • Shared recognition of the project districts enables the coordination of public policies, • Greater complementarity in public interventions (region, state, Europe), ensures their coherence within a territory • Safeguarding the contractual planning of the interventions facilitates the work of the contracting authorities and funders, through the signing of agreements, • Creation of a solidarity mechanism based on equalisation between territories, • Territorial contracts (including Leader counterparts) must guarantee an overall financial framework adapted to the budgetary possibilities and safeguarded for the 2007-2013 period.

6. The content of territorial projects • The areas where the Region works with the territories can be arranged into 3 major themes: • The attractiveness of the territory and lifestyle (policy for reversing rural exodus, cultural development, sports, services, health, pre-school children, mobility, habitat and training) • Economic development (support for business and crafts, tourism, forestry/wood and agriculture), • The environment and the management of natural resources and heritage (water resources, natural sites, landscape charters, local climate plans and non-moveable heritage). And 2 more transversal axes: • Support for leadership and engineering (general and thematic), • Transversal approach to sustainable developmentthe integration of sustainable development principles in projects . Areas of intervention which are also those identified as priorities by the LAG.

7. Which synergies between ERDF and EARDF in Limousin?

8. 1/ Policies that are primarily community-focused • Through the budgetary choices made: ERDF OP €127.2 M; EARDF €348.4M [for the record, Pillar I of the CAP represents €1.500 M] • Through the strategic choices made (Community Strategic Guidelines and Regulation – ref. i.e. articles 9 and 12 of the ERDF regulation and the EARDF budget limits set for each axis): ideological breach, is the “lisbonization” accepted in the 2007-2013 Financial Perspectives “ruro-compatible”? • Through the management choices made: General Management by financial instrument.

9. 2/ A rather unfavourable translation on the national level • Government option in favour of a unique national plan – the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development (PDRH) • A national policy of the PDRH is imposed for 80% of available resources: €263.2 M in the Limousin region • A regional policy(Regional rural development policy (DRDR) that is “minimalist” on a financial level (€85.2 M in the Limousin region) but very open on the thematic level (90% of actions are eligible under EARDF rules) • National guidelines on the complementarity of ERDF/EARDF... to manage the shortage

10. 3/ A regional focus on ERDF-Innovation and EARDF- competitiveness of the agricultural sector • ERDF OP: 65% in favour of Research and Development/Economic aid compared with 35% for Regional attractiveness and sustainable development • EARDF regional rural development policy: 65% in favour of Axes 1 and 2 compared with 35% for Axis 3 (quality of life in a rural environment and diversification of the rural economy) and Axis 4 (the programme named LEADER – a French acronym for Links between actions for the development of the rural economy)

11. 4/ An issue that is financially minor but politically sensitive • Avoid shared sectors (no economic aid and initially no EARDF cooperation…) in order to educate beneficiaries and ensure proper administrative coordination (“one-stop shop”) • For the shared sectors (public services, sports/tourism/culture infrastructures), define objective, simple and acceptable criteria (public, nature, total cost…) • Prioritise allocating the funds to the new challenges facing French rurality (welcoming new populations, residential economy, use of ICT, climate change…) • Favour the integrated approach by seeking to smooth out technocratic obligations (control delegation, single application, unique regional programming committee – CRUP, coherence with the regional planning and sustainable land development scheme – SRADDT – and the Agenda 21 plan for the Limousin region…)

12. 5/ A practice that has trouble withstanding the shortage of financial means • A high rate of planning (35% for ERDF and 35% for EARDF – cumulated national and regional policies) – the highest in France – which can demonstrate the relevance of the regional strategy; • A visible shortage: €30M of ERDF funds identified as needed, but only €10 M in funds available for Sports/Tourism/Culture facilities; • Biased responses: instructing authorities lack knowledge of boundaries (Measures 35 and 36 of the ERDF/Measure 321 B of the EARDF); the midway review is always running one reminder late; the current state of the CAP is swayed (Axes 3 and 4 are excluded in practice from modulation); the amount of earmarking is obstructive (basic infrastructures aren’t counted); the rigidity of community management (the “article 37-6 b – General Rules” style integration is contested)

13. 6/Example of sports/culture/tourism and public service equipments

14. 7/Example of transnational cooperation

15. RUR@CT network of european Regions transferring good practicesfor rural innovation in regional programmes 2ème pillar of CAPEARDF Cohesion policyERDF Territorial cooperation (objective 3) Transnational cooperation(LEADER axis) European Rural Network Regions for Economic Change CAPITALISATION Good practices Good practices RUR@CT TRANSFER Pilot projects Pilot projects Convergence(objective 1) Competitiveness(objective 2) Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Slide show created by the Commission for Cooperation (d-buchet@cr-limousin.fr) and the Department of Migration and Territories (f-collette@cr-limousin.fr) Slide show presented by Cédric Léger,Rur@ct Project Manager (c-léger@cr-limousin.fr).