Coordination tools within EAFRD 
Coordination between different actors involved in LEADER was already very important in previous funding periods, even before CLLD was spread to other EU funds. Various methods were applied to ensure good partnership across the multi-level governance structure, within which roles and responsibilities are defined. The specific multi-level arrangements could vary between Member States but the need for effective working partnerships between the different actors involved in the associated multi-level delivery system was fundamental to all.
Since ‘mainstreaming’ in 2007, LEADER’s entry into the wider RDP delivery and administrative arrangements, whilst retaining its distinctive approach, has involved new arrangements, unfamiliar approaches, different conventions and cultures and new requirements for all concerned. The challenges this has posed for all have been well rehearsed in RDP and LEADER evaluations, working groups and committees to name but a few. The whole LEADER approach is based on establishing links and making these work for rural communities. The arrival of CLLD will further strengthen this priority.
Within EAFRD, the use of a LEADER coordination group can provide a simple yet effective basis on which to develop essential communications, working links and relationships.
The importance of using coordination groups as a participative tool to improve the management and delivery of LEADER is increasingly recognised by all types of LEADER delivery stakeholders. Such groups are a natural extension of the LEADER approach improving both what is done and how; through improved knowledge, developing mutual understanding and strong working relationships. The whole purpose of such groups is to help make the system function better by providing a space and platform where the different actors can work together reviewing progress, developing shared and agreed solutions, improving the whole and creating the conditions for success. One of the greatest benefits of this is the mutual trust which can be engendered between the various actors.
Normally such groups involve Managing Authorities, Paying Agencies, LAGs (presidents or staff), and National Rural Networks, other rural development actors or representatives from other funds may also be involved. In some respect they may be seen to replace elements of the former LEADER Programme Monitoring Committees and national LEADER Networks involving stakeholders in effective programme delivery. Their origins can differ; starting off as ad hoc, issue based or one-off groups which evolve or be a planned part of the overall process, they can be driven by LAGs, MAs or NRNs.
No two coordination groups will be the same but commonly they will have similar functions helping to coordinate, refine and streamline activities and providing a forum for technical assistance and joint working. They can function as a single group or may employ topic or task based working groups, many different formats are possible. Coordination groups provide a dedicated space and place to strengthen the links and communications between actors, build working relationships and shared understanding. They help define roles and responsibilities and in doing so coordinate the various delivery functions. They can also provide a useful mechanism for external coordination with other funds, interests or networks.
Ideally forming a LEADER coordination group should be a proactive step taken early in the programme process. Whilst they are a useful tool in problem resolution it clearly makes sense to employ this approach to inform the development of working arrangements and systems from the outset. Many of the examples active today are performing a bridging role between programmes enabling learning and improvement, together with continuity and organisational memory.
National Rural Networks are involved in LEADER coordination groups in different ways; this in part depends on their own structure. As an existing tool it can provide the essential basis of working links. In some cases, the NRN is the instigator of such activities, in others it may be tasked by the MA to develop such a group or work stream. It may have a specific LEADER working group, may act mainly with LAGs or fulfil an important brokerage role between the different actors. NRNs’ coordination role can be particularly important in Member States with Regional RDPs.
The use and success of these types of groups is clearly evident almost every time LEADER practitioners come together to consider different elements of the delivery system. People really recognise the value and examples of its success are regularly quoted. In fact, many of those involved now consider this to be an essential part of the approach particularly in learning lessons for the future.
Delegates at the 2013 ENRD ‘Building Bridges for the Future’ LEADER event highlighted a number of successful examples particularly in relation to RDP design and the involvement of LAGs.
- In many countries coordination groups and ad hoc working groups have been employed to draw lessons from this programme period to inform 2014 – 2020 arrangements:
- The Greek NRN showcased the thematic LEADER working group involving the MA, PA, LAGs and other stakeholders (Regions, Universities, Chambers, Young Farmers) which has been working on the strategic options for local development.
- In Spain coordination groups involving Regional MAs, LAGs, LAG networks, NRN and PA are analysing management and delivery problems and developing solutions as a basis for common agreed guidelines for LEADER 2014-2020.
- Sweden has extensive experience in using virtual think tanks, you don’t need to bring people together physically to work together effectively.
- Practical examples such as project visits and field trips which bring people together in a new environment can broaden and deepen mutual understanding.
- You may not have all the solutions within LEADER, why not widen your coordination group and its experience?
Coordination across EU Funds
The task of coordination becomes much more complex when the application of the LEADER/CLLD method is extended into other Funds, but it is essential to ensure good coordination at the level of programme authorities in order to achieve synergies, avoid duplication and reduce administrative burden for LAGs and beneficiaries.
Too often, coordination is understood primarily as a way to avoid double-funding of the same project (demarcation). However, with the improved delivery and monitoring tools the risk of double-funding is relatively minor, and the key objective of coordination is to achieve complementarity and synergies, thus contributing to a more efficient use of public funding. In their Partnership Agreements for 2014-2020, Member States describe the coordination mechanism they use to coordinate different CLLD Funds. A number of tools were proposed, for instance:
- Joint MA for all CLLD Funds (SE)
- Joint body with delegated responsibilities (DK)
- Joint Monitoring Committee (UK Sc)
- Nominating a ‘Lead Ministry’ (SK)
- National Permanent Conference (CZ)
The experience of Sweden: a joint Managing Authority for all CLLD Funds
In Sweden the government has opted for the most advanced coordination mechanism between the CLLD Funds. CLLD is possible in all the four Funds: it is included in the Rural Development Programme and the Operational Programme of the EMFF, and there is a special Operational Programme which covers the CLLD part of the ERDF and the ESF. These three programmes are managed by the same Managing Authority, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, so there is one authority in charge of the whole CLLD funding in Sweden. This makes it possible to have harmonised national implementing rules across the Funds.
This approach was introduced in order to broaden the local partnerships, enhance synergies and broaden the coverage of CLLD, as well as create economies of scale. It also contributes to simplification, LAG being the single entry-point for the beneficiary.
In spite of the institutional simplification of having CLLD managed by one entity, coordination between ESI Funds in Sweden faces significant challenges, such as:
- Different organisational cultures of each Fund;
- The need to create new cooperation structures with new partners;
- Harmonisation of national implementing legislation and avoiding red tape;
- Development of adequate IT systems to deal with applications, decisions and payments in a timely manner;
- Communication and publicity; and
- Dealing with CLLD in cities and facilitating urban-rural linkages.
Based on the experience of the Swedish Board of Agriculture, a number of conditions must be fulfilled to ensure good coordination between the Funds. These include:
- Strong political will;
- Good cooperation between ministries and other responsible authorities and bodies;
- Internal visibility of CLLD and knowledge development – this is particularly important for those Funds which don’t have previous experience with CLLD;
- Constant communication with all relevant stakeholders at all levels, horizontally and vertically and
- Building knowledge at the LAG level.
It is also important to accept that building an efficient system for CLLD delivery takes time.
Lessons and practical applications in the 2014-2020 Programming Period
