Summary of the meeting: Focus group 1 “Implementation of the Bottom-up approach under Leader Axis”
24th March 2010 “Centro Matteo Ricci", Piazza della Pilotta n.4
ELARD / Panagiotis / PATRASIT / NRN / Raffaella / Di Napoli
BG / MA / Marieta / Todorova
CZ / MA / Jitka / Doubnerova
DE / LAG / Hartmut / Bernd
DK / NRN / Merete / Jeppesen
EE / LAG board / Ly / Kaups
FI / MA / Sanna / Sihvola
FR / MA / Marjorie / Deroi
GR / Leader Network / Argyro (Iro) / Tsimpri
GR / MA / Evangelia / Voumvouraki
GR / MA / Maria-Christina / Makrandreou
HU / Institute of Economics / Gusztáv / Nemes
IE / LAG manager / Ryan / Howard
IE / MA / Deirdre / Kelly
IT / NRN / Dario / Cacace
IT / NRN / Carlo / Ricci
IT / NRN / Franco / Mantino
IT / Fransesco / Mstrogiacomo
IT / INEA / Pierpaolo / Pallama
IT / EFFAT / Alessandro / Pacciani
IT / University di FIrenze / Daniela / Toccaceli
IT / NRN / Alescandro / Pesce
IT / MA / Valentina / Spinelli
IT / NRN / Milena / Verrascina
IT / MA Piemont / Bianca / Eula
LV / MA / Andra / Karlsone
PL / MA / Joanna / Gierulska
PT / NRN / José / Veiga
SK / NRN / Malvina / Gondova
SE / Manager of LAG / Charlotta / Heimersson
ES / NRN / Eva / García Sarro
ES / NRN / Inés / Jornada Trisan
ES / MA Aragon / Francisco / Dominguez Real
UK / Research Assistant,CCRI / Katarina / Kubinakova
PREPARE / Kim / Smedslund
European Commission / Jean-Michel / Courades
Contact Point / Haris / Martinos
Contact Point / kasia / Panfil
Introduction
The meeting was co-chaired by Mr. P.Patras, ELARD and Italian National Network Mrs. Raffaella Di Napoli and Franco Martino. The main issues raised were the following: objective of the meeting as well as the necessity to establish the recommendations for the next Leader Sub-Committee which have to include main difficulties and potential solutions related to the implementation of bottom-up approach under Leader Axis.
I. Part
First part of the meeting included 6 presentations
- Leader implementation models in the programming period 2007-2013 by Jean-Michel Coudares focused on the explanations of the typology of Leader implementation models. The objective was to define the advantages and disadvantages for all tree models. The information was collected from the EU country desks. There are 3 different models of Leader implementation:
- Decentralisation of project selection competence
- Decentralisation of project selection and payment competence
- Decentralisation of project formal approval
The first model is most common where ranking of the projects is made by LAGs and selection criteria for the projects are established by LAG and there are the cases that they are defined by LAG and MA. The second model includes an additional task: payment towards the beneficiary. In the last model the key distinctive feature of this implementation model is that the legal commitment towards the beneficiaries is made by the LAG as well as Control and/or payment tasks can also be delegated to LAGs.
- Model 1 - Decentralisation of project selection at LAG level: example Sweden” by Charlotta Heimersson, Sweden
Swedish presentation included: financial issues where LAG:s has to provide 50% of the national co-funding and most LAGs in Sweden have already obtained the 50% in advance as well as decision making process where formal project approval, includes fixing the amount of support: regional MA. There are 21 regional MA in Sweden. Payment of claims, including advance payment: PA through regional MA, LAG. Maximum time for payments by regional MA is 8 months.
- Model 2 - Decentralisation of project selection and payment to the beneficiaries by Francisco Dominguez Real, Spain. In fact Region of Aragon dose not implement the second model in the pure form according to the typology. Participants of the meeting were interested in particular by administrative checks of the project by MA. The administrative check is made by PA- 5%, external audit – 25% and LAG 25%.
The aspect of external control is similar in Ireland who represents model 3 of the Leader implementation.
- Model 3 - The Greek Model (Global Grant schemes) by Iro Tsimpri. Regarding general characteristics of the Greek LEADER: responsible Bodies involved: Managing Authority for Axis 4 of RDP, Paying Agency, LAGs. In Greece LAGs are not allowed to prepare proposal application on behalf of final beneficiaries (conflict of interest, as LAGs cannot evaluate the proposals that would have been prepared by themselves) Regarding payment of claims the responsibility is split among: MA, PA and LAG where: PA: Credits the LAG account with an advance payment, LAG: Verifies by spot control the validity of the works and the correspondent invoices and pays the beneficiary and MA: follows a supervising procedure. especially for LAG expenses, makes administrative checks & approves the payments of the LAG. The Greek presentation summarised the main issues of the Leader approach related to skill acquisition and animation, mainstreaming.
