Brussels, 06/02/2018

LEADER Reflection Group

Summary

John GrieveENRD Contact Point

• Convened by DG AGRI

• Informal group of LAGs, Managing Authorities, Paying Agencies, Networks, DG AGRI

• Reflecting on LEADER implementation experience and looking ahead

• Focus on improving future implementation at all levels

• Looking at issues and effects and proposing solutions

• Eleven main sets of issues, considerable cross over and shared solutions

LEADER Reflection Group

Multisectoralintegration

Multi-sectoral

integration

Approach eroded by increasing focus on

agriculture

All things to all people, insufficient

prioritisation

Lack of wider

awareness of LEADER

and potential

Coordination with other funds

Coordination with other

funds

Addressing local needs

No common CLLD

stakeholder platform

Separate financial, control, M&E rule and programmes

per fund

Rules not coordinated

or in line LEADER methodHarmonisation

of EU Regs

Innovation

Innovation

Definition and capture uncertainty

Co-funders limitations

Failure misunderstood / risk aversion /

knowledge

Administrative burdens

Policy objectives, monitoring and evaluation

Policy objectives, monitoring

and evaluation

Different views on

role

Unrealistic expectation

/ grant delivery tool

Operating in isolation

Input vs achievement - Adequacy

of indicators

Partnership

Partnership

LAGs not involved in

measure design

Vertical partnership inadequate to ensure method

Partnerships inclusivity,

municipalisation interest groups

Restrictive eligibility

limits ownership,

impact & local judgement

Decentralised management

Decentralised management

Restrictions on type of

actions and expenditure

LAG as “one-stop

shop”

Dedicated staff per

function/LAG requirement

“control by sanction”

Ineffective communication

in delivery chain

Controls

Controls

RoC

SCO and error rates

Control effort disproportionate

to non-compliance risk –

makes LEADER `heavy’

MAs `retrace` selection processes

Disproportionate sanctions

Additional controls –

“gold-plating”

Financial corrections

applied globally for

formal errors

Too many different control bodies

AREA

AREA

Fragmentation / LAGs too

small

Some areas – too large

Pre-defined territories / structures

Local development strategy

LDS

Funding gap between

programming periods

Deadline for

selection of LAGs

Poor strategic focus of the LDS

Unclear positioning (indicators,

local vs. higher

political obj.)

Cooperation and networking

Cooperation and

networking

Information exchange

Common definitions

Calls for cooperation projects by

the MA

Integration into the

LDS

Beneficiaries/partners

Income generating

TNC projects

Management and animation

Management and

animation

Req. “25% of public

expenditure incurred…”

Heavy admin

burden –less

animation

Bottom-up

Bottom-up

Formal requirements

met, qualitative improvement

needed

Complexity of processes

audits and sanctions

Local decision

making and trust

Standardised project

selection

• EU rules to codify, protect and promote the method

• LAGs ‘denatured’ into basic support - clarify positioning, better LDS focus

• Clarify responsibilities

• Strengthen LAG ownership

• Reinforce LAG decision making

• Strengthen networking

• Specific LEADER / CLLD MC or advisory group

• Extend LEAD fund approach

• Single MA /interlocuter for CLLD

• LAG as a platform / one stop shop

• Greater proportionality

• Avoid gold plating

• Advance preparation in current period

• Faster selection

Common points