Marie Permingeat

The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development has published a special report on the European Rural Development LEADER Program, entitled “Evaluation support study of the costs and benefits of the implementation of LEADER”, which stresses the importance and effectiveness of the implementation of this program in Europe.

The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development has published a 198-page in-depth analysis to determine whether the LEADER approach generates benefits that justify the additional costs and risks it entails, in relation to the general (top-down) EU funding programs. This report, published a year after the one of the European Court of Auditors which questioned the implementation of this program, uses a mixed evaluation approach that integrates both qualitative quantitative and technical measures together with analyses conducted at three territorial levels, allowing it to highlight the added value of this program.

A report that assesses the impact of LEADER beyond a strictly budgetary approach 

Launched in 1991, the LEADER program – the European Union’s bottom-up participatory rural development policy – is the only European program dedicated to supporting rural development projects. The LEADER approach is based on local development led by local actors, and relies on experimentation, cooperation, capitalization, dissemination of good practices and pooling of resources and networks.

This evaluation support study uses a mixed evaluation approach that integrates both qualitative and quantitative and technical measures together with analyses conducted at three territorial levels: on the whole of National and Regional Rural Development Programs (RPDs), a focus on a smaller number of RDPs and on Local Action Groups case studies identified from selected RDPs.

« Our European federation has contributed to this assessment, and we welcome this new report from DG AGRI, following the one from last year by the Court of Auditors. The latest report of the Court of Auditors pointed out that, because of its participatory approach, LEADER has high administrative and operational costs compared to other programs. We regretted at the time the choice to assimilate this participatory program, which is developed in more than 2800 territories in Europe, to a «risk-benefit» approach. The choice of evaluators to assess at three territorial levels based on quantitative and qualitative data is a positive signal sent to rural territories on the understanding of the program » says Thibaut Guignard, president of ELARD.

The report stresses that LEADER is not the most expensive measure of the EAFRD. The average administrative cost of the LEADER measure is estimated at 5.5 cents per € 1 committed, which is well below the same cost of measure 6, aiming at supporting economic development and promoting job creation in rural areas (12 cents), or that of measure 16, which aims at different forms of cooperation, involving at least two entities among actors in rural areas (13.4 cents), but being only slightly higher than that of measure 7 which aims at supporting the development of the rural economy, local infrastructure and low-cost services (4.9 cents).

« The funding allocated to the operation of Local Action Groups is well beyond “administrative costs”, as it allows for an invaluable investment in human resources, animation and valuable networking work. It is one of the success factors that LEADER offers a regional management that supports the commitment and creativity of local actors in implementing their ideas for the benefit of their region. At ELARD, we believe that LEADER is way more than just a financing tool, but a true rural development program. For territories, the importance of this program is well beyond its direct financial impact » adds Thibaut Guignard.

LEADER: More than just a financing tool, a European rural development program to be promoted.

In this report, the evaluators acknowledge that the implementation of LEADER has led to the establishment of an effective multi-level governance system, enabling both a reduction in the time beneficiaries spend on administrative tasks, thanks to the support provided by the LAGs, and an increase in the participation of potential beneficiaries who would otherwise not apply for LEADER funding.

« The LEADER programs have helped to develop rural areas in Europe and stimulate territorial dynamics. These programs are perfectly adapted to support the new local initiatives in our territories, as it is necessary to innovate, to experiment, and to build partnerships between the public sector and private actors. More than a financing tool, LEADER is a rural development program with its own fundamentals: networking of local actors, bottom-up approach, capitalization and dissemination of good practices, cooperation. Compared to traditional funding, the territorial effects of LEADER-funded projects are enhanced, mainly because LAGs are effective in promoting networking of local actors and creating synergy around a territorial strategy » highlights Thibaut Guignard.

ELARD agrees with DG AGRI’s recommendations, namely: to further reduce the administrative burden on LAGs and LEADER project leaders, to define new indicators and « factual data » to assess the added value of the LEADER program in a relevant and concrete way, and to recognize Local Action Groups. With this in mind, LEADER France and the European LEADER networks are calling on the European Commission, as well as the managing authorities of each Member State, to clearly initiate joint work in response to the report’s recommendations.