- Questionnaire on the Implementation of Leader: Preliminary Results by Haris Martinos, ENRD Contact Point and Jean-Michel Courades, DG Agri. The presentation was based on the first results coming from the 15 questionnaire sent to the participants of the Focus Group and covering 12 Member States. The main aspects of the presentation included: key characteristics of selected LAGs, management capacity of LAGs, lAG decision making rules, project eligibility, financial issues, and comparison with Leader+, other issues related to the institutional delivery system and good practice.
- Bottom-up approach in Italy by Raffaella Di Napoli and Dario Cacace, Italian National Rural Network. The Italian National Network made a presentation on the "leaderability index". The term “leaderability” means the aptitude of the regulatory framework (RF) of the Rural Development Program to integrate the Leader approach within Axis 4 avoiding effects of "denaturation" of its features as they are outlined in EC Regulation 1698/05. The regulatory framework is the set of formal rules instituted by the RDP Managing Authority (interacting with other central institutions) for the implementation of the Leader approach: selection criteria approved in the Steering Committee, the call published for the selection of LAGs and LDPs, the Financing Agreements, the Agreement with the paying agency, any guidelines, etc.
II. Part
Mr. Franco Martino chaired the second part of the meeting which included three parallel working groups. All three working groups discussed the following questions: functions and tasks performed by LAGs and difficulties as well potential solutions to the obstacles. The main elements of the workshops were related to the project’s selection, project’s assessment and projects payment. And discussion on definition of a list of best practices and sharing of results was the last stage of the workshops.
Workshop 1: Reporting Area: Project Selection
Representation: 8 MS: Germany, Denmark, Ireland Sweden, Spain, Italy, Greece and European Commission,
Issues Identified / Solutions SuggestedInsufficient Resources/Human Resources / · Clearer definition of LAG role in the Regulations
· Larger LAGS
Time pressure for call preparation / · Open Calls: Some reservations including difficulty in making project comparisons and the need to manage annual budgets.
Inconsistency between selection criteria and strategy and the resultant fear of Control implications. This fear was felt at MA level in Model 1 countries and LAG level in Model 3 countries. / · Capacity Building in both the MA and the LAG particularly in the context of the Local Development Strategies.
· For some Member States the solution may be to give more autonomy to the LAG. It should be recognised that with more autonomy comes more responsibility and there is a need to ensure the relevant capacity.
· Increased emphasis placed on the quality of the Local Development Strategy.
Limitation caused by Eligibility Criteria / · More flexible eligibility rules
· Allow Failure
Lack of qualitative analysis / · More qualitative assessment of projects
Workshop 2: Reporting Area: the project’s selection, project’s assessment and projects payment.
Representation: 6 MS and 2 ONG (Elard, Prepare) /4 NRN, 6 MA and 2 LAG
Issues Identified / Solutions SuggestedInconsistency between MA selection criteria and LAG strategy / Clear definition of competency and autonomy for LAG
Call for the projects: defined in time does not always work properly / Open call for projects – possibility to submit the project any time
Management of the subventions / Clear definition of tasks for LAG
Intervention rate: in some case defined in RDP / More autonomy for LAG to deal with financial envelop
Relationship between LAG and MA: control of eligibility / Simplification of the system, better information, training
Workshop 3: Reporting Area: ‘The payment and project evaluation stages’
Representation: 7 MS: Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Finland, Greece, Ireland, the Contact Point
Issues Identified / Solutions SuggestedIssue 1; The ‘RDP Control System’ and the amount of ‘time’ that it is taking to process payments whichever model* of LEADER Approach is being applied
Main Cause for Issue 1: The Control System that is being applied across the RDP and in particular the difficulties being experienced in trying to adopt this to the LEADER Approach (MA, PA & LAG) in Axis 4 and thereafter the other Axis’s being delivered by the LAG
Main ‘Reflections’ relating to Issue/Cause 1: That the Control System is:
Bureaucratic
Complicated
Not conducive to an open supportive linkage (and communication) between stakeholders
Requiring ‘too much’ of the LAG (Often beyond their capacities and resources)
Prompting risk aversion
(The ‘sea’ of controls) Is not encouraging Innovation
Leading to ‘too much definition’… ‘Books and books of eligibility and procedural details’
Innovation versus Strict Eligibility Rules =Non Compatibility
The removal (in some Model 3 type examples) of the right of the LAG to ‘Pay-Out’ the Grant Support at the time of Claim – now requiring a claim to be made to the PA and then checked by MA before allocation is finally issued to the LAG….this was described as ‘delegating the tasks of the control system to the LAG but not all of the responsibilities’ – i.e. this is only partial ‘delegation’ which leads to a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities all along the chain of decision making / The main solution identified was that a specific ‘LEADER’ Based Control System (for Axis 4 and any of the activities delivered using the LEADER Approach under other Axis) needs to be considered and introduced as soon as possible, ideally if possible with the support of the EC during the current programming period but at the very least in time for the next Programming Period.
