FAMENET (Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring, Evaluation and Local Support Network) is a support unit to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE).
Through its network of experts, FAMENET supports the Commission and the Member States in the monitoring and evaluation of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), as well as the implementation of CLLD financed from these Funds.
The information and views included on this FAQ webpage are those of the FAMENET experts only and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained therein.
The guidance provided here is based on the technical know-how of FAMENET. It is not intended to be exhaustive and does not constitute legal advice or interpretation. If you require legal advice or interpretation please contact DG MARE directly at: MARE-D3
ec [dot] europa [dot] eu (MARE-D3[at]ec[dot]europa[dot]eu)
What common result indicators should be reported for CLLD operations under the EMFAF?
Under the EMFAF, any common result indicator can be selected for any operation during programming. The indicators are designed to be flexible to various types of operations, and applicable to a wide range of operations.
This flexibility means that there are no indicators explicitly tied to CLLD operations under the EMFAF. However, there are some which may more frequently be used for CLLD operations based on the experience made in 2014-2020; for instance, some indicators to consider might be:
- CR 03 - Businesses created;
- CR 06 - Jobs created;
- CR 07 - Jobs maintained;
- CR 08 - Persons benefitting;
- CR 11 - Entities increasing social sustainability;
- CR 10 - Actions contributing to a good environmental status, including nature restoration, conservation, protection of ecosystems, biodiversity, animal health and welfare;
- CR 13 - Cooperation activities between stakeholders;
- CR 14 - Innovations enabled;
- CR 16 - Entities benefiting from promotion and information activities; and/or
- CR 19 - Actions to improve governance capacity.
This list is not prescriptive, since any indicator can be chosen for any operation, and ultimately it must be decided which of the 22 indicators are best for the particular operation at hand. However, the above indicators may more commonly be used for CLLD operations under the EMFAF.
The full list of common result indicators and output indicators for the monitoring and evaluation of the EMFAF are contained in Annex 1 of the EMFAF regulation (regulation EU 2021/1139). FAME produced a working paper on the EMFAF Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (MEF) 2021-2027, which includes a fiche providing clarifications on all result indicators’ definitions, calculation methods, measurement units, and required inputs.
What Type of Intervention should I report in Infosys for CLLD operations under the EMFAF?
Types of interventions are predefined thematic categories related to policy issues (for example combating climate change), and pertain to the programme level of the intervention logic. They are used to indicatively allocate funds along those policy issues at the programming stage. During the programme implementation, the MA must choose the most appropriate type of intervention for each selected operation. Every operation must be linked to only one type of intervention most suitable for the operation. This is necessary for reporting of aggregated data for each operation under CPR Article 42.
Types of Interventions 13-15 from Annex IV of the EMFAF regulation 2021/1139 pertain specifically to CLLD. For a project implemented in fulfilment of CLLD strategies, Type of Intervention 14 ‘CLLD implementation of strategy’ should be selected, and the code for this Type of Intervention (14) should be entered into Infosys field 25 at the operation level.
Similarly, Type of Intervention 13 should be selected for CLLD preparatory support and other CLLD preparation actions, while Type of Intervention 15 should be selected for CLLD running costs and animation.
Can maximum aid intensity for preparatory support under CLLD be 100%?
The maximum aid intensity for preparatory support under CLLD can be 100%, being the same beneficiary, being the core work of a LAG, and following the same premises as the LAG running costs (specifically foreseen in the Annex III, point 12 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1139).
Although the Regulation is not entirely explicit on this point, in practice strategy preparation has usually been covered at 100% aid intensity.
Can a fisheries LAG increase its budget for running costs and animation beyond the 25% limit from other national or local funding sources, as set out in Article 34.2 of the CPR?
As long as the 25% limit on the EMFAF contribution is respected, a fisheries LAG can indeed increase its running and animation budget with other national or local funding sources.
Can a CLLD project be implemented outside the LAG area if it benefits the development of the LAG area, in line with the local development strategy?
The programme may support operations outside the area covered by a programme provided that they contribute to the objectives of the programme.
Specifically, Art. 63(4) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) 2021-2027 (EU Reg. no. 2021/1060) provides: ‘All or part of an operation may be implemented outside of a Member State, including outside the Union, provided that the operation contributes to the objectives of the programme’. Therefore, operations supported by CLLD may be located outside the programme area.
Under EU legislation, is it possible for an MA to apply advance payments, so that project promoters and FLAGs can avoid costly bank loans and long processing/admin times?
As a general rule, projects co-financed with EU funds receive support after they have been completed and paid, on the basis of reimbursement of costs (actually incurred or calculated in a simplified way under SCOs, see Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 Art. 53). However, many project promoters find it difficult to make all the payments while waiting to get the funding, especially if the administrative processes take a long time; this is particularly true of local CLLD actors, and the application of advance payments in CLLD is particularly recommended (see Guidance for programme authorities on Community-Led Local Development, p. 36).
Member States may decide to provide advance payments to help beneficiaries deal with liquidity issue, and in some Member States the use of such advance payments is quite widespread. Such advance payments can cover all or only part of the total grant amount (e.g. 30%), with beneficiaries being able to apply for the next advance after providing declaration of costs incurred from the previous one. It is the responsibility of the managing authority to ensure that the beneficiary correctly accounts for the advance obtained (or repays it).
In the period 2014-2020, Polish FLAGs and beneficiaries of EMFF had access to advance payments provided from the national budget, which could cover up to 100% of the total grant – see FARNET presentation.
EU legislation for the 2014-2020 period was more explicit about advance payments, see for example Regulation (EU) 1303/2013, Recital (70) “The pre-financing payment at the start of programmes ensures that a Member State has the means to provide support to beneficiaries from the start of the implementation of the programme, so that those beneficiaries receive advances where necessary to make the planned investments and are reimbursed quickly following the submission of payment claims”; there were also specific provisions for advance payments for LAG running costs. The current legislation is more general (cf. 2021/1060, Recital (67): “The pre-financing scheme should ensure that a Member State has the means to provide support to beneficiaries from the start of the implementation of the programme”), thus leaving the decision on advances to Member States. Some MS (e.g. Finland, Poland) have already adopted national rules for a broad application of advance payments in cohesion policy.