« LEADER, and more generally, local development led by local actors end up to more than ever as one of the answers for a Europe closer to its citizens, but also for facing the pressure on democracy by enabling a greater appropriation of European policies. This report is a good response to the European Court of Auditors. It is necessary for the European Commission and Member States to act in order to give more visibility to the LEADER program for the 2023-2027 programming period », concludes Thibaut Guignard.

Read the full report here

Read the executive summary here 

Our federation has now been developing for a couple decades and is now recognised both at French and European level as preferential contact on LEADER and more generally European funds for rural territories. Chairing ELARD follows the natural course of the actions we have been carrying throughout the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union (European Congress of LAGs in Ploeuc-L’Hermitage, mobilisation of European networks on the 8^th report on economic, social and territorial cohesion to feed in the European Court of Auditors’ report). In addition, 2023-2024 is  key moment for LEADER and rural territories. With the start of the new European programming and the 2024 European elections, many important issues are coming up and we wanted to be an active player in this strategic period.

What are your plans for ELARD?

The candidacy we proposed in 2022 was based on a real ambition for ELARD. We did not want to chair for the sake of chairing: we want ELARD to become active in policy making and develop new projects. Our ambition is not limited to this however: we want to build a real network of Local Action Groups in Europe. This is why we are making every effort to organise a LEADER European Congress in Brussels at the end of 2023, in partnership with the European Committee of the Regions. A European event dedicated solely to the Leader programme and community-led local development during which Local Action Groups from all over the European Union could meet, exchange and cooperate. We want a network that “talks” to LAGs and that brings real added value, especially in terms of visibility.

What resources will be dedicated to the presidency of ELARD?

To chair and have the means of our ambitions, we asked for the financial support of French ministries. We will also be looking for official and recurring sources of funding. At the same time, the sound financial management of LEADER France for several years will allow us to provide self-financing if necessary.

We want to apply to ELARD the same recipe as for Leader France and work to develop new projects that will allow us to have complementary recipes. The arrival of Marie Permingeat, who will coordinate ELARD, within our team, should allow us to strengthen ELARD and continue in parallel our actions as a national federation.

What needs changing?

Rural areas encounter a number of difficulties that were put aside for a long time, such as: a shutdown of public services, lagging behind in terms of economic development, a lesser access to culture, only to name a few.

In 2022, the Commission came up with the long-term vision for Rural Areas and as part of it, the Rural Pact. This is a real hope to start changing things.

There have been successes in rural areas, and in particular thanks to the LEADER programme, which is synonymous with modern, dynamic, organised rural areas that are open to the EU. LEADER, through Local Action Groups, helps responding to all types of societal issues. Such a success is not only promoted by ELARD, but also by the European Parliament, the European Committee of the Regions and the European Commission.

LEADER is a method, a tool, in which already established stakeholders are experienced. It is not a European fund but a European rural development programme with a method and fundamentals: experimentation, innovation, networking, cooperation, capitalisation and dissemination of good practices.

LEADER makes visible the benefits of the European project in local areas. It brings Europe to every town, every village, and when applied smoothly, contributes to reducing Eurosceptic tendencies. LEADER is a direct tool that works against the Geography of Discontent, as defined in DG REGIO’s publication from 12 June 2023.

Within the CAP, LEADER is the tool that contributes most to the LTVRA. Yet stakeholders are increasingly asked to  do more with less.

This, LEADER and CLLD, is our vision, and our approach. It is already in place and stakeholders on the ground are experimented in using them. However, there is a severe lack of funding for rural development. This approach and these tools need more funding.

In addition, the management of LEADER/CLLD, and the use of multi-funding have become increasingly complex from one programming period to the next – the withdrawal of the EAFRD from the Common Provisions Regulations has highlighted further the issue. To name a few countries, we can take Sweden, Portugal or several French regions that have decided not to prolong the use of multi-fund CLLD in the next programming period.

