The 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) negotiations are a pivotal moment for LEADER-CLLD and the future of LAGs across Europe. As the European Commission, Council, and Parliament shape the next programming period, ELARD has analysed the proposals on the table, and the stakes couldn’t be higher for rural communities.
Our new comparative analysis (attached below) breaks down the Commission’s, Council’s, and Parliament’s positions on LEADER-CLLD, highlighting what’s at risk, what’s improved, and what still needs to be fought for. Here’s what LAG managers and national representatives need to know:
The Good: Parliament’s Progress for LEADER-CLLD
The European Parliament’s amendments include several wins for LAGs:
- Ring-fencing for LEADER: the Parliament proposes 5% of rural development funds be reserved for LEADER (Article 35, Amendment 243), a long-standing ELARD demand.
- Broader beneficiary scope: amendments to Article 18 of the CAP Regulation (Amendments 117–119) restore LEADER’s multi-sectoral character, allowing support for non-agricultural entities and projects that mobilise local communities.
- Financial incentives: a 20% co-financing rate for LEADER (Amendment 248) and a 10-percentage-point reduction for CLLD (Amendment 133) make territorial approaches more attractive for Member States.
These steps preserve the bottom-up, place-based nature of LEADER-CLLD and ensure LAGs can continue their vital work in rural areas.
What still needs to be fixed
While the Parliament’s proposals are the most favourable to date, key concerns remain:
1. No explicit Rural Target: the Parliament’s text lacks a dedicated rural target (e.g., a percentage of ERDF/Cohesion Funds for rural development). With 30% of EU citizens living in rural areas, this is a critical omission. ELARD urges alignment with the Council’s 10% rural allocation (Article 5d, Amendment 28).
2. CLLD-LEADER relationship unclear: the separation of CLLD (Article 76) and LEADER (Article 77) in the Regulation Establishing the Fund risks creating parallel systems, undermining simplification. We call for explicit recognition that LEADER is part of CLLD, as proposed by the Council.
3. LAG autonomy at risk: The parliament’s amendments do not restore LAGs’ ability to determine grant amounts or fully publish calls for applications. This reduces LAGs to technical intermediaries, contradicting the bottom-up philosophy of LEADER-CLLD.
4. Urban expansion of CLLD: the inclusion of urban areas in CLLD’s scope (Amendment 435) risks diluting the instrument’s purpose, which thrives in community-based, rural settings.
The 2028–2034 framework will define the future of rural development in Europe. If the final regulations fail to address these gaps, LAGs could face:
1. Reduced funding and influence due to lack of rural targets.
2. Administrative burdens from parallel CLLD-LEADER systems.
3. Limited autonomy, undermining local decision-making.
==>We urge LAGs and LAG organisations to:
- Advocate at the national level: use our comparative analysis to engage with your Ministries of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Cohesion Policy. Highlight the Parliament’s strengths (ring-fencing, broader scope) and push for the missing pieces (rural targets, LAG autonomy).
- Engage with MEPs: reach out to national MEPs, especially those in the AGRI and REGI committees, to stress the importance of mandatory CLLD, rural targets, and LAG competences.
- Mobilise your networks: share this analysis with rural stakeholders and local authorities to build a unified voice for LEADER-CLLD.
Download the full analysis here: ELARD’s Comparative Analysis of LEADER-CLLD Proposals (2028–2034)