It was generally agreed amongst those with experience of LEADER II and LEADER + that the control systems at that time were far clearer, more effective and more responsive to the needs of the LEADER Approach.
In Bulgaria, whilst only at the beginning of delivering the LEADER Type Approach, they have recognised the need to support LAGs and to share the responsibilities in relation to the actions that they are delivering. They are developing very simple (and short) check lists and 100% of the responsibility of defining the eligibility of an activity remains with the LAG and not at any other level.
In Finland they are now undertaking a ‘root and branch’ type review of the whole LEADER Process, recognizing that the issues that are being presented (primarily as a result of the application of the Control System within the mainstream RDP on the LEADER Approach) will not dissipate without clear and immediate action at all levels from Government, MA, PA and LAG. The theme of their review is ‘A return to a Genuine LEADER Approach’.
This work is to be complete by the end of September and the group agreed that it should be considered carefully by all.
Issue 2: The Sanctions, seen as cynical and anti-developmental and a major barrier to the delivery of the LEADER Axis and Related Activities
Main Cause for Issue 2: Very much related to issue 1 (above) as it is a potential ‘impact’ of the Control System. The ‘threat’ of financial sanctions on LAGs is causing a real slow-down in the decision making process and they are not reflective of the positive process that are central to the LEADER Approach.
Main ‘Reflections’ relating to Issue/Cause 2: That use of sanctions is:
Repeating many of the aspects identified in Issue & Cause 1 plus the following;
Creating an atmosphere of ‘fear’
Challenges the ‘developmental approach’ which is fundamental to LEADER / In Ireland there has always been a very positive working relationship between the LAGs and the Department of Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs (who have overall responsibility for Axis 3 & 4 as the Paying Authority). The Department of Agriculture, Food & Forestry are now the MA. The continuation of an open communication process will be essential in addressing the key issues and challenges that Control System has placed on the MA, PA and LAGs.
The working group agreed that the presence of the ‘sanctions’ and their proposed application is ‘anti-development’, ‘anti-support’ and ‘anti- LEADER’ and their immediate removal should be considered as a priority by the EC and thereafter by every MA.
Issue 3: A lack of use of the LEADER Approach in Axis 1 & 2 or sometimes resulting in LAGs being charged with the responsibility to deliver activity that is not reflective of the Capacities of the LAG
Main Cause for Issue 3: The working group each agreed that a there were elements of Axis 1 and Axis 2 that could benefit from the LEADER Approach. However there were issues (highlighted by some regions) in some of the delivery of activities in these Axis, particularly in Axis 1, where the responsibility for delivery was being allocated to the LAG even though they had no expertise in the delivery of these activities and where the activity was basically a control/application of regulations rather than a LEADER Type/ developmental approach.
Equally, in many instances, where additional ‘added value’ could be gained in Axis 1 and Axis 2 where delivered using the LEADER Approach (via the LAGs) there appeared to be only a small number of these examples thus far in the RDP.
Main ‘Reflections’ relating to Issue/Cause 3:
Lack of connected planning in some territories between the MA, PA and LAG
In some instances the LAG was being given inappropriate responsibilities that did not reflect their role, capacities or positioning whilst in many other areas these attributes were not being made use of or considered in the support/delivery of activities across the RDP / Each member of the working group believes that the LEADER Approach and its component elements in the MA, PA and LAG has the capacity to delivery not only Axis 3 & 4 but also some of the components of Axis 1 and 2 where a developmental and collective approach was deemed to add additional value to the activity. Some examples of work being undertaken in France, Italy and other territories in this regard was seen to be very important and it was hoped that managing authorities in other territories could apply similar approaches in the current programming period as ‘pilot initiatives’ to inform the development of the forthcoming programme for Rural Development. Equally, some ‘inappropriate’ application of the LEADER Approach should be highlighted and avoided. (Note: in the final session of the Focus Group, Mr. Courades highlighted this same point and noted that a meeting was being planned to review these opportunities and challenges in the Autumn).
A. The Application of ‘Deminimis’, particularly for Community/Not For Profit Activities