Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)'
Date: 1999-12-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU initiative, aid system, development aid, rural development, simplification of formalities

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/85

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development
(Leader+)’

(2000/C 51/18)

On 19 October 1999 pursuant to Article 262 of the Treaty, the Commission decided to consult the
Economic and Social Committee on the above-mentioned communication.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Bastian as rapporteur-general for its opinion.

At its 368th plenary session on 8 and 9 December 1999 (meeting of 9 December) the Economic and
Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

direction for the EU which calls for further serious debate if it
is to be continued after 2006.

1.1.
The Committee welcomes the draft Commission com-
munication laying down guidelines for the Community Lead-
er+ initiative. It is pleased that this initiative to support rural
development is one of the four Community Agenda 2000
initiatives kept for the 2000-2006 programming period.

Rural areas make up more than 80 % of EU territory
1.2.
and contain more than a quarter of
its population. The
Committee therefore welcomes the Leader+ initiative as a
complement to other rural development measures under the
Structural Funds, and hopes that this package of programmes
will help preserve a dynamic rural fabric in the Union.

On the basis of experience with Leader II, the Com-

1.3.
mittee would like to make the following comments.

2. Financing of Leader+ through the EAGGF guidance

section

In the interests of administrative simplification, the
2.1.
Commission proposes
that Leader+ should be financed
through a single Structural Fund, the EAGGF guidance section,
and no longer through the EAGGF guidance section, the ERDF
and the ESF, as was the case with Leader II.

Just as rural development policy, which has now been
2.2.
designated the ‘second pillar of the CAP’, will from now on be
financed partly through the EAGGF guarantee section, the
Commission wants measures relating not just to agricultural
activity but also to rural development in general now to be
financed through the EAGGF guidance section (hitherto limited
strictly to agriculture).

The change, though limited and experimental at this
2.3.
stage, cannot be made under the guise of rationalisation alone.
The Committee feels that it represents a deliberate policy

For the time being, and in accordance with the main
2.4.
purpose of the EAGGF guidance section, the Committee would
like many agricultural development projects run by farmers
and their families in rural areas — including small agricultural
based industries — to fall under the Leader+ development
strategies.

3. Extension of Leader+ to all parts of the EU

3.1.
Eligibility under the Leader initiative was previously
restricted to Objective 1, 5b and 6 areas, but has been extended
under Leader+ to include all rural territories, with Member
States permitted to define a beneficiary area.

The Committee welcomes this major change compared
3.2.
with Leader II, and believes that it will give the Member States
more autonomy in choosing priority areas.

3.3.
However, the Committee is concerned that there might
be a proliferation and dilution of projects, which could reduce
the effectiveness of the initiative. This fear is all the more
justified given that while eligibility has been extended under
Leader+ the annual budget (EUR 2 020 million at 1999 prices
over seven years, compared to six years for Leader II) is lower.

3.4.
The Committee therefore calls on the Commission and
the Member States to avoid the risk of spreading aid too thinly,
which could be counterproductive in terms of achieving the
desired results, and to try and ensure that the rural develop-
ment programmes as a whole are well coordinated (cf. point 5
below).

C 51/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

4. The pilot nature of projects eligible under Leader+

4.1.
The Commission’s draft communication sets out (e.g.
in point 14) the criteria for evaluating development strategies
proposed by Local Action Groups (LAGs).

4.2.
As a general principle, the Commission requires that
these strategies must be of a pilot nature to be eligible for
Community co-financing (cf. point 37).

In view of

4.10.
its concern with equal opportunities
and awareness that women and young people can boost
the Committee approves the
development in rural areas,
Commission’s proposal regarding these two key groups. It
welcomes the Commission’s request for Member States to
examine the needs of women and young people working in
rural areas and to put forward proposals responding to these
needs and securing the measures necessary to remove existing
discrimination, while taking into account the economic diversi-
fication of rural areas.

4.3.
to be
The Committee considers this requirement
consistent with the purpose of Leader+ to promote and
support
the implementation of original and high-quality
strategies for integrated rural development.

5. Complementarity with other Community pro-

grammes

4.4.
Like the Commission, the Committee sees this pilot
nature requirement as one of the selection criteria for proposed
strategies, of the same order as integration, coherence with the
territory, transferability of methods and complementarity with
regional rural development programmes.