We call for a simplified framework, and better working conditions.

Let us not forget that when we talk about rural development, we are not talking about institutions, companies, or farms. We are talking about people: local stakeholders, rural citizens of Europe, to whom we should be able to offer a better life.

Is it reasonable to assume that we can develop employment, revive public services, strengthen social cohesion, set up new modes of transport, fix young people in their territory, give better life conditions to people of the rural territories with only 5% of the Common Agricultural Policy budget?

---

Our practical policy recommendations for the future

ELARDS asks for an independent, reasonable reliable financial resource for a rural development by local actors with a multi-sectorial approach under simplified and unanimous European rules.

Regarding financial resources, ELARD outlined several possibilities. These are just suggestions that deserve to be explored hand in hand with the various interested instances of the European Commission.

• If the approach chosen is to be to strengthen multi-fund, then it needs to be simplified and made mandatory for all member states.
• If the approach chosen is to be a directly managed programme, it will need to ensure the rapprochement of European and local levels, the autonomy of Local Action Groups, and the principle of the bottom-up approach.
• If the approach chosen is to be a new fund dedicated to local rural development, it will have to be adequately funded.

Rural development is not just a part of the CAP. On the other hand, the CAP is only one part of rural development.

Action Group (LAG). These groups can bring together public actors (e.g. elected representatives of local authorities) and private actors (e.g. companies, cooperatives, or associations). The approach encourages local actors to define actions at their level (bottom-up), rather than imposing ready-made measures.

LAGs are made up of representatives of civil society, local businesses, local elected representatives and local experts. It is therefore a fundamentally bottom-up approach that fosters the active participation of citizens and strengthens their capacity to shape the future of their regions, while promoting sustainability, innovation and social cohesion at local level. LAG members decide together, and with the help of a territorial analysis, the topics on which they wish to work over a given period, and the local development themes on which their territory should focus. They then vote, which projects, led by companies or local communities, should be funded, or not. They can also contribute to the creation of the project itself, by offering expertise and networking, based on what is available within the LAG.

In concrete terms, Europe entrusts local actors grouped together in a LAG with an EAFRD (European Fund for Agriculture and Rural Development) envelope, to co-finance public or private projects that promote the development of rural areas in compliance with their local development strategy and European and national rules.

The European Commission sets out a long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas up to 2040, which identifies different areas for action to make rural areas and communities stronger, more connected, more resilient and more prosperous.

The invitation was issued in December 2021 by Vice-President Šuica (Democracy and Demography), Commissioner Wojciechowski (Committee on Agriculture) and Commissioner Ferreira (Cohesion and Reforms) to participate in the Rural Pact Community. They encouraged all interested authorities and organisations to express their support for the ten common objectives of the vision and to actively participate in the development of the Pact. The pact proposal was approved at the Rural Pact Conference, held on 16 June 2022.

The Rural Pact is made up of 10 common objectives:

• Attractive spaces, developed in a harmonious territorial development, unleashing their specific potential, making them places of opportunity and offering local solutions to help deal with the local effects of global challenges
• Committed to multi-level and place-based governance, developing integrated strategies using collaborative and participatory approaches, benefiting from tailor-made policy combinations and interdependencies between urban and rural areas
• Providers of food security, economic opportunities, goods and services for society at large, such as bio-based materials and energy, but also high-quality local products based on the community, renewable energy, retaining a fair share of the value generated.
• Vibrant communities focused on well-being, including livelihoods, equity, prosperity and quality of life, where all people live and work well together, with adequate capacity for mutual support.
• Inclusive communities of intergenerational solidarity, equity and renewal, open to newcomers and promoting equal opportunities for all.
• Thriving sources of nature, reinforced by and contributing to the objectives of the Green Deal, including climate neutrality, as well as the sustainable management of natural resources.
• Take full advantage of digital innovation with equal access to emerging technologies, widespread digital literacy, and opportunities to learn more advanced skills.
• Entrepreneurial, innovative and qualified people, co-creators of technological, ecological and social progress.
• Vibrant places with efficient, accessible and affordable public and private services, including cross-border services, offering tailor-made solutions (such as transport, education, training, health and care, including long-term care, social life and retail).
• Places of diversity, making the most of their unique assets, talents and potentials.

