Stefan Kah

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 7 (2019), Issue 1, Page 47 - 57

The Community-led Local Development (CLLD) tool was introduced in the 2014-20 programme period. It is based on the LEADER approach, but allows using up to four ESI Funds, including ERDF. Over 700 Local Action Groups (LAGs) in 15 Member States use ERDF for CLLD and experiences so far suggest some added value, especially in terms of integration and territoriality, but significant challenges remain with regulatory complexity and capacity issues.

Martin Ferry, Stefan Kah

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 4, Page 287 - 298

This article is based on a study for the Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament. It analyses the closure process for programmes funded under the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in 2007-13. Programme closure is often seen as a purely technical process. It involves shutting down the operation of a programme, finalising the reporting and recording of results, and ensuring sound financial management. However, closure also plays an important strategic role. Key decisions are taken by programme authorities at this stage: in the allocation of remaining funds; in securing and raising awareness of achievements and legacies; and, in ensuring a smooth transition to the next programming period. These decisions are taken in the context of considerable pressures: to absorb the maximum funding available; to respond to financial controls and audits that often take place around programme closure; to deal with issues arising from the implementation of specific projects; and, to ensure administrative resources are available at a time of transition between programme periods. Based on a review of academic and evaluation evidence, recent research, legislation, EC and Member State policy papers as well as evidence from EU, national and sub-national stakeholders, this article details the regulatory provisions, guidance and support provided for closure in 2007-13, and assesses the issues faced and responses made by programme authorities, summarised under three headings: absorption, types of intervention and administrative capacity.

Thomas Dax, Stefan Kah

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 5 (2017), Issue 3, Page 211 - 222

Transnational cooperation is a policy instrument of the LEADER programme that has been available to local actors since the start of LEADER 25 years ago. However, its potential for social innovation has been underutilised so far. An assessment of the international debate about the usefulness of the scheme and the analysis of a case study in Austria provides insights into obstacles and opportunities of this instrument. In particular, there are opportunities for a greater use of transnational cooperation due to increased spatial interrelations and the extension of the LEADER approach to other European Structural and Investment Funds, i.e. by implementing Community-led Local Development (CLLD). The current (2014-20) EU programme period might therefore provide additional stimuli for creativity in rural development activities.

Martin Ferry, Stefan Kah

European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, Volume 4 (2016), Issue 3, Page 161 - 175

This article is based on a study for the Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament. It provides a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the existing scope for synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and other EU instruments contributing to Europe 2020 goals. It identifies different arenas for the pursuit of synergies (regulatory settings, governance arrangements, strategic frameworks and implementation approaches), noting achievement thus far, and, looking towards 2020, assessing the potential for maximising synergies. This analysis is based on a review of academic and evaluation evidence from the 2007-2013 period, recent research, legislation, EC and Member State policy papers and guidance for the 2014-2020 period as well as evidence from EU, national and sub-national stakeholders on the degree of change in approaches to synergistic working and the associated benefits and challenges. The study identifies a shift from focusing on the demarcation of Funds and instruments to avoid overlaps and duplication towards a push for more synergistic working in the design and implementation of initiatives under specific themes and objectives. However, this process is not uniform: there is strong variation in the scope for and extent of synergistic working at different stages in the policy process, in different thematic fields and in different territories.