5.1.
It is important to avoid overlapping between the
different Community instruments for rural development,
duplication of funding and potential unfair opportunities this
would create for the beneficiaries. The Leader initiative must
apply where traditional rural development programmes cease
to operate.

4.5.
The rationale of Leader+ is that to be eligible a strategy
must embrace a large number of local projects and initiatives
so as to provide a coherent response to the needs of the people
and regions concerned.

5.2.
This naturally applies to coordination between Leader+
and measures covered by the new Regulation (EC) No. 1257/99
(the second pillar of the CAP) and all programmes that have
complementary objectives in terms of job creation, vocational
training, the craft sector or the social sphere.

4.6.
Some of these projects and initiatives will not be
innovative in themselves, but will nevertheless be needed
for putting into effect the integrated development strategy
envisaged.

5.3.
There must be the same complementarity between the
Interreg initiative and the support that Leader+ (part 2) can
provide for transnational cooperation between rural territories
in the EU.

4.7.
The Committee agrees with the Commission that the
innovative — or ‘pilot’ — aspect of a strategy must be the
development plan viewed as a whole. Moreover, this selection
criterion must be assessed differently depending on whether
the territories concerned have already been involved in the
Leader I and Leader II programmes.

4.8.
The Committee also appreciates the Commission’s
concern that Leader+ development plans should be based on a
‘strong theme’ that is typical of and unites the territory. The
Commission is thus aiming to avoid a situation in which a
simple series of local projects is presented as a coherent local
development plan.

4.9.
The Committee warns, however, that this requirement
should not have the effect of discouraging truly integrated
multisectoral approaches. Rather it would like the Commission
and the Member States to specifically encourage multisectoral
integration.

5.4.
For instance, the Committee believes that Leader+
instrument in mountain
could be a priority organisational
areas, which tend to be divided between several administrative
bodies. The Leader programmes have demonstrated their
relevance in mountain regions. The Committee would like to
see a continuation of activities started in these regions and
would like Leader+ to promote exchanges of experience and
cooperation between the different mountain regions of the EU
through networking and transnational projects. This example
obviously does not imply that Leader+ does not offer a genuine
opportunity for less-favoured regions in general.

5.5.
The Committee also recommends that transnational
cooperation projects should not be limited to the Member
States. It should also be possible to extend them to include
the countries of eastern and central Europe (CEECs). The
Committee is aware that Leader+ funding is available only to
the Member States, but it would nevertheless like to see easier
access to pre-accession funds for CEECs that wish to become
involved in rural cooperation programmes with EU territories.

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/87

5.6.
The Committee also asks the Commission and the
Member States to ensure that Leader+ complements Com-
munity-financed environmental programmes. It is therefore
pleased to see that the priority themes proposed by the
Commission include enhancing the value of sites of Com-
munity interest selected under Natura 2000. More generally,
the Committee endorses the environmental dimension of
rural development policy, including the promotion of good
agricultural practice.

5.7. With reference to its recent opinion on the third stage
of the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE III) (1),
the Committee stresses the importance of disseminating and
using the findings of projects financed by LIFE,
in the
context of both LIFE-Environment (land use development and
planning) and LIFE-Nature. In that opinion, the Committee
pointed out
‘national and EU funding instruments
operating in the fields of regional policy and agricultural policy
(such as the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds) should
play a much greater and more innovative role than has hitherto
been the case’. This obviously also applies to the Leader+
initiative.

that

The Observatory for Innovation and Rural Develop-
5.8.
ment will have a key role to play in ensuring effective
coordination of Leader+ and the other Community instru-
ments supporting rural development.

6.2.
Experience with Leader I and Leader II has nevertheless
shown that a majority of existing LAGs are run predominantly
by government representatives. Although they are frequently
efficient, these LAGs have not been seen by the local popu-
lation as a new mouthpiece for local democracy, but as an
additional administrative layer.

6.3.
The Committee shares the Commission’s wish that the
LAGs should represent the different socio-economic interest
groups in the territory concerned. It therefore endorses the
setting of a 50 % ceiling on government representatives (civil
servants and elected office-holders).

On the other hand, the Committee asks the Member
6.4.
States not to abuse this rule by requiring that 50 % of members
be government representatives in LAGs that are composed
mainly of private sector players, which they frequently are in
Finland for example.