The Rural Pact, on the other hand, is a framework for cooperation between national, regional and local governments, civil society organisations, businesses, academics and citizens to act towards the common objectives of the Rural Vision. Its objectives are to:

• Amplify the voice of rural areas
• Network and learn jointly
• Encourage and list actions

The 2019 European Parliament elections saw the highest voter turnout in the last 25 years, with more than half of the EU population voting. This surge in votes has mainly strengthened pro-European parties. At the same time, there has been a worrying regression of democratic values, marked by growing autocratic tendencies and a notable rise in populism, in the heart of the EU. Unfortunately, the European Union is increasingly confronted with the rise of populism, nationalism and Euroscepticism, particularly in rural areas. The accumulation of crises in recent years, including the COVID-19 pandemic, has intensified divisions within European societies. The war in Ukraine, coupled with soaring inflation and the escalating cost of living, has further fueled contentious debates.

For rural areas, these votes are due to a feeling of distance from European policies, and a lack of visibility of what the Union brings to them. This movement is called the “Geography of Discontent” (read our article on this subject).

The Council of Europe has confirmed that the European elections will take place from 6 to 9 June 2024 (press releases, 2023). In order to maintain the positive trajectory seen in the European Parliament elections in previous elections and to extend its influence to national democratic frameworks, it is imperative to address the issue of voter non-participation, with a particular focus on the participation of marginalised and hard-to-reach groups and young people in the European Union. For us, it’s people living in rural areas. Thus, 2023 is a critical time to close the disparities in voter turnout between EU Member States, to strive to increase voter engagement, and to achieve a positive impact on democratic processes at national and European level.

To know more, we invite you to consult the following resources:

• Council confirms 6 to 9 June 2024 as dates for next European Parliament elections, Council of the European Union. Available here.
• Philip, A. B. How democratic is the European Union ? The Conversation., Available here.
• Turnout | Results of the 2019 European elections |European Parliament. (2019, 4 july). Available here.

You may have heard about it this year. This movement, which originates from the massive depopulation of rural areas, mainly in Spain and Germany, aims to draw attention to regions left behind in national and European development policies, and in particular to the direct link with Eurosceptic electoral trends.

On 12 June 2023, DG REGI published a study on the subject, based on the analysis of the national parliamentary elections from May 2018 to October 2022, which examines the results of the Eurosceptic vote with regard to the “regional development trap” (a concept that itself comes from a 2018 DG REGIO study).

The study concludes that the more a region is caught in a regional development trap, the greater the support for Eurosceptic parties.  The paper also suggests that the longer the period of stagnation, the stronger the support for parties that oppose European integration.

The study suggests several paths to follow to get out of the development trap and end the geography of discontent:

• Need to better understand the causes of regional development pitfalls and how they can be overcome: improving the quality of administration, increasing innovation and boosting education and training can all help a region escape the development trap, but the right mix of policies and investments will depend on the regional context. The best policy response is likely to differ between more and less developed regions, between cities and rural areas, and between more accessible and more remote locations.
• Engaging more with residents of small towns and rural areas can help understand why these residents feel that it doesn’t matter where they live. Ensuring that local residents have a say in cohesion policy programmes through strong local involvement, as promoted by the partnership principle, can reduce residents’ feelings that their voice does not matter. Multi-level governance can also ensure that local priorities are heard in regional development strategies.
• The closure of local public and private services can also generate feelings of discontent and neglect. More research is needed to identify (i) where access to services is deteriorating, (ii) which groups are most affected, and (iii) how policies can ensure sufficient access to essential services.

Read the article of María-José Murciano, President of the Spanish Network for Rural Development on that topic