Brussels, 30th September
Today in the European Parliament, we shed a light on LAGs, in a conversation with Members of the European Parliament, representatives of DG AGRI and REGIO. Piotr Sadłocha, our president, took the floor and rang the alarm bell on what the proposed regulations for the new MFF mean for them.
“Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleagues, friends,
It is a real pleasure to be here today and to see so many people committed to the future of Europe’s inner areas and rural regions.
For more than thirty years, the LEADER approach, and later, Community-Led Local Development, has been Europe’s flagship tool for mobilising rural communities. It has empowered citizens, local authorities, farmers, entrepreneurs, and civil society to sit around the same table and design solutions for their territories. It has turned isolated villages into places of innovation, solidarity, and resilience.
And yet, as we meet here today, the future of LEADER is at a crossroads. The legislative proposals of the Commission for the next MFF will shape the future, or destiny, of this approach.
As ELARD, we have carefully analysed these proposals, and I thank again Mr. Dumitru and De Michelis for being here today and taking us through them. While we warmly welcome the fact that the new format allows for simpler rules and more flexibility between funds, I must be honest, and as they stand, they risk marginalising the very communities that LEADER was designed to serve.
Let me explain why.
First, the proposals, in the CAP regulation at least, risk narrowing the scope of LEADER to agriculture alone. More than 90 percent of rural residents are not farmers. They are teachers, mayors, shopkeepers, craftspeople, NGO leaders, young people with ideas, elderly people in need of services. If LEADER is reduced to being only about farming, then we betray the DNA of this method which is broad local partnerships, cross-sectoral cooperation, and active citizen participation.
Second, the draft regulations define beneficiaries under the CAP as farmers. This means that municipalities, NGOs, SMEs, cultural associations, or youth groups, all of those that have been central actors in LEADER and CLLD until now, would no longer be eligible. The consequence is simple: LAGs would cease to be real partnerships. They would become farmers’ clubs. That is not LEADER.
Third, and perhaps most worrying, there is no guarantee of funding for LEADER in the new proposals. In the current period, we have the 5% ring-fencing. Without a dedicated share in the next period, Member States may simply choose not to implement LEADER at all. We know that the Commission said National Partnership Plans would not be validated if they did not include participatory approaches for rural development, but money is not clearly set aside, history tells us that if something is optional, in many countries it will not happen.
Finally, the Commission’s proposals also strip Local Action Groups of some of their core competences, such as launching calls for projects or setting the level of support. These used to be mentioned in the previous regulations, but they do not figure in the last proposals. Why is this? If Europe does not set this function to be the responsibility of LAGs, we take the risk that Managing Authorities will want to manage them. LAGs would be reduced to being advisory bodies rather than real decision-makers. Once again, this is not the LEADER method.
But I do not want to focus only on risks. I also want to be very clear about solutions. ELARD has presented concrete amendments that can safeguard and strengthen the LEADER-CLLD approach in the next programming period.
We ask for:
1. A broad eligibility of beneficiaries: LEADER must remain open to all . local actors: municipalities, NGOs, SMEs, civil society organisations, and citizens, not just farmers. We do not ask for something new here, but to keep how beneficiaries have always been defined.
2. A wider scope for LEADER: the CAP regulation must explicitly recognise LEADER as a bottom-up, cross-sectoral, community-led approach. It is about quality of life, services, social inclusion, culture, and innovation. Not only about agriculture.
3. Guarantee CLLD across cohesion, social and maritime policies: The proposed ERDF and Cohesion Fund Regulation emphasises integrated urban development, omitting rural areas beyond urban–rural linkages. The ESF Regulation likewise makes no provision for community-led approaches in employment, skills or social inclusion policy, and the Maritime/Fisheries Regulation is silent on participatory territorial tools for coastal communities.
4. Ring-fenced funding: a dedicated share of resources for LEADER-CLLD must be secured in the CAP and in the new Fund regulation, so that communities in all Member States can rely on its presence.
5. Clarity on the relationship between LEADER and CLLD : LEADER should be confirmed as the CAP-specific form of CLLD, ensuring consistency of rules and avoiding confusion.
6. Full competences of LAGs: Local Action Groups must retain the ability to launch calls, select projects, and set support levels, as they do today. Otherwise, they cannot truly lead development.
Why are these points so important? Because LEADER is not just another funding instrument. It is a method. A method that has proven, time and again, its ability to bring people together across divides, to foster trust in Europe, and to create solutions tailored to local realities.
I come from a LAG myself, and I have seen first-hand how this approach can transform a territory. A small rural community can set up a cultural centre, launch a digital hub for young entrepreneurs, restore a piece of heritage, or develop a local energy community. None of this would be possible without LEADER’s unique governance model.
If we reduce LEADER to a narrow agricultural subsidy, if we take away its competences, if we leave its financing optional, then we risk dismantling thirty years of successful community-led development in Europe, and the very trust local stakeholders have in Europe. The trust 90% of rural dwellers have in us.
Rural, coastal, and inner areas are not Europe’s periphery. They are its heart. They are where our food, our landscapes, our traditions, and our future resilience come from. We all agreed on this in the last Rural Pact Conference.
The question before us is simple: do we want these areas to thrive, or to decline? If we want them to thrive, then we must trust and empower the people who live there. That is what LEADER does.
So let us send a clear message to the European institutions: if you truly want to bring LAGs back to the centre of European attention, then protect, strengthen, and expand LEADER-CLLD.
Because the future of Europe will not be decided only in Brussels or in capitals. It will be decided in villages, in small towns, in coastal communities, in mountain valleys, in the places where people still believe in the power of working together.
Thank you”