6.5.
This new rule introduced by the Commission should
allow several local interest groups to be represented in a given
the LAG must be
LAG. The remaining membership of
negotiated between government and non-government players,
and should not be determined by unilateral administrative
decision.

5.9.
To help potential beneficiaries understand the system,
the Committee suggests producing a guide to all existing
Community policies concerning rural development and the
relevant eligibility criteria.

7. Networking

5.10.
This could be one of the first tasks assigned to the
Observatory for Innovation and Rural Development led by the
Commission, in collaboration with the competent authorities
of the Member States.

7.1.
Communication, or sharing experiences, has been one
of the main features of Leader I and Leader II. Promoting
networking between groups has been an ongoing task of the
network organisation unit managed at Community level by
the AEIDL (‘Leader’ magazine, seminars, missions and visits
among the LAGs, etc.).

5.11.
The Committee would like action taken by the
Observatory to be evaluated by an independent working group
comprising representatives of the socio-economic interest
groups concerned by rural development and chaired by the
Commission.

7.2.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s willing-
ness to step up the proactive approach to networking driven
by the national network organisation units and a European
Observatory for Innovation and Rural Development.

6. Composition of Local Action Groups (LAGs)

LAGs remain one of the specific features of the Leader+
in terms of

6.1.
initiative, and probably the most
promoting a bottom-up approach to local development.

important

(1) OJ C No. 209, 22.7.1999.

7.3.
Drawing on experience with Leader I and Leader II, the
Committee recommends that these network organisation units
properly define the different types of networking activity, their
objectives and the results expected, differentiating between
specific cooperation activities between LAGs and the means of
communication made available to them.

7.4.
The Committee recommends that in addition to general
information about ongoing projects, the Observatory and the
national units promote a participatory approach based on
visits, staff exchanges and specific projects set up by the LAGs
on topics of joint interest.

C 51/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

Networking will thus help bring local development out

7.5.
of the isolated context in which it often takes place.

8.

Implementation

8.1.
The Committee commends the bottom-up approach
that informs the Leader+ initiative. This approach makes it
possible to actually assess the diversity of rural Europe and
could presage the decline of blanket top-down approaches
applied across all parts of the EU.

8.2. With regard to the mainstreaming principle under
Article 6 of the Treaty and in line with Article 8 (pursuant to
recital 27) of Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999, the Committee
would call on Member States to ensure that the environmental
authorities are involved in the preparation, implementation
and assessment of Leader+ programmes and, to that end, in
the work of the monitoring committees. The same applies to
the drawing-up of development plans by the local action
groups; all local players, including environmental and farming
organisations should be involved as closely as possible in this
work.

In order to help local players produce innovative
8.3.
projects, the Committee would like the Commission and the
Member States to make every effort to:

— clearly explain the eligibility criteria for LAGs and projects;

— simplify the administrative procedures which the LAGs
must complete once their projects have been selected.

8.4.
Notwithstanding the methods of financing that the
Member States will choose, the Committee thus favours the
global grant system, which gives more freedom to the LAGs in

Brussels, 9 December 1999.

allocating the funds they receive. For this system to be
completely effective, the authorities concerned in the Member
States must ensure that allocation procedures and guarantee
requirements are not so complicated that they cause delays
with co-financing.

8.5.
As proposed in the draft communication (cf. point 31),
the Committee asks the Commission and the national and
regional authorities concerned to provide information at the
beginning of the initiative about their accounting requirements
so as to simplify the financial management of Leader+ at the
various institutional levels.

8.6.
The Commission also sets a six-month time limit
for Member States to submit their proposals for Leader+
programmes after the communication has been adopted and
published. The Committee feels this deadline to be rather tight,
especially for projects to be set up by territories that have no
previous experience of participatory activities.

8.7.
The Committee therefore recommends keeping the
flexibility introduced with Leader II by allowing Leader+
development plans to be adapted during their implementation.
If a plan is adapted, objectives, strategies and indicators must
also be redefined in order to promote ‘good practice’ in project
design.

8.8.
The Committee also recommends that the LAGs, in
particular LAGs that have recently been set up, receive proper
technical support during the project design stage, and that
they be fully informed about best practice and innovative
measures documented during Leader I and Leader II.

8.9. With the above recommendations in mind, the Com-
mittee favours rapid adoption of the draft Commission com-
munication and of the necessary legislation to implement
Leader